labourlist--2020-07-17--Labour must hold the government to account for gambling with lives and jobs

After months of closure , pubs and restaurants opened their doors on July 4th following the earlier reopening of non-essential shops .
Although welcomed by most Tory backbenchers , these reopenings are still an enormous gamble for the government as Britain ’ s rate of Covid infection remains higher than nearly all other European countries .
While data from the EU shows that most countries have only seen localised outbreaks of Covid after easing lockdowns , the story from America is completely different .
The US is seeing record numbers of daily cases , which are now beginning to translate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Britain could go either way .
If the government ’ s bet does not pay off , the consequences could be dire .
A nationwide rise in the level of infection will need to be met with a nationwide return of lockdown measures , or risk thousands of further preventable deaths .
A return of stricter measures would obviously hit hospitality and retail businesses , which may have to close again as they have done in Leicester , but it would also blow a huge hole in public confidence that no number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A second wave would be a tragedy for public health , but also for the economy and jobs .
The government ’ s calculation in taking such an enormous gamble must be that it believes it can avoid blame if it goes wrong .
Its rebuke to those who questioned the wisdom of re-opening has been : ‘ we are trusting the public ’ .
But this pushes the accountability for preventing a second wave onto the public , and sets up ordinary people to take the fall if they do not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll for JL Partners suggests that 59 % of the public would put the blame on people not following lockdown rules as opposed to only 33 % blaming the government .
The primary duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe , but Boris Johnson ’ s administration has not provided the right infrastructure or messaging to enable Britons to adequately protect themselves .
At the beginning of the crisis , it was clear that people should stay at home .
But since this instruction was abandoned in favour of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government communication has become more confused .
Professor Susan Michie , director for the centre for behaviour change at UCL and a member of the government ’ s SAGE committee , said : “ We need clear , coherent and consistent messaging .
Despite months of criticisms of poor government communication by professionals and public alike , this is still not being achieved e.g .
Johnson and Michael Gove recently giving different messages on face masks to the media instead of giving clear advice directly to the public.
” The messaging around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is equally unclear .
There is a widespread assumption that its main purpose is to find out where the virus is .
In fact , the system is designed to prevent transmission of the disease .
Although those who have symptoms of Covid-19 should already be in isolation , we know that people are at their most infectious a few days after they have caught the disease but before they become symptomatic .
Test and trace is designed to find the close contacts of infected people and ask them to self-isolate so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unaware of it , they will not be out in the community and potentially spreading the virus further .
But many people remain unaware of the need to get tested if they develop symptoms , and self-isolation of contacts is voluntary .
Astonishingly , the government does not even publish the number of people who are isolating , despite this being the main aim of the system .
Director of the clinical operational research unit at UCL professor Christina Pagel , who is part of Independent SAGE , told me : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace results shows that the system is still far from world beating and , more concerningly , there is little evidence of any improvement since the start of test , trace and isolate ( TTI ) five weeks ago .
There seems to be no plan to address this and the government , which once boasted of having a world class system in place by June 1st , barely mentions it anymore and had to abandon their app.
” She also warned against the rapid re-opening of the economy .
“ It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the impact of loosening restrictions on new cases , ” she explained .
“ So phases of opening should be widely spaced apart to make sure new infections are under control before loosening restrictions further .
The less effective your TTI system , the longer you should wait between opening phases because you can ’ t be sure that you are catching outbreaks quickly .
The government is currently waiting two to three weeks between reopenings – gyms are the fourth major relaxation since schools partially reopened at the beginning of June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great TTI infrastructure and so I really think the government needs to slow down the reopening.
” As Professor Pagel noted , it takes time for the effects of looser restrictions to be seen in the data , so if there is little change in the numbers dying from Covid in the next few weeks , we should not necessarily be congratulating the government on getting it right .
This is particularly true because evidence from America suggests that new infections are occurring disproportionately among younger people who are less likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not live in hermetically sealed bubbles and eventually are likely to pass the virus onto those who are more vulnerable .
If infections do start rising , it is vitally important the government is held to account for taking an irresponsible gamble with people ’ s lives and jobs .
The JL Partners ’ poll showed that older people in particular are likely to say they will blame the public rather than politicians for a rise in infections .
This hands the Tories an opportunity to fan the flames of an intergenerational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the elderly .
Johnson ’ s recent attempts to hold care workers responsible for the devastating outbreaks of Covid in care homes show how quickly the government will resort to blaming others .
Labour needs to be at the forefront of rejecting the misleading and divisive narratives that the government will almost certainly try to deploy .

After months of closure, pubs and restaurants opened their doors on July 4th following the earlier reopening of non-essential shops. Although welcomed by most Tory backbenchers, these reopenings are still an enormous gamble for the government as Britain’s rate of Covid infection remains higher than nearly all other European countries. While data from the EU shows that most countries have only seen localised outbreaks of Covid after easing lockdowns, the story from America is completely different. The US is seeing record numbers of daily cases, which are now beginning to translate into higher hospitalisation numbers and ultimately deaths. Britain could go either way.
