labourlist--2020-06-17--Test all health and care workers – not just those with symptoms, says Labour

Labour has called on the government to expand the current coronavirus testing of NHS and social care staff , extending it beyond those with symptoms to all being tested once a week .
The intervention follows research by University College London Hospitals that suggests a fifth of infections among hospital patients and almost nine in ten among healthcare workers may have been caught in hospital .
The party has highlighted that the government had announced in early April that it would introduce regular testing for all “ critical key workers ” but a universal process for health and care workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth said : “ Regular testing of all NHS staff must now be an urgent priority .
Weekly testing of all healthcare workers reduces the spread of the virus and helps protect NHS staff and patients .
“ Eventually resetting the NHS to continue treating Covid and non-Covid patients is going to have to take priority .
This should include putting in place infection control measures to make sure patients can continue to safely receive their care , and routine testing of all staff should be a part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4th , the Department for Health and Social Care said : “ Once widespread testing is available , we will test critical key workers regularly , to keep them safe and ensure they do not spread the virus.
” NHS England later wrote on April 29th , in a letter about the second phase of the response to Covid-19 , that “ increased testing capacity means that we will now be able to extend the offer of regular testing to asymptomatic staff ” .
Some NHS trusts are carrying out routine testing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the government .
The current strategy only necessitates the testing of those workers that display symptoms of the virus .
Research by Imperial College London suggested that weekly testing of health workers is “ estimated to reduce their contribution to transmission by 25 % to 33 % , on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms ” .
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine declared that “ testing to include asymptomatic persons residing or working in skilled nursing facilities needs to be implemented now ” .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at the end of March , around 7 % of asymptomatic healthcare workers tested positive for the virus , falling to around 1 % by the end of April .

Labour has called on the government to expand the current coronavirus testing of NHS and social care staff, extending it beyond those with symptoms to all being tested once a week.
The intervention follows research by University College London Hospitals that suggests a fifth of infections among hospital patients and almost nine in ten among healthcare workers may have been caught in hospital.
The party has highlighted that the government had announced in early April that it would introduce regular testing for all “critical key workers” but a universal process for health and care workers is still yet to be implemented.
Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “Regular testing of all NHS staff must now be an urgent priority. Weekly testing of all healthcare workers reduces the spread of the virus and helps protect NHS staff and patients.
“Eventually resetting the NHS to continue treating Covid and non-Covid patients is going to have to take priority. This should include putting in place infection control measures to make sure patients can continue to safely receive their care, and routine testing of all staff should be a part of this.”
In a statement on April 4th, the Department for Health and Social Care said: “Once widespread testing is available, we will test critical key workers regularly, to keep them safe and ensure they do not spread the virus.”
NHS England later wrote on April 29th, in a letter about the second phase of the response to Covid-19, that “increased testing capacity means that we will now be able to extend the offer of regular testing to asymptomatic staff”.
Some NHS trusts are carrying out routine testing of employees, yet it is not required by the government. The current strategy only necessitates the testing of those workers that display symptoms of the virus.
Research by Imperial College London suggested that weekly testing of health workers is “estimated to reduce their contribution to transmission by 25% to 33%, on top of reductions achieved by self-isolation following symptoms”.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine declared that “testing to include asymptomatic persons residing or working in skilled nursing facilities needs to be implemented now”.
Further research by Barts Health NHS Trust found that at the end of March, around 7% of asymptomatic healthcare workers tested positive for the virus, falling to around 1% by the end of April.


labourlist--2020-06-17--We are creating and destroying at an alarming rate. We must move to a circular economy

This week the government introduced legislation to ban the supply of single-use plastic straws , single-use plastic-stemmed cotton buds and plastic drink stirrers in England .
Finally , something we can applaud the government for – until you dig a little deeper and find it is once again an inadequate response to a growing problem .
There can be no question that the plastic industry has become unsustainable .
In 1950 we produced 1.7 million tonnes of plastic a year ; today we produce a staggering 350 million tonnes .
It is estimated that we use 4.7 billion plastic straws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion plastic-stemmed cotton buds every year .
But my problem is not that the government is tackling the problem of plastic .
My problem is that it ’ s not tackling the problem of single-use .
The Department for Food and Rural Affair ’ s own impact assessment of this regulation has assumed that plastic will be replaced on a like-for-like basis with single-use paper straws and wooden stirrers .
In 2018 , McDonalds , facing huge public backlash due to images of their distinctive striped straws on picturesque beaches around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today they use 1.8 million straws a day , which equates to a staggering 675 million a year .
But , although not plastic , these straws still can ’ t be recycled and end up being incinerated or added to landfill .
Similarly , M & S , Pret A Manger and many other outlets have all begun to move to wooden cutlery , but again most of these end up in landfill or incineration .
While the government is patting itself on the back for a ban on plastics on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environmental problem without tackling the fundamental crisis at the centre of our throwaway culture .
We urgently need an ‘ extended producer responsibility scheme ’ like that being considered in the EU .
Such a programme puts an obligation on the producer to create more sustainable products – failure to do so leads to financial penalties , and the money raised is reinvested in innovation and clean up .
Fast fashion and a boom in non-repairable goods have led to not just straws and cotton buds being thrown away , but almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and destroying at an alarming rate .
Unless we move rapidly to a more circular economy , the resulting waste problem is going to have devastating effects on future generations .
As we face a climate and ecological crisis , we now need to stop making piecemeal changes and start having some hard conversations about changing corporate and consumer behaviour .
Our short-term convenience must not come at the cost of our planet .

This week the government introduced legislation to ban the supply of single-use plastic straws, single-use plastic-stemmed cotton buds and plastic drink stirrers in England. Finally, something we can applaud the government for – until you dig a little deeper and find it is once again an inadequate response to a growing problem.
There can be no question that the plastic industry has become unsustainable. In 1950 we produced 1.7 million tonnes of plastic a year; today we produce a staggering 350 million tonnes. It is estimated that we use 4.7 billion plastic straws, 316 million plastic stirrers and 1.8 billion plastic-stemmed cotton buds every year.
But my problem is not that the government is tackling the problem of plastic. My problem is that it’s not tackling the problem of single-use. The Department for Food and Rural Affair’s own impact assessment of this regulation has assumed that plastic will be replaced on a like-for-like basis with single-use paper straws and wooden stirrers.
In 2018, McDonalds, facing huge public backlash due to images of their distinctive striped straws on picturesque beaches around the world, made the move to paper straws. Today they use 1.8 million straws a day, which equates to a staggering 675 million a year. But, although not plastic, these straws still can’t be recycled and end up being incinerated or added to landfill. Similarly, M&S, Pret A Manger and many other outlets have all begun to move to wooden cutlery, but again most of these end up in landfill or incineration.
While the government is patting itself on the back for a ban on plastics on three items, it has just shifted the environmental problem without tackling the fundamental crisis at the centre of our throwaway culture. We urgently need an ‘extended producer responsibility scheme’ like that being considered in the EU. Such a programme puts an obligation on the producer to create more sustainable products – failure to do so leads to financial penalties, and the money raised is reinvested in innovation and clean up.
Fast fashion and a boom in non-repairable goods have led to not just straws and cotton buds being thrown away, but almost everything we consume. We are creating and destroying at an alarming rate. Unless we move rapidly to a more circular economy, the resulting waste problem is going to have devastating effects on future generations.
As we face a climate and ecological crisis, we now need to stop making piecemeal changes and start having some hard conversations about changing corporate and consumer behaviour. Our short-term convenience must not come at the cost of our planet.


labourlist--2020-06-17--Scrapping DfID is shameful. We’ll fight for the UK’s life-saving aid