If the government’s bet does not pay off, the consequences could be dire. A nationwide rise in the level of infection will need to be met with a nationwide return of lockdown measures, or risk thousands of further preventable deaths. A return of stricter measures would obviously hit hospitality and retail businesses, which may have to close again as they have done in Leicester, but it would also blow a huge hole in public confidence that no number of half-price restaurant vouchers will repair. A second wave would be a tragedy for public health, but also for the economy and jobs.
The government’s calculation in taking such an enormous gamble must be that it believes it can avoid blame if it goes wrong. Its rebuke to those who questioned the wisdom of re-opening has been: ‘we are trusting the public’. But this pushes the accountability for preventing a second wave onto the public, and sets up ordinary people to take the fall if they do not to behave ‘responsibly’. A recent poll for JL Partners suggests that 59% of the public would put the blame on people not following lockdown rules as opposed to only 33% blaming the government. The primary duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe, but Boris Johnson’s administration has not provided the right infrastructure or messaging to enable Britons to adequately protect themselves.
At the beginning of the crisis, it was clear that people should stay at home. But since this instruction was abandoned in favour of the more ambiguous ‘stay alert’, government communication has become more confused. Professor Susan Michie, director for the centre for behaviour change at UCL and a member of the government’s SAGE committee, said: “We need clear, coherent and consistent messaging. Despite months of criticisms of poor government communication by professionals and public alike, this is still not being achieved e.g. Johnson and Michael Gove recently giving different messages on face masks to the media instead of giving clear advice directly to the public.”
The messaging around the government’s test and trace system is equally unclear. There is a widespread assumption that its main purpose is to find out where the virus is. In fact, the system is designed to prevent transmission of the disease. Although those who have symptoms of Covid-19 should already be in isolation, we know that people are at their most infectious a few days after they have caught the disease but before they become symptomatic. Test and trace is designed to find the close contacts of infected people and ask them to self-isolate so that if they do have Covid but are unaware of it, they will not be out in the community and potentially spreading the virus further. But many people remain unaware of the need to get tested if they develop symptoms, and self-isolation of contacts is voluntary. Astonishingly, the government does not even publish the number of people who are isolating, despite this being the main aim of the system.
Director of the clinical operational research unit at UCL professor Christina Pagel, who is part of Independent SAGE, told me: “The weekly government report on its test and trace results shows that the system is still far from world beating and, more concerningly, there is little evidence of any improvement since the start of test, trace and isolate (TTI) five weeks ago. There seems to be no plan to address this and the government, which once boasted of having a world class system in place by June 1st, barely mentions it anymore and had to abandon their app.”
She also warned against the rapid re-opening of the economy. “It seems to be taking about four weeks to see the impact of loosening restrictions on new cases,” she explained. “So phases of opening should be widely spaced apart to make sure new infections are under control before loosening restrictions further. The less effective your TTI system, the longer you should wait between opening phases because you can’t be sure that you are catching outbreaks quickly. The government is currently waiting two to three weeks between reopenings – gyms are the fourth major relaxation since schools partially reopened at the beginning of June. We don’t have a great TTI infrastructure and so I really think the government needs to slow down the reopening.”
As Professor Pagel noted, it takes time for the effects of looser restrictions to be seen in the data, so if there is little change in the numbers dying from Covid in the next few weeks, we should not necessarily be congratulating the government on getting it right. This is particularly true because evidence from America suggests that new infections are occurring disproportionately among younger people who are less likely to be seriously ill. However, young people do not live in hermetically sealed bubbles and eventually are likely to pass the virus onto those who are more vulnerable.
If infections do start rising, it is vitally important the government is held to account for taking an irresponsible gamble with people’s lives and jobs. The JL Partners’ poll showed that older people in particular are likely to say they will blame the public rather than politicians for a rise in infections. This hands the Tories an opportunity to fan the flames of an intergenerational conflict between ‘irresponsible’ young people and the elderly. Johnson’s recent attempts to hold care workers responsible for the devastating outbreaks of Covid in care homes show how quickly the government will resort to blaming others. Labour needs to be at the forefront of rejecting the misleading and divisive narratives that the government will almost certainly try to deploy.


labourlist--2020-07-17--Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Lloyd Russell-Moyle has quit his shadow ministerial role following a series of incidents that attracted criticism and press attention .
According to his resignation statement , the position became “ untenable ” due to “ a campaign by the right-wing media ” that “ unleashed a torrent of online hate and daily calls of harassment ” .
Most recently , the Brighton MP was criticised by the Jewish Labour Movement after an old social media post emerged in which he described Zionism as a “ dangerous nationalist idea ” .
There was also much criticism over his JK Rowling comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked , there are now two fewer Socialist Campaign Group MPs on the Labour frontbench .
Meanwhile , the government is in a stunning mess over coronavirus , and it is getting worse .
Sir Patrick Vallance told MPs yesterday that the work from home guidance should be kept in place , though Boris Johson is expected to drop the advice at a press conference this morning .