Tuesday was a truly awful day – the fourth anniversary of the murder of our dear friend , Jo Cox MP , a great humanitarian who worked tirelessly to protect civilians and fight poverty .
It was also the day that the Tories chose to announce that they are abolishing the Department for International Development ( DfID ) .
The creation of DfID as an independent department was one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour government .
We set the UK on the path to spending 0.7 % of gross national income on aid , and by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was helping lift three million people out of poverty each year .
The scrapping of DfID is a shameful decision by this Tory government .
By law , UK aid is meant to be focused on poverty reduction – not given for any other reason .
The best way to ensure that , is through an independent department with a Secretary of State around the cabinet table .
Aid spent by other departments is consistently rated poorly by independent auditors for its transparency , value for money , and – most importantly – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Foreign Office , that focus gets subverted .
Before DfID was created by Labour , the Pergau dam affair saw the Tories spend hundreds of millions of pounds in UK aid linked to a major arms deal .
In Australia , the scrapping of AusAid has seen them lose much of their expertise , and seen aid diverted to pay for looking after refugees within Australia rather than on development projects abroad – an important need , but not one that should be paid for out of the aid budget .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that we give as much aid to Zambia as we do to the Ukraine , more to Tanzania than to the Balkans .
Of course the people of the Ukraine and the Balkans deserve our support – but Zambia and Tanzania have greater levels of poverty , so they must continue to receive our aid .
We are not here to argue that absent-minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan should keep her job , but having a Secretary of State around the cabinet table is essential .
It should mean that development issues are discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that when cabinet discusses the UK ’ s approach to a global crisis or the G20 or G7 summit , the Secretary of State is there to push for development issues to be part of that agenda .
Quite obviously , there is a global crisis happening right now that Britain and DfID should be playing a leading role in tackling – one that is hitting the world ’ s poorest hard .
Just at a time when DfID , with its two decades ’ worth of expertise , should be helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been sidelined .
Just when the world needs global leadership , this Tory government is not only nowhere to be seen , but making the problem worse .
Shame on them .
What now ?
The truth is that , enabled as they have been with such a large majority , there is little we can do to stop it .
But for Jo , and for the millions of people who are helped by the UK ’ s life-saving aid , we owe it to them to keep fighting .
The 0.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike this change , is enshrined in law – so if the government wants to drop it , there will need to be a vote .
And where there is a vote , there is a chance – so let ’ s organise as best we can .
Ensuring transparency and accountability on how aid is now spent is essential , so we also have to push for the international development select committee to continue , even if it morphs into something similar to the environmental audit committee .
We will also continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protect civilians ’ – another important cause of Jo ’ s – and we ’ ll be launching a speakers ’ network later in the summer to raise awareness of humanitarian causes with activists from Syria , Rwanda , Srebrenica and Kosovo .
Ultimately though , the only way to ensure that the UK has an independent DfID and an ethical foreign policy is with a Labour government .
So let ’ s do all we can to get behind Keir Starmer , Lisa Nandy and Preet Kaur Gill .
Finally , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jo ’ s life and causes , and showing that we have # MoreInCommon than divides us – there is still time to get involved in the The Great Get Together that the Jo Cox Foundation is organising for this weekend .
Please go to greatgettogether.org to see how you can join in .

Tuesday was a truly awful day – the fourth anniversary of the murder of our dear friend, Jo Cox MP, a great humanitarian who worked tirelessly to protect civilians and fight poverty. It was also the day that the Tories chose to announce that they are abolishing the Department for International Development (DfID).
The creation of DfID as an independent department was one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour government. We set the UK on the path to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid, and by the time we had left office UK aid was helping lift three million people out of poverty each year.
The scrapping of DfID is a shameful decision by this Tory government. By law, UK aid is meant to be focused on poverty reduction – not given for any other reason. The best way to ensure that, is through an independent department with a Secretary of State around the cabinet table. Aid spent by other departments is consistently rated poorly by independent auditors for its transparency, value for money, and – most importantly – its effectiveness.
When development agencies sit under the Foreign Office, that focus gets subverted. Before DfID was created by Labour, the Pergau dam affair saw the Tories spend hundreds of millions of pounds in UK aid linked to a major arms deal. In Australia, the scrapping of AusAid has seen them lose much of their expertise, and seen aid diverted to pay for looking after refugees within Australia rather than on development projects abroad – an important need, but not one that should be paid for out of the aid budget.
The Tories’ own statement decries the fact that we give as much aid to Zambia as we do to the Ukraine, more to Tanzania than to the Balkans. Of course the people of the Ukraine and the Balkans deserve our support – but Zambia and Tanzania have greater levels of poverty, so they must continue to receive our aid.
We are not here to argue that absent-minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan should keep her job, but having a Secretary of State around the cabinet table is essential. It should mean that development issues are discussed at the highest level of government, and that when cabinet discusses the UK’s approach to a global crisis or the G20 or G7 summit, the Secretary of State is there to push for development issues to be part of that agenda.
Quite obviously, there is a global crisis happening right now that Britain and DfID should be playing a leading role in tackling – one that is hitting the world’s poorest hard. Just at a time when DfID, with its two decades’ worth of expertise, should be helping lead the global response, they have been sidelined. Just when the world needs global leadership, this Tory government is not only nowhere to be seen, but making the problem worse. Shame on them.
What now? The truth is that, enabled as they have been with such a large majority, there is little we can do to stop it. But for Jo, and for the millions of people who are helped by the UK’s life-saving aid, we owe it to them to keep fighting. The 0.7% aid spending target remains and, unlike this change, is enshrined in law – so if the government wants to drop it, there will need to be a vote.
And where there is a vote, there is a chance – so let’s organise as best we can. Ensuring transparency and accountability on how aid is now spent is essential, so we also have to push for the international development select committee to continue, even if it morphs into something similar to the environmental audit committee.
We will also continue our campaign for the ‘Responsibility to Protect civilians’ – another important cause of Jo’s – and we’ll be launching a speakers’ network later in the summer to raise awareness of humanitarian causes with activists from Syria, Rwanda, Srebrenica and Kosovo. Ultimately though, the only way to ensure that the UK has an independent DfID and an ethical foreign policy is with a Labour government. So let’s do all we can to get behind Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy and Preet Kaur Gill.
Finally, this news should not stop us from celebrating Jo’s life and causes, and showing that we have #MoreInCommon than divides us – there is still time to get involved in the The Great Get Together that the Jo Cox Foundation is organising for this weekend. Please go to greatgettogether.org to see how you can join in.


labourlist--2020-06-17--STV for the NEC? Put it to conference and let the members decide

Labour ’ s governing body , the national executive committee ( NEC ) , will unilaterally decide on a drastic shake-up to the way it is elected on June 30th .
The move has received little attention but will have massive implications for the future direction of the party .
The proposal is to change the system of electing the nine constituency seats from first-past-the-post to single transferable vote ( STV ) .
Whatever party members may think of this voting system in the abstract or for other elections , there are fundamental reasons for which this would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a real danger of the party sleepwalking into a change that the 500,000 members have not scrutinised or debated through its democratic structures – at either the Constituency Labour Party ( CLP ) level , or at the annual party conference .
Presented as an antidote to factionalism , it is in reality being pursued for factional motives .
STV ’ s champions argue that the change will help Labour move away from ‘ factional slates ’ for the NEC , instead allowing talented individuals from all wings of the party to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wary of the unforeseen consequences of this switch .
The current system , whereby groups stand slates of candidates , allows for elections to be fought on the basis of a collective and coherent political programme with clearer lines of accountability and transparency .
Members can view the competing slates and get a sense of what they stand for – confident that the candidates on a particular slate will have similar political views and be reasonably competent , since they have gone through a selection process with bodies like the Centre Left Grassroots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is less of a need for slates , but the concern is that this risks a descent into an individualistic ‘ beauty contest ’ where those with the largest social-media following , celebrity status , or even those most able to spend money on promotional material , are best placed to succeed .
Candidates under STV will not necessarily stand on an explicitly political programme but rather on the basis of their name recognition and supposed personal qualities .
This will inevitably disadvantage those already underrepresented in the party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates who are less likely to have such resources or be known to the wider voting membership .
As a socialist party , we must think twice before ditching a process that encourages collectivism in favour of another that encourages individualism and benefits those already well-endowed with social capital .
It is also likely to have a negative effect on turnout .
With STV , members are required to rank candidates in order of preference , from one all the way through to nine .
To rank candidates objectively members would need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfilling specific criteria – political views , reliability , etc .
Given the inevitable glut of people standing under STV , how many individual members would have sufficient information or time to undertake the necessary level of research to form such a view ?
Turnout is already pretty low for NEC elections , and the worry is that this changed system would reduce it further .
Proponents of STV must explain why a system that is likely to reduce turnout and confuse party members is really the democratic advance they claim it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes in the Labour Party never happen in a vacuum , let ’ s consider the political context of the sudden supposed necessity of switching to STV .
The proposal is not part of a coherent wider plan to reform the election of the whole of the NEC , but a specific attempt to tamper with the election of just one section of it , in which the views of rank and file constituency members have often been effectively represented in the past .
The party ’ s right-wing is , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left is not able to win the nine CLP seats , it is is almost impossible that they will gain a majority on this all-powerful committee ever again .
Jeremy Corbyn only achieved a robust working NEC majority from 2018 onwards when the ‘ JC9 ’ won the nine CLP places in the summer elections .
It is also highly questionable as to whether it is appropriate for the NEC , as the governing body of the party , to change the rules by which it is itself elected .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party – a sovereign conference – that could review and ratify the process .
This sudden decision to change the voting system so soon before the election itself is even more suspicious given that there is no conference this year .
This calls into question whether the motivation is really to improve the party ’ s democratic process or actually to change the make-up of the NEC for factional advantage .
Instead of this drastic change being made by a handful of people in a closed NEC meeting , advocates of STV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to party conference , whereby members and affiliates can properly consider , debate and vote on it in full .
For these reasons , the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is encouraging party members to email the NEC members using our model letter – to oppose this move from being decided without their full and proper input .

Labour’s governing body, the national executive committee (NEC), will unilaterally decide on a drastic shake-up to the way it is elected on June 30th. The move has received little attention but will have massive implications for the future direction of the party. The proposal is to change the system of electing the nine constituency seats from first-past-the-post to single transferable vote (STV).
Whatever party members may think of this voting system in the abstract or for other elections, there are fundamental reasons for which this would be a negative move in this case. There is a real danger of the party sleepwalking into a change that the 500,000 members have not scrutinised or debated through its democratic structures – at either the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) level, or at the annual party conference. Presented as an antidote to factionalism, it is in reality being pursued for factional motives.
STV’s champions argue that the change will help Labour move away from ‘factional slates’ for the NEC, instead allowing talented individuals from all wings of the party to be elected. Yet members should be wary of the unforeseen consequences of this switch.
The current system, whereby groups stand slates of candidates, allows for elections to be fought on the basis of a collective and coherent political programme with clearer lines of accountability and transparency. Members can view the competing slates and get a sense of what they stand for – confident that the candidates on a particular slate will have similar political views and be reasonably competent, since they have gone through a selection process with bodies like the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance or Labour First.
With STV, there is less of a need for slates, but the concern is that this risks a descent into an individualistic ‘beauty contest’ where those with the largest social-media following, celebrity status, or even those most able to spend money on promotional material, are best placed to succeed. Candidates under STV will not necessarily stand on an explicitly political programme but rather on the basis of their name recognition and supposed personal qualities.
This will inevitably disadvantage those already underrepresented in the party’s structures, such as working-class and BAME candidates who are less likely to have such resources or be known to the wider voting membership. As a socialist party, we must think twice before ditching a process that encourages collectivism in favour of another that encourages individualism and benefits those already well-endowed with social capital.
It is also likely to have a negative effect on turnout. With STV, members are required to rank candidates in order of preference, from one all the way through to nine. To rank candidates objectively members would need to evaluate how good a candidate is in fulfilling specific criteria – political views, reliability, etc. Given the inevitable glut of people standing under STV, how many individual members would have sufficient information or time to undertake the necessary level of research to form such a view?
Turnout is already pretty low for NEC elections, and the worry is that this changed system would reduce it further. Proponents of STV must explain why a system that is likely to reduce turnout and confuse party members is really the democratic advance they claim it to be.
Finally, given that constitutional changes in the Labour Party never happen in a vacuum, let’s consider the political context of the sudden supposed necessity of switching to STV. The proposal is not part of a coherent wider plan to reform the election of the whole of the NEC, but a specific attempt to tamper with the election of just one section of it, in which the views of rank and file constituency members have often been effectively represented in the past.
The party’s right-wing is, of course, jumping at this opportunity. If the left is not able to win the nine CLP seats, it is is almost impossible that they will gain a majority on this all-powerful committee ever again. Jeremy Corbyn only achieved a robust working NEC majority from 2018 onwards when the ‘JC9’ won the nine CLP places in the summer elections.
It is also highly questionable as to whether it is appropriate for the NEC, as the governing body of the party, to change the rules by which it is itself elected. After all, there is a higher body in the party – a sovereign conference – that could review and ratify the process. This sudden decision to change the voting system so soon before the election itself is even more suspicious given that there is no conference this year. This calls into question whether the motivation is really to improve the party’s democratic process or actually to change the make-up of the NEC for factional advantage.
Instead of this drastic change being made by a handful of people in a closed NEC meeting, advocates of STV should have the confidence to put it to party conference, whereby members and affiliates can properly consider, debate and vote on it in full. For these reasons, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy is encouraging party members to email the NEC members using our model letter – to oppose this move from being decided without their full and proper input.


labourlist--2020-06-17--Join the Labour members helping an insurgent socialist run for Congress

In the spirit of international solidarity , Labour members across the UK are phone-banking for Samelys Lopez , an insurgent socialist running for Congress in the South Bronx .
If victorious , Samelys will be the first woman – let alone the first Afro-Latina , formerly homeless woman – to represent New York ’ s 15th congressional district , which is America ’ s poorest and neighbours that of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
AOC is an old friend , fellow Bernie 2016 organiser and early backer of Samelys ’ campaign .
Like her own 2018 campaign , Samelys ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive volunteer base , small dollar donations and high-volume voter contact .
However , in a campaign that has almost perfectly coincided with the worst of New York ’ s Covid-19 crisis , voter contact has meant phone-banking but no doorknocking .
Another contrast with AOC ’ s run at the House is the nature of Samelys ’ race .
There is no precise equivalent to the 20-year incumbent establishment Democrat AOC unseated in 2018 .
Instead , an unusually progressive and well-loved figure , Jose Serrano is retiring due to ill health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer than 12 challengers for Samelys to fend off .
As with presidential races , Democratic congressional candidates must first win a primary .
In New York this falls on the 23rd June , with early voting already underway .
In a district that typically votes around 97 % Democrat , this primary is what counts .
That does not produce a race lacking political contrasts , however .
From openly homophobic councilman Ruben Diaz Senior , who has called abortion “ America ’ s holocaust ” , to billionaire-backed establishment favourite Ritchie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spectrum has its candidate .
Arguably the greatest contrast , though , is between Samelys and every other candidate in the race .
Passionate advocacy for a Homes Guarantee , Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are at the heart of Samelys ’ platform – all informed by her own lived experience and that of her neighbours .
Samelys was endorsed last week by Bernie Sanders , joining AOC , Naomi Klein , the Democratic Socialists of America ( DSA ) , the Sunrise Movement , and many others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eco-socialist future .
Importantly , she has issued clear recommendations for the defunding and demilitarisation of police forces , amid detailed and comprehensive policy plans to transform America ’ s racist criminal justice system .
She proudly affirms that Black Lives Matter .
Samelys ’ campaign established mutual aid activities early in the pandemic , and later offered local protestors assistance with bail payments and legal advice .
She spent her birthday this year cleaning the streets after a night of protests .
Her growing movement boasts incredible diversity , in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disability , age and immigration status .
The campaign ’ s average donation amount is $ 19 , with 85 % coming from small donors .
Torres ’ average donation is $ 293 .
We believe that Samelys can win on the 23rd , and that she will be a powerful force for justice and against oppression in Washington .
But success is not guaranteed .
This is a moment in which electoral forecasting is the business of fools .
Turnout for local primaries is typically in the region of 5 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pandemic , mass protests and economic downturn will influence either turnout or voting behaviour .
This makes phone-banking all the more crucial as one of the few canvassing tools Samelys has .
This is the logic of any insurgent electoral campaign , of course .
AOC knew it in 2018 .
We knew it in 2019 , when we phone-banked for Labour , alongside internationalist DSA members in New York City , and in February and March when we joined them again in knocking doors for Bernie Sanders .
Ours is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Labour must understand the importance of forging strong connections like these , as part of a basis for collaboration against injustices that affect Bristol as much as the Bronx .
Not many Labour members will get the opportunity to canvass for a Democratic Socialist American revolutionary like Bernie or AOC .
But in Samelys ’ phone banks , anybody with a laptop and a spare two hours can sit down at home with a nice cup of tea and help make history in the South Bronx .

In the spirit of international solidarity, Labour members across the UK are phone-banking for Samelys Lopez, an insurgent socialist running for Congress in the South Bronx. If victorious, Samelys will be the first woman – let alone the first Afro-Latina, formerly homeless woman – to represent New York’s 15th congressional district, which is America’s poorest and neighbours that of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
AOC is an old friend, fellow Bernie 2016 organiser and early backer of Samelys’ campaign. Like her own 2018 campaign, Samelys’ is strictly grassroots: driven by a massive volunteer base, small dollar donations and high-volume voter contact. However, in a campaign that has almost perfectly coincided with the worst of New York’s Covid-19 crisis, voter contact has meant phone-banking but no doorknocking.
Another contrast with AOC’s run at the House is the nature of Samelys’ race. There is no precise equivalent to the 20-year incumbent establishment Democrat AOC unseated in 2018. Instead, an unusually progressive and well-loved figure, Jose Serrano is retiring due to ill health, ushering in a pack of no fewer than 12 challengers for Samelys to fend off.
As with presidential races, Democratic congressional candidates must first win a primary. In New York this falls on the 23rd June, with early voting already underway. In a district that typically votes around 97% Democrat, this primary is what counts. That does not produce a race lacking political contrasts, however. From openly homophobic councilman Ruben Diaz Senior, who has called abortion “America’s holocaust”, to billionaire-backed establishment favourite Ritchie Torres, every part of the party’s spectrum has its candidate. Arguably the greatest contrast, though, is between Samelys and every other candidate in the race.
Passionate advocacy for a Homes Guarantee, Medicare for All and the Green New Deal are at the heart of Samelys’ platform – all informed by her own lived experience and that of her neighbours. Samelys was endorsed last week by Bernie Sanders, joining AOC, Naomi Klein, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Sunrise Movement, and many others who share her vision for a transnational eco-socialist future. Importantly, she has issued clear recommendations for the defunding and demilitarisation of police forces, amid detailed and comprehensive policy plans to transform America’s racist criminal justice system. She proudly affirms that Black Lives Matter.
Samelys’ campaign established mutual aid activities early in the pandemic, and later offered local protestors assistance with bail payments and legal advice. She spent her birthday this year cleaning the streets after a night of protests. Her growing movement boasts incredible diversity, in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age and immigration status. The campaign’s average donation amount is $19, with 85% coming from small donors. Torres’ average donation is $293.
We believe that Samelys can win on the 23rd, and that she will be a powerful force for justice and against oppression in Washington. But success is not guaranteed. This is a moment in which electoral forecasting is the business of fools. Turnout for local primaries is typically in the region of 5%. It is unclear how the unique confluence of pandemic, mass protests and economic downturn will influence either turnout or voting behaviour. This makes phone-banking all the more crucial as one of the few canvassing tools Samelys has.
This is the logic of any insurgent electoral campaign, of course. AOC knew it in 2018. We knew it in 2019, when we phone-banked for Labour, alongside internationalist DSA members in New York City, and in February and March when we joined them again in knocking doors for Bernie Sanders. Ours is a common struggle. As an internationalist party, Labour must understand the importance of forging strong connections like these, as part of a basis for collaboration against injustices that affect Bristol as much as the Bronx.
Not many Labour members will get the opportunity to canvass for a Democratic Socialist American revolutionary like Bernie or AOC. But in Samelys’ phone banks, anybody with a laptop and a spare two hours can sit down at home with a nice cup of tea and help make history in the South Bronx.
Join a Samelys Lopez phone bank here.


labourlist--2020-06-17--Labour will scrutinise government gender recognition plans, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has said that Labour will scrutinise new government proposals on the Gender Recognition Act after it was reported that ministers intend to drop plans for reform .
Asked about the reports , Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ We haven ’ t actually seen any details of these proposals .
The government hasn ’ t put any proposals forward .
Once they do , we ’ ll look at them and take a view.
” Pressed further , the Labour leader ’ s spokesperson replied : “ Keir said repeatedly during the Labour leadership campaign that trans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absolutely committed to trans people and supports updating the Gender Recognition Act and upholding the Equality Act .
“ We need to see the details of whatever the government intends to bring forward or not , but Keir is absolutely clear that trans rights are human rights , and we stand by that commitment.
” Asked which part of the GRA that Starmer wanted updated , his spokesperson said : “ Keir has been clear on this issue… Labour has a proud history of advancing LGBT rights.
” He added : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the debate… This is a nuanced debate , which has to be considered carefully.
” On whether Starmer stands by the 2019 Labour manifesto position on gender recognition , he said : “ Keir stood on that manifesto and Keir has a proud history of supporting advances in human rights across a variety of areas.
” The Labour leader ’ s spokesperson was asked about the recent intervention of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling , who said she had “ concerns around single-sex spaces ” .
The spokesperson said : “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important debate , and what Keir wants to do is work closely with all sides of this debate in scrutinising the government proposals and ensuring that we remain committed to trans rights.
” He confirmed that Starmer condemned the death threats received by Rowling following the publication of an essay on her website that responded to criticism of her position .
It was reported over the weekend by the Sunday Times that the government is scrapping proposals that would make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender .
The article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would instead be introduced to “ placate LGBT people ” , and said the government believed the consultation results were “ skewed by an avalanche of responses generated by trans rights groups ” .
The Tory government launched a public consultation on the issue in July 2018 as minister Penny Mordaunt said the UK needed to “ end the nonsense of people having different documents in different genders ” .
Starmer ’ s spokesperson was also asked extending the Brexit transition period , in response to which he said : “ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are responsible for this… The government has said it will get a deal by the end of the year and we will hold them to it.
” On whether Labour would support a war memorials offence carrying a possible ten-year jail sentence , the spokesperson said : “ It is already a criminal offence to damage public property .
We haven ’ t seen this legislation , we ’ ve only seen speculation .
”

Keir Starmer has said that Labour will scrutinise new government proposals on the Gender Recognition Act after it was reported that ministers intend to drop plans for reform.
Asked about the reports, Starmer’s spokesperson said: “We haven’t actually seen any details of these proposals. The government hasn’t put any proposals forward. Once they do, we’ll look at them and take a view.”
Pressed further, the Labour leader’s spokesperson replied: “Keir said repeatedly during the Labour leadership campaign that trans rights are human rights.
“Labour is absolutely committed to trans people and supports updating the Gender Recognition Act and upholding the Equality Act.
“We need to see the details of whatever the government intends to bring forward or not, but Keir is absolutely clear that trans rights are human rights, and we stand by that commitment.”
Asked which part of the GRA that Starmer wanted updated, his spokesperson said: “Keir has been clear on this issue… Labour has a proud history of advancing LGBT rights.”
He added: “We want to work with all sides of the debate… This is a nuanced debate, which has to be considered carefully.”
On whether Starmer stands by the 2019 Labour manifesto position on gender recognition, he said: “Keir stood on that manifesto and Keir has a proud history of supporting advances in human rights across a variety of areas.”
The Labour leader’s spokesperson was asked about the recent intervention of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who said she had “concerns around single-sex spaces”.
The spokesperson said: “This is a nuanced debate, a very important debate, and what Keir wants to do is work closely with all sides of this debate in scrutinising the government proposals and ensuring that we remain committed to trans rights.”
He confirmed that Starmer condemned the death threats received by Rowling following the publication of an essay on her website that responded to criticism of her position.
It was reported over the weekend by the Sunday Times that the government is scrapping proposals that would make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender.
The article said that a ban on conversion therapy would instead be introduced to “placate LGBT people”, and said the government believed the consultation results were “skewed by an avalanche of responses generated by trans rights groups”.
The Tory government launched a public consultation on the issue in July 2018 as minister Penny Mordaunt said the UK needed to “end the nonsense of people having different documents in different genders”.
Starmer’s spokesperson was also asked extending the Brexit transition period, in response to which he said: “This is a government with a majority of 80. They are responsible for this… The government has said it will get a deal by the end of the year and we will hold them to it.”
On whether Labour would support a war memorials offence carrying a possible ten-year jail sentence, the spokesperson said: “It is already a criminal offence to damage public property. We haven’t seen this legislation, we’ve only seen speculation.”


labourlist--2020-06-17--PMQs: Starmer attacked – but PM undermined by his own record

Today ’ s Prime Minister ’ s Questions saw Keir Starmer try to steer the conversation towards rising child poverty and local authority funding in the Covid-19 crisis .
But Boris Johnson just as avidly tried to bring the focus back to schools , challenging Starmer to state that reopening is safe .
Clearly , the PM went into the chamber today intending to highlight an inconsistency in the Labour leader ’ s approach .
As pointed out by Starmer , however , this effort was significantly undermined by the government ’ s own inconsistency .
Referring to the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , Starmer started by painting a stark picture : 600,000 more children living in poverty than in 2012 , and poverty rates set to increase to 5.2 million by 2022 .
Dismissing this , Johnson changed tack and asked Starmer to declare that “ schools are safe to go to ” .
Starmer pointed out in response : “ He talks to me about consistency .
The government ’ s had three U-turns in the last month ” .
He listed the NHS immigration surcharge , MPs voting and free school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Starmer asked the PM whether he felt the government had kept its “ whatever is necessary ” promise on funding .
He read from a Tory council leader ’ s letter to the government : “ The overall financial impact on councils nationally and locally will be far in excess of the £3.2bn provided to date.
” But after only a brief reference to councils , reiterating how much the government has pledged so far , Johnson again tried to shift the focus back to schools : “ A great ox has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let him now say that schools are safe to go back to.
” Starmer remarked that the session had turned into “ opposition questions ” , and told the chamber : “ If the Prime Minister wants to swap places , I ’ m very happy.
” Starmer reiterated the grim choice facing councils of “ cutting core services or bankruptcy ” .
Again , Johnson returned to schools .
It ’ s a more flashy policy area , and one that he was clearly hoping would cut through to voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
But it is still a tricky one for the government , given that so many parents and teachers across the country remain worried about sending their children back .
Child poverty is harder to shrug off , as the most recent U-turn has shown .
And in the end , Johnson ’ s own flip-flopping over the past few days weakened his approach .
He launched what could have been an effective attack against the Labour leader , but was crucially undermined by his own record .

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions saw Keir Starmer try to steer the conversation towards rising child poverty and local authority funding in the Covid-19 crisis. But Boris Johnson just as avidly tried to bring the focus back to schools, challenging Starmer to state that reopening is safe. Clearly, the PM went into the chamber today intending to highlight an inconsistency in the Labour leader’s approach. As pointed out by Starmer, however, this effort was significantly undermined by the government’s own inconsistency.
Referring to the government’s own social mobility report published last week, Starmer started by painting a stark picture: 600,000 more children living in poverty than in 2012, and poverty rates set to increase to 5.2 million by 2022. Dismissing this, Johnson changed tack and asked Starmer to declare that “schools are safe to go to”. Starmer pointed out in response: “He talks to me about consistency. The government’s had three U-turns in the last month”. He listed the NHS immigration surcharge, MPs voting and free school meals.
Moving on to local authorities, Starmer asked the PM whether he felt the government had kept its “whatever is necessary” promise on funding. He read from a Tory council leader’s letter to the government: “The overall financial impact on councils nationally and locally will be far in excess of the £3.2bn provided to date.” But after only a brief reference to councils, reiterating how much the government has pledged so far, Johnson again tried to shift the focus back to schools: “A great ox has stood upon his tongue, Mr Speaker, let him now say that schools are safe to go back to.” Starmer remarked that the session had turned into “opposition questions”, and told the chamber: “If the Prime Minister wants to swap places, I’m very happy.”
Starmer reiterated the grim choice facing councils of “cutting core services or bankruptcy”. Again, Johnson returned to schools. It’s a more flashy policy area, and one that he was clearly hoping would cut through to voters in a way that local authority funding might not. But it is still a tricky one for the government, given that so many parents and teachers across the country remain worried about sending their children back. Child poverty is harder to shrug off, as the most recent U-turn has shown. And in the end, Johnson’s own flip-flopping over the past few days weakened his approach. He launched what could have been an effective attack against the Labour leader, but was crucially undermined by his own record.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Southwark will harness the energy of protest to shape lasting change

The last few weeks have been some of the most challenging of my political life .
Challenging because Southwark and London have seen some of the highest deaths and cases from Covid-19 .
Challenging as we watched the video of George Floyd being murdered by those who were supposed to keep him safe .
And challenging to listen to the thousands of stories out of the Black Lives Matter movement – of abuse , barriers and struggle that black people continue to face .
As a black man reflecting on my journey , sadly far too many of those stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined around 80 young people for a call organised by Southwark ’ s Youth Advisor to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement .
Anyone that has spoken to a group of young people will recognise the energy that they bring to even the most difficult of conversations – an energy that has been galvanised over the last two weeks .
The event started , and after a few opening remarks , moved on to a discussion in which a young person asked : “ What would be your advice to a young person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No young person should ever have to grow up feeling that society has placed a glass ceiling on their ambition , and as a society we must do better to address the structural inequalities that leave a whole generation wondering whether there is any point .
And it is a question not just reserved for the young .
I recently joined a call of black professionals who all grew up nearby but now live across the capital .
One raised the question : “ Beyond the protest , and the outcome of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” It is a question at the back of most activists ’ minds .
It is a question that I imagine must have been at the back of Diane Abbott ’ s mind when she was elected as the first black female MP all those years ago .
And it was at the back of my mind as protests went into their fourth day a fortnight back .
History has taught us that change is most effective when protest is met and matched by policymakers willing to make the change – sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early champions .
It is now up to society as a whole to harness this protest and change policy in a lasting way .
The Black Lives Matter protests in the USA have led to vast numbers of police authorities and politicians banning the controversial neck hold used by police in the US .
Here in Southwark , we have a track record of bringing forward policies to ensure that all have a fairer future , and we are rising to this challenge by placing our community at the heart of our commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our approach is guided by a commitment to lead the borough from the front , and to provide the leadership needed for organisations in the borough to join us on this journey in truly addressing the structural inequalities .
Any action taken must lead to lasting change and also provide us with the opportunity to listen .
That is why , this past week , we have launched our approach : “ Southwark Stands Together , Southwark ’ s commitment to tackle racial inequalities ” .
Over the next eight weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , and bringing forward recommendations not just for the council to adopt , but ones that we will want to be adopted by each partnering organisation and anchor institution .
These last four months , Southwark has come together to respond to Covid-19 .
We are confident that we will come together again to meet this challenge of tackling ingrained structural inequality .
In doing so , we plan to show what can be done when you harness the energy of protest to shape policy for lasting change .

The last few weeks have been some of the most challenging of my political life. Challenging because Southwark and London have seen some of the highest deaths and cases from Covid-19. Challenging as we watched the video of George Floyd being murdered by those who were supposed to keep him safe. And challenging to listen to the thousands of stories out of the Black Lives Matter movement – of abuse, barriers and struggle that black people continue to face. As a black man reflecting on my journey, sadly far too many of those stories rang true.
Last week, I joined around 80 young people for a call organised by Southwark’s Youth Advisor to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement. Anyone that has spoken to a group of young people will recognise the energy that they bring to even the most difficult of conversations – an energy that has been galvanised over the last two weeks. The event started, and after a few opening remarks, moved on to a discussion in which a young person asked: “What would be your advice to a young person to break the glass ceiling?”
No young person should ever have to grow up feeling that society has placed a glass ceiling on their ambition, and as a society we must do better to address the structural inequalities that leave a whole generation wondering whether there is any point. And it is a question not just reserved for the young. I recently joined a call of black professionals who all grew up nearby but now live across the capital. One raised the question: “Beyond the protest, and the outcome of the officers charged, will anything actually change?”
It is a question at the back of most activists’ minds. It is a question that I imagine must have been at the back of Diane Abbott’s mind when she was elected as the first black female MP all those years ago. And it was at the back of my mind as protests went into their fourth day a fortnight back.
History has taught us that change is most effective when protest is met and matched by policymakers willing to make the change – sometimes more by being forced than by being early champions. It is now up to society as a whole to harness this protest and change policy in a lasting way. The Black Lives Matter protests in the USA have led to vast numbers of police authorities and politicians banning the controversial neck hold used by police in the US.
Here in Southwark, we have a track record of bringing forward policies to ensure that all have a fairer future, and we are rising to this challenge by placing our community at the heart of our commitment to take action and influence lasting change. Our approach is guided by a commitment to lead the borough from the front, and to provide the leadership needed for organisations in the borough to join us on this journey in truly addressing the structural inequalities.
Any action taken must lead to lasting change and also provide us with the opportunity to listen. That is why, this past week, we have launched our approach: “Southwark Stands Together, Southwark’s commitment to tackle racial inequalities”. Over the next eight weeks, we will be listening to our black communities, and bringing forward recommendations not just for the council to adopt, but ones that we will want to be adopted by each partnering organisation and anchor institution.
These last four months, Southwark has come together to respond to Covid-19. We are confident that we will come together again to meet this challenge of tackling ingrained structural inequality. In doing so, we plan to show what can be done when you harness the energy of protest to shape policy for lasting change.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Refugee Week 2020: We must fight the causes of displacement

At just 15 years old , Hassan was targeted by an armed militia group in war-torn Aleppo , north-west Syria .
They wanted to recruit him as a child soldier .
Scared for his life , his parents found a way to get him over the Turkish border .
From there , Hassan was forced to make his way across Europe to seek a better life in Wales where I met him as a local MP .
Hassan is one of many millions of casualties – uprooted by conflict , climate disaster and political instability , displaced from their communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Covid-19 has ground daily life to a halt everywhere and nobody can be faulted for feeling like they are living on the edge .
But that feeling is the everyday reality for so many around the world who live on the constant edge of conflict , climate change and destructive weather , disease , poverty or gender violence .
For millions of refugees and displaced people the future is bleak with many struggling to protect themselves and their loved ones .
Refugee Week is a reminder that we must show leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just , fair and sustainable future stretches beyond our shores and includes the warmth of our welcome at home .
The UN Refugee Agency reported recently that there are now over 30 million refugees worldwide , half of whom are children , and millions more who are internally displaced or stateless .
Statistics from Amnesty International show that many refugees who have fled conflict , persecution or disease remain in volatile environments .
Millions of Syrian refugees live in dire conditions on the border with Turkey – millions more refugees live in overstretched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Libya , Pakistan , Bangladesh and the Greek islands .
Even refugees who sought a better life and made the extremely dangerous journey to Europe face open hostility and daily injustices .
Historically , our interventions across the world and the need for refuge at home has been driven by conflict – but we are now seeing people flee for many different reasons , many of which are interconnected .
Whether through conflict and climate change , poverty or health , many of the decisions we make at home may have weakened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change and we must take on that responsibility .
By failing to recognise the escalation in the number of climate refugees we fail to prepare for the future .
The International Panel on Climate Change reported that there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by 2050 .
Following hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017 , 20-year-old Tammy fled to the UK from Antigua and Barbuda to seek a new life .
Tammy told me about her experience shortly after I became shadow minister for international development , to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like living on the edge of climate change and how our changing climate is driving displacement .
Whilst Tammy ’ s experience differs from that of Hassan , they are both casualties of global inaction and instability , whether it is climate inaction or conflict .
In many settings these two issues combined cause displacement – look no further than in north-east Nigeria , where many have fled to sought refuge after droughts and starvation led to conflict and a violent race to control fertile land .
The UN World Metrological Organisation concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the hottest , with receding ice and record sea levels driven by carbon-intensive industries .
Widespread drought has heightened food insecurity and water accessibility and exceptional rainfall , hurricanes and flooding have destroyed agriculture , housing and infrastructure .
In 2019 alone , over 24 million people were newly displaced by climate disasters – compared to 8.5 million by conflict .
Often overlooked , climate change is a driver of migration just as much as conflict or disease , and in many places they combine to drive displacement .
Climate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of government intervention .
We need a post-coronavirus plan that properly addresses climate injustices and displacement through strategic use of our development programmes and investments overseas .
The UK must show leadership to prevent even more people being uprooted from their communities .
Our planet is shared , and so too are our successes and failures , so we must play our part in supporting those living life on the edge .
As Covid-19 has shown , in our modern interconnected world , we must look outward to the world and play our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether they be climate , conflict , health or economic .
Without recognising how global displacement issues are interconnected and understand our responsibility in mitigating emerging risks , refugees like Tammy , Hassan and many others will continue to be displaced and face discrimination and injustices – despite it being no fault of their own .
We need a rapid shift in how we respond to these global risks – by taking responsibility for the carbon-intensive industries that only speed up climate change , and by increasing our global leadership role as peacekeepers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives across the world .
Business as usual can not continue .
Refugee Week is a time for us to reflect on the impact of our actions and commit to ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable .

At just 15 years old, Hassan was targeted by an armed militia group in war-torn Aleppo, north-west Syria. They wanted to recruit him as a child soldier. Scared for his life, his parents found a way to get him over the Turkish border. From there, Hassan was forced to make his way across Europe to seek a better life in Wales where I met him as a local MP. Hassan is one of many millions of casualties – uprooted by conflict, climate disaster and political instability, displaced from their communities and any semblance of normality across the world.
Covid-19 has ground daily life to a halt everywhere and nobody can be faulted for feeling like they are living on the edge. But that feeling is the everyday reality for so many around the world who live on the constant edge of conflict, climate change and destructive weather, disease, poverty or gender violence. For millions of refugees and displaced people the future is bleak with many struggling to protect themselves and their loved ones. Refugee Week is a reminder that we must show leadership and take responsibility for ensuring that a just, fair and sustainable future stretches beyond our shores and includes the warmth of our welcome at home.
The UN Refugee Agency reported recently that there are now over 30 million refugees worldwide, half of whom are children, and millions more who are internally displaced or stateless. Statistics from Amnesty International show that many refugees who have fled conflict, persecution or disease remain in volatile environments. Millions of Syrian refugees live in dire conditions on the border with Turkey – millions more refugees live in overstretched camps and face daily exploitation in Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Greek islands. Even refugees who sought a better life and made the extremely dangerous journey to Europe face open hostility and daily injustices.
Historically, our interventions across the world and the need for refuge at home has been driven by conflict – but we are now seeing people flee for many different reasons, many of which are interconnected. Whether through conflict and climate change, poverty or health, many of the decisions we make at home may have weakened a community or nation’s resilience to change and we must take on that responsibility.
By failing to recognise the escalation in the number of climate refugees we fail to prepare for the future. The International Panel on Climate Change reported that there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by 2050. Following hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, 20-year-old Tammy fled to the UK from Antigua and Barbuda to seek a new life. Tammy told me about her experience shortly after I became shadow minister for international development, to help further my understanding of what life is like living on the edge of climate change and how our changing climate is driving displacement. Whilst Tammy’s experience differs from that of Hassan, they are both casualties of global inaction and instability, whether it is climate inaction or conflict. In many settings these two issues combined cause displacement – look no further than in north-east Nigeria, where many have fled to sought refuge after droughts and starvation led to conflict and a violent race to control fertile land.
The UN World Metrological Organisation concluded in January that the last decade was one of the hottest, with receding ice and record sea levels driven by carbon-intensive industries. Widespread drought has heightened food insecurity and water accessibility and exceptional rainfall, hurricanes and flooding have destroyed agriculture, housing and infrastructure. In 2019 alone, over 24 million people were newly displaced by climate disasters – compared to 8.5 million by conflict.
Often overlooked, climate change is a driver of migration just as much as conflict or disease, and in many places they combine to drive displacement. Climate and social justice must be at the heart of government intervention. We need a post-coronavirus plan that properly addresses climate injustices and displacement through strategic use of our development programmes and investments overseas. The UK must show leadership to prevent even more people being uprooted from their communities.
Our planet is shared, and so too are our successes and failures, so we must play our part in supporting those living life on the edge. As Covid-19 has shown, in our modern interconnected world, we must look outward to the world and play our part in repairing injustices and inequalities – whether they be climate, conflict, health or economic. Without recognising how global displacement issues are interconnected and understand our responsibility in mitigating emerging risks, refugees like Tammy, Hassan and many others will continue to be displaced and face discrimination and injustices – despite it being no fault of their own.
We need a rapid shift in how we respond to these global risks – by taking responsibility for the carbon-intensive industries that only speed up climate change, and by increasing our global leadership role as peacekeepers, which impacts on people’s lives across the world. Business as usual cannot continue. Refugee Week is a time for us to reflect on the impact of our actions and commit to ensuring that we protect the most vulnerable.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Boris Johnson’s “world-beating” projects

Since 2015 , the UK has been legally committed to spending 0.7 % of gross national income on official development assistance .
In a BBC Radio 4 interview this morning , Dominic Raab described it as a “ world-beating aid budget ” – because , with this macho government , everything must be “ world-beating ” .
The Prime Minister said our NHS was “ world-beating ” at the start of the coronavirus crisis , before we had to start protecting it by staying at home .
Then we were promised a “ world-beating ” test and trace system by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the app could , if we ’ re lucky , be ready in the winter .
The New York Times has just published a piece , with lots of shameful details , on how our system is “ anything but ” world-beating .
As Jill Rutter wrote earlier this week , a step towards competence would be to dial down the rhetoric .
But bold messaging is what it ’ s all about for Boris Johnson .
While his government tries to wriggle out of preventing child hunger , and fails to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but unlocks anyway , the Prime Minister wants to proudly boast of ‘ global Britain ’ .
In the middle of a pandemic that continues to see hundreds die every day , he announced that a Whitehall restructuring would be a top priority over the coming months as the Department for International Development is set to be merged with the Foreign Office by early September .
Why is this shake-up a pressing matter during a public health crisis ?
The UK wants to give taxpayers “ better bang for their buck ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merger would “ sharpen our cutting edge in terms of foreign policy ” .
Doesn ’ t aid need to follow need ?
The Prime Minister complained that we give as much aid to Zambia as Ukraine , but the percentage of people living below the poverty line in the former is over 50 % and it is around 1 % in the latter .
“ It is , yes , about doing morally the right thing , ” Raab managed to reply through gritted teeth , “ but also joining that up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK ” .
Luckily our next online event is with Preet Kaur Gill MP , Labour ’ s international development spokesperson .
We will be in conversation from 6pm tonight , discussing all the above and more .
Join us on this LabourList page at that time for the live broadcast .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Since 2015, the UK has been legally committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. In a BBC Radio 4 interview this morning, Dominic Raab described it as a “world-beating aid budget” – because, with this macho government, everything must be “world-beating”. The Prime Minister said our NHS was “world-beating” at the start of the coronavirus crisis, before we had to start protecting it by staying at home. Then we were promised a “world-beating” test and trace system by June 1st. We are now told that the app could, if we’re lucky, be ready in the winter. The New York Times has just published a piece, with lots of shameful details, on how our system is “anything but” world-beating.
As Jill Rutter wrote earlier this week, a step towards competence would be to dial down the rhetoric. But bold messaging is what it’s all about for Boris Johnson. While his government tries to wriggle out of preventing child hunger, and fails to get a grip on testing and tracing but unlocks anyway, the Prime Minister wants to proudly boast of ‘global Britain’. In the middle of a pandemic that continues to see hundreds die every day, he announced that a Whitehall restructuring would be a top priority over the coming months as the Department for International Development is set to be merged with the Foreign Office by early September.
Why is this shake-up a pressing matter during a public health crisis? The UK wants to give taxpayers “better bang for their buck”, Raab told the BBC, and the merger would “sharpen our cutting edge in terms of foreign policy”. Doesn’t aid need to follow need? The Prime Minister complained that we give as much aid to Zambia as Ukraine, but the percentage of people living below the poverty line in the former is over 50% and it is around 1% in the latter. “It is, yes, about doing morally the right thing,” Raab managed to reply through gritted teeth, “but also joining that up with what’s in the interests of the UK”.
Luckily our next online event is with Preet Kaur Gill MP, Labour’s international development spokesperson. We will be in conversation from 6pm tonight, discussing all the above and more. Join us on this LabourList page at that time for the live broadcast. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Exclusive: Labour will not “mirror” government plans to scrap DfID

Labour will not “ mirror ” new government plans put forward by Boris Johnson this week to scrap the Department for International Development , LabourList can reveal .
In an exclusive interview with LabourList , Shadow International Development Secretary Preet Kaur Gill said Labour remains “ absolutely committed to an independent DfID ” .
The shadow cabinet member explained : “ Labour is not prepared to mirror what the government is doing – because we just absolutely do not believe in that.
” Boris Johnson announced on Tuesday that the government would be abolishing the Department for International Development , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the sky ” .
It is understood that Dominic Raab , the Foreign Secretary , will lead the new department , and there are no plans for a second Secretary of State or a Deputy Foreign Secretary .
Anne-Marie Trevelyan will remain International Development Secretary until early September , when the new department will be formally established .
Work is starting immediately on the merger .
But Preet Kaur Gill has suggested to LabourList that the opposition party will not abolish her role or the shadow international development team , and would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next election .
“ It ’ s really important that we maintain the independence of DfID , that we absolutely recognise its global reach and reputation and expertise that it has and I ’ m really pleased that Keir is very much committed to that , ” Gill said .
“ He absolutely is a champion for global social justice and so we will continue as we are , and we will continue to hold the government to account .
I think that ’ s absolutely right .
It ’ s the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do.
” She added : “ For Labour , what we are very clear on , we ’ re internationalists… Four years is a long time in politics , a lot can change .
But I absolutely know that Keir and the Labour Party are absolutely committed to an independent DfID .
“ Because , like I said , it ’ s been unnecessary for the government to take this course of action .
That ’ s going to be our position , and I think it ’ s really important that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will feel confident that we will have an independent DfID.
” The Shadow International Development Secretary noted that “ many ” Tory MPs were unhappy with the merger .
“ Not only do they feel it ’ s unnecessary , but they understand that this is a Prime Minister who is just in retreat.
” Asked whether Labour would work with Tory MPs opposing the move , she said : “ Absolutely .
This is an opposition party that is going to work constructively with the government , it already has and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is really good relations with those people who have been quite vocal , people like Andrew Mitchell for example , who has come out quite scathing of the government.
” LabourList ‘ s full video interview with Preet Kaur Gill MP from tonight can be viewed on YouTube or on Facebook .

Labour will not “mirror” new government plans put forward by Boris Johnson this week to scrap the Department for International Development, LabourList can reveal.
In an exclusive interview with LabourList, Shadow International Development Secretary Preet Kaur Gill said Labour remains “absolutely committed to an independent DfID”.
The shadow cabinet member explained: “Labour is not prepared to mirror what the government is doing – because we just absolutely do not believe in that.”
Boris Johnson announced on Tuesday that the government would be abolishing the Department for International Development, which he called a “giant cashpoint in the sky”.
It is understood that Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, will lead the new department, and there are no plans for a second Secretary of State or a Deputy Foreign Secretary.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan will remain International Development Secretary until early September, when the new department will be formally established. Work is starting immediately on the merger.
But Preet Kaur Gill has suggested to LabourList that the opposition party will not abolish her role or the shadow international development team, and would pledge to re-establish the department at the next election.
“It’s really important that we maintain the independence of DfID, that we absolutely recognise its global reach and reputation and expertise that it has and I’m really pleased that Keir is very much committed to that,” Gill said.
“He absolutely is a champion for global social justice and so we will continue as we are, and we will continue to hold the government to account. I think that’s absolutely right. It’s the very thing that Labour members would expect us to do.”
She added: “For Labour, what we are very clear on, we’re internationalists… Four years is a long time in politics, a lot can change. But I absolutely know that Keir and the Labour Party are absolutely committed to an independent DfID.
“Because, like I said, it’s been unnecessary for the government to take this course of action. That’s going to be our position, and I think it’s really important that we retain that. I think most people will feel confident that we will have an independent DfID.”
The Shadow International Development Secretary noted that “many” Tory MPs were unhappy with the merger. “Not only do they feel it’s unnecessary, but they understand that this is a Prime Minister who is just in retreat.”
Asked whether Labour would work with Tory MPs opposing the move, she said: “Absolutely. This is an opposition party that is going to work constructively with the government, it already has and will continue to do so.”
“There is really good relations with those people who have been quite vocal, people like Andrew Mitchell for example, who has come out quite scathing of the government.”
LabourList‘s full video interview with Preet Kaur Gill MP from tonight can be viewed on YouTube or on Facebook.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Exclusive: Labour needs “major overhaul” to win again, says election review

Labour needs a “ major overhaul ” of its “ political strategy , organisation and campaigning infrastructure ” to win again , according to the Labour Together 2019 general election review .
LabourList – which jointly commissioned the review – can now reveal details of the 140-page report that brought together views from across the movement to assess last year ’ s result and campaign .
The project commissioners included MPs Ed Miliband , Shabana Mahmood , Lucy Powell , plus journalist Ellie Mae O ’ Hagan , TSSA ’ s Manuel Cortes and former John McDonnell aide James Meadway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters everywhere compared with 2017 , except in London ” , the review declares that the party “ must change how we campaign and reset our relationship with the public ” .
Its findings are based on evidence and analysis from YouGov , Datapraxis , the British Election Study , submissions from groups such as Momentum and Progress , 50 interviews and 11,000 survey responses .
The report notes that Labour “ lost support on all sides ” in 2019 – around 1.7 million Leave voters and around one million Remain voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and failed to attract swing voters .
Labour lost roughly equal numbers of Remain ( 1.9 million ) and Leave ( 1.8 million ) voters between 2017 and 2019 .
But it also gained around 900,000 Remain voters , while only winning over around 100,000 Leave voters .
Although one of Labour ’ s aims under Jeremy Corbyn was to attract non-voters , it was also identified that the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in turning out non-voters in 2019 .
The review says the “ terrible defeat ” experienced by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not paralysing ” – but also warns that the scale of the challenge can not be underestimated .
“ To win a majority of one , we would need to increase our number of MPs by 60 % up by 123 seats – something no major party has ever done , ” the report states .
A swing of over 10 % would be needed to win in 2024 .
It says the “ broad consensus ” across the party , reflected in the survey results , is that concerns over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manifesto damaged Labour ’ s chances .
But observing that the surprising 2017 result “ masked ” the foreshadowing of Labour ’ s 2019 defeat , the review concludes that the roots of the loss “ stretch back over the last two decades ” .
It advises the party now led by Keir Starmer not to be complacent about seats it currently holds , as many were retained with slim majorities and there are high levels of switching and tactical voting among them .
In chapters exploring Labour ’ s 2019 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ unprepared for an election , with no clear message ” and its media strategy “ meant policies didn ’ t have time to land ” .
Labour lost the online campaign , according to the report , while the Tory approach – making use of proxies , online forums and Facebook groups – lent itself well to organic shares and “ distributed spin ” .
The review comes out strongly in favour of community organising , though says it needs to be “ integrated ” , as well as opening up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks .
“ We need to make community organising central to what we do as a party and modernise our approach to doorstep canvassing by putting relationship-building at its heart , ” it recommends .
It stresses that an overhaul of Labour ’ s digital tools is essential , saying : “ Labour needs to invest in and upgrade its technological infrastructure and capacities and should adapt its working culture and structures to match.
” Work has also been done to identify a political strategy that could build a broad enough coalition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic agenda ” and a “ robust story of community and national pride ” .
Commenting on the review , commissioner Ed Miliband said : “ This report is not a counsel of gloom and despair for our party but a call for realism about the situation we face , a determination to learn lessons and change things .
“ It is not a call either for minimalist politics .
The next election will be a change election and Labour must be the agents of that change… We on this commission all believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also now a Labour frontbencher , added : “ We shouldn ’ t make the mistake , which we often do , of thinking that having a new leader and Brexit being resolved will automatically change our electoral fortunes .
“ Our disconnect goes further back and is deeper than that .
This report provides an opportunity to build shared understanding and common objectives and to put infighting behind us.
” Commenting on the publication of the review tonight , a Labour Party spokesperson said : “ We thank everyone who contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Labour party is welcome and we will read it carefully .
By harnessing our collective skills and energy we will build a party and a movement that wins again.
” The full report will be published at 6am on Friday at electionreview.labourtogether.uk .

Labour needs a “major overhaul” of its “political strategy, organisation and campaigning infrastructure” to win again, according to the Labour Together 2019 general election review.
LabourList – which jointly commissioned the review – can now reveal details of the 140-page report that brought together views from across the movement to assess last year’s result and campaign.
The project commissioners included MPs Ed Miliband, Shabana Mahmood, Lucy Powell, plus journalist Ellie Mae O’Hagan, TSSA’s Manuel Cortes and former John McDonnell aide James Meadway.
Noting that Labour lost “types of voters everywhere compared with 2017, except in London”, the review declares that the party “must change how we campaign and reset our relationship with the public”.
Its findings are based on evidence and analysis from YouGov, Datapraxis, the British Election Study, submissions from groups such as Momentum and Progress, 50 interviews and 11,000 survey responses.
The report notes that Labour “lost support on all sides” in 2019 – around 1.7 million Leave voters and around one million Remain voters in net terms, compared to 2017 – and failed to attract swing voters.
Labour lost roughly equal numbers of Remain (1.9 million) and Leave (1.8 million) voters between 2017 and 2019. But it also gained around 900,000 Remain voters, while only winning over around 100,000 Leave voters.
Although one of Labour’s aims under Jeremy Corbyn was to attract non-voters, it was also identified that the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in turning out non-voters in 2019.
The review says the “terrible defeat” experienced by the party last year should be “mobilising, not paralysing” – but also warns that the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated.
“To win a majority of one, we would need to increase our number of MPs by 60% up by 123 seats – something no major party has ever done,” the report states. A swing of over 10% would be needed to win in 2024.
It says the “broad consensus” across the party, reflected in the survey results, is that concerns over the leadership, Brexit position and deliverability of the manifesto damaged Labour’s chances.
But observing that the surprising 2017 result “masked” the foreshadowing of Labour’s 2019 defeat, the review concludes that the roots of the loss “stretch back over the last two decades”.
It advises the party now led by Keir Starmer not to be complacent about seats it currently holds, as many were retained with slim majorities and there are high levels of switching and tactical voting among them.
In chapters exploring Labour’s 2019 campaign, the review finds that the party was “unprepared for an election, with no clear message” and its media strategy “meant policies didn’t have time to land”.
Labour lost the online campaign, according to the report, while the Tory approach – making use of proxies, online forums and Facebook groups – lent itself well to organic shares and “distributed spin”.
The review comes out strongly in favour of community organising, though says it needs to be “integrated”, as well as opening up local parties and engaging more with volunteer networks.
“We need to make community organising central to what we do as a party and modernise our approach to doorstep canvassing by putting relationship-building at its heart,” it recommends.
It stresses that an overhaul of Labour’s digital tools is essential, saying: “Labour needs to invest in and upgrade its technological infrastructure and capacities and should adapt its working culture and structures to match.”
Work has also been done to identify a political strategy that could build a broad enough coalition of voters, offering a “big change economic agenda” and a “robust story of community and national pride”.
Commenting on the review, commissioner Ed Miliband said: “This report is not a counsel of gloom and despair for our party but a call for realism about the situation we face, a determination to learn lessons and change things.
“It is not a call either for minimalist politics. The next election will be a change election and Labour must be the agents of that change… We on this commission all believe in this transformative politics.”
Lucy Powell, also now a Labour frontbencher, added: “We shouldn’t make the mistake, which we often do, of thinking that having a new leader and Brexit being resolved will automatically change our electoral fortunes.
“Our disconnect goes further back and is deeper than that. This report provides an opportunity to build shared understanding and common objectives and to put infighting behind us.”
Commenting on the publication of the review tonight, a Labour Party spokesperson said: “We thank everyone who contributed to this independent report.
“Its attempt to understand the challenges and opportunities facing the Labour party is welcome and we will read it carefully. By harnessing our collective skills and energy we will build a party and a movement that wins again.”
The full report will be published at 6am on Friday at electionreview.labourtogether.uk.


labourlist--2020-06-18--Labour cannot be ‘Remain’ or ‘rejoin’ – but it must be internationalist

There can be little doubt that Labour has started to make political progress .
Our leadership and party are rising in the polls and the true nature of right-wing nationalism is becoming more apparent .
We have a long way to go , but we have made a good start to recovering from the disastrous 2019 election .
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to winning that election lies in Scotland , and Keir Starmer has shown himself to be aware of the scale of that challenge .
Our defeat in 2015 was heavily influenced by the ability of the Tories to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependant on the SNP .
That could be repeated next time but , in fact , there is an even bigger danger .
Scotland currently sends a net balance of nearly 50 opposition MPs to the House of Commons , and that has been true since 2010 .
Getting rid of the Scottish MPs would increase Boris Johnson ’ s majority by more than 50 % – and there could be a readily available way of achieving that .
If the nationalist alliance – the SNP and Greens – retain their majority in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will press for another referendum on ‘ independence ’ , or withdrawal from the UK .
Johnson has always said that he is totally opposed to this move .
For those who know his constant inconsistency , this must be worrying .
He has no selfish interest in maintaining the union and little emotional attachment to it or anything else that does not directly benefit him .
You might think that the Scottish election would be decided on issues related to the SNP ’ s performance in governing .
But they do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will make their appeal by trying to add internationally minded voters to their nationalist base .
In particular , they will say that they can offer Scotland the benefits of full cooperation with Europe on workers ’ rights and environmental protections .
This will be contrasted with the no deal or weak deal that is likely to emerge from the essentially stalled Brexit negotiations .
Any failure will be blamed on Labour ’ s apparent acquiescence to the government ’ s approach .
Labour , too , supports a full deal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the negotiations to the government and has applied no significant pressure to come to an agreement .
Johnson adamantly refuses to enter into a legally binding settlement with the EU on the fairness or green agenda .
This is justified on the nationalistic grounds of sovereignty but is based on hard right-wing thinking .
He hopes that it will enable him to conclude a permanent economic pact with Trump .
This right-wing approach has very little public support .
It is a million miles from what was promised in the 2016 referendum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British public is to run down the clock on the negotiations to eliminate the possibility of the sort of cooperation with the EU that they want .
That is why the government has refused any consideration of an extension , despite the massive disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic .
There is now very little chance of an extension , and that could pose serious problems for Labour .
If there is no deal , the SNP will blame Labour for failing to press for more time .
If there is a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be smeared as red Tories .
If the party opposes it , it will be blamed for not acting sooner .
The only answer is to articulate an internationalist and progressive agenda for the future relationship .
Brexit-style nationalism has been in decline since 2016 as people realise what is involved .
It has always been unpopular in Scotland and it is this that gives a Johnson/SNP combination their chance – but it is also increasingly so in England and Wales .
We should not be frightened to underline the international aspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s approach can not be ‘ Remain ’ – and certainly not ‘ rejoin ’ , which is simply not a political possibility .
It is about protecting our planet and giving people a chance in life as opposed to the slash and burn philosophy of Donald Trump .
However , if we are to avoid the trap that lies ahead of us we must articulate clearly that full cooperation with the EU is a vital protection against extreme , right-wing politics .
When the Americans get rid of Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible and we must be ready to play our part in that .
Until then , we must be vigilant against the manoeuvring of Johnson , Trump , Dominic Cummings , and the like .

There can be little doubt that Labour has started to make political progress. Our leadership and party are rising in the polls and the true nature of right-wing nationalism is becoming more apparent. We have a long way to go, but we have made a good start to recovering from the disastrous 2019 election.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to winning that election lies in Scotland, and Keir Starmer has shown himself to be aware of the scale of that challenge. Our defeat in 2015 was heavily influenced by the ability of the Tories to worry English voters that we would be dependant on the SNP. That could be repeated next time but, in fact, there is an even bigger danger.
Scotland currently sends a net balance of nearly 50 opposition MPs to the House of Commons, and that has been true since 2010. Getting rid of the Scottish MPs would increase Boris Johnson’s majority by more than 50% – and there could be a readily available way of achieving that.
If the nationalist alliance – the SNP and Greens – retain their majority in the Scottish parliament next May, they will press for another referendum on ‘independence’, or withdrawal from the UK. Johnson has always said that he is totally opposed to this move. For those who know his constant inconsistency, this must be worrying. He has no selfish interest in maintaining the union and little emotional attachment to it or anything else that does not directly benefit him.
You might think that the Scottish election would be decided on issues related to the SNP’s performance in governing. But they do not intend that to be the case. They will make their appeal by trying to add internationally minded voters to their nationalist base. In particular, they will say that they can offer Scotland the benefits of full cooperation with Europe on workers’ rights and environmental protections. This will be contrasted with the no deal or weak deal that is likely to emerge from the essentially stalled Brexit negotiations. Any failure will be blamed on Labour’s apparent acquiescence to the government’s approach.
Labour, too, supports a full deal. But it has been content to leave the negotiations to the government and has applied no significant pressure to come to an agreement. Johnson adamantly refuses to enter into a legally binding settlement with the EU on the fairness or green agenda. This is justified on the nationalistic grounds of sovereignty but is based on hard right-wing thinking. He hopes that it will enable him to conclude a permanent economic pact with Trump.
This right-wing approach has very little public support. It is a million miles from what was promised in the 2016 referendum. The only way to force it on the British public is to run down the clock on the negotiations to eliminate the possibility of the sort of cooperation with the EU that they want. That is why the government has refused any consideration of an extension, despite the massive disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic.
There is now very little chance of an extension, and that could pose serious problems for Labour. If there is no deal, the SNP will blame Labour for failing to press for more time. If there is a deal and Labour welcomes it, the party will be smeared as red Tories. If the party opposes it, it will be blamed for not acting sooner. The only answer is to articulate an internationalist and progressive agenda for the future relationship.
Brexit-style nationalism has been in decline since 2016 as people realise what is involved. It has always been unpopular in Scotland and it is this that gives a Johnson/SNP combination their chance – but it is also increasingly so in England and Wales. We should not be frightened to underline the international aspect of protecting people and the environment. Labour’s approach cannot be ‘Remain’ – and certainly not ‘rejoin’, which is simply not a political possibility. It is about protecting our planet and giving people a chance in life as opposed to the slash and burn philosophy of Donald Trump.
However, if we are to avoid the trap that lies ahead of us we must articulate clearly that full cooperation with the EU is a vital protection against extreme, right-wing politics. When the Americans get rid of Trump, a new alliance for progress will be possible and we must be ready to play our part in that. Until then, we must be vigilant against the manoeuvring of Johnson, Trump, Dominic Cummings, and the like.