The chief scientific adviser also revealed that the advisory group ( SAGE ) had expressed support for a lockdown starting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Matt Hancock ’ s response ?
He simply claimed that lockdown did start on the 16th .
You can see why the Health Secretary would say that – the delay likely cost thousands of lives – but the audacity of telling such a blatant untruth is pretty astounding , even from this lot .
We were all here , Matt , we know what happened !
To reassure the public , the Prime Minister will be announcing today an extra £3bn for the NHS in England in preparation for a possible second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set out two new objectives : keeping the Nightingale hospitals open until March , and increasing testing capacity to 500,000 a day .
The NHS certainly needs a boost : workers are reporting greater mental health problems including increases in post-traumatic stress disorder ; there could be a resurgence of the virus ; the lockdown itself has had a health impact ; and the service is pushed to the brink every winter anyway .
But will it be enough ?
The government-commissioned report ( which Johnson apparently couldn ’ t be bothered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst-case scenario ” would be up to 120,000 more Covid hospital patient deaths .
Finally , I should mention that I ’ m going on holiday .
This week-long break is going to be a proper one – no scrolling Twitter , no replying to emails , no sly sub-editing .
LabourList will be left in the very capable hands of our reporter Elliot , so you won ’ t be missing out on any morning emails and there will be plenty of news and comment .
I expect that the publication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if only because the Tories are trying to deflect attention by dragging Jeremy Corbyn back into the fray .
There may be no smoking gun in the report , but why has No 10 gone to such lengths to block its release ?
This is one of the threads LabourList will pull at .
Have a great weekend .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Lloyd Russell-Moyle has quit his shadow ministerial role following a series of incidents that attracted criticism and press attention. According to his resignation statement, the position became “untenable” due to “a campaign by the right-wing media” that “unleashed a torrent of online hate and daily calls of harassment”. Most recently, the Brighton MP was criticised by the Jewish Labour Movement after an old social media post emerged in which he described Zionism as a “dangerous nationalist idea”. There was also much criticism over his JK Rowling comments, which minimised male violence against women. With Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked, there are now two fewer Socialist Campaign Group MPs on the Labour frontbench.
Meanwhile, the government is in a stunning mess over coronavirus, and it is getting worse. Sir Patrick Vallance told MPs yesterday that the work from home guidance should be kept in place, though Boris Johson is expected to drop the advice at a press conference this morning. The chief scientific adviser also revealed that the advisory group (SAGE) had expressed support for a lockdown starting on March 16th, rather than March 23rd. Matt Hancock’s response? He simply claimed that lockdown did start on the 16th. You can see why the Health Secretary would say that – the delay likely cost thousands of lives – but the audacity of telling such a blatant untruth is pretty astounding, even from this lot. We were all here, Matt, we know what happened!
To reassure the public, the Prime Minister will be announcing today an extra £3bn for the NHS in England in preparation for a possible second wave this winter. He will also set out two new objectives: keeping the Nightingale hospitals open until March, and increasing testing capacity to 500,000 a day. The NHS certainly needs a boost: workers are reporting greater mental health problems including increases in post-traumatic stress disorder; there could be a resurgence of the virus; the lockdown itself has had a health impact; and the service is pushed to the brink every winter anyway. But will it be enough? The government-commissioned report (which Johnson apparently couldn’t be bothered to read) warned that a “reasonable worst-case scenario” would be up to 120,000 more Covid hospital patient deaths.
Finally, I should mention that I’m going on holiday. This week-long break is going to be a proper one – no scrolling Twitter, no replying to emails, no sly sub-editing. LabourList will be left in the very capable hands of our reporter Elliot, so you won’t be missing out on any morning emails and there will be plenty of news and comment. I expect that the publication of the Russia report will generate interest – if only because the Tories are trying to deflect attention by dragging Jeremy Corbyn back into the fray. There may be no smoking gun in the report, but why has No 10 gone to such lengths to block its release? This is one of the threads LabourList will pull at. Have a great weekend. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-17--There must be no backsliding from Labour on internationalism

Labour ’ s attention is rightly focused on the big-ticket issues of the day , like the Chancellor ’ s summer statement and the government ’ s confused and confusing response to Covid-19 .
Internal party matters may be lower down the list of priorities in these difficult times , but don ’ t let the last-minute opportunity to influence our international policy pass you by .
Responding to appeals from local parties , Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) decided to extend the deadline for responses to the party ’ s policy consultation by a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you can take a few minutes to comment and vote on the submissions of others and/or post your own views until Monday , July 20th .
Many of us can identify shortfalls in the national policy forum ( NPF ) process .
But , in a year when no annual conference will take place , this is a rare chance for local parties and members to make their views known .
Responses so far on international policy show continued support for the progressive policy agenda Labour has developed – on Palestine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mention just a couple of the most popular posts on the international policy commission page .
It would be unwise , however , to imagine that motions passed by annual conference or even policies contained in the NPF ’ s annual report can be banked on .
The consultation document suggests that everything is up for grabs in the post-Covid era .
Take just one example : Venezuela .
The international section of the 2019 NPF report to conference included the following passage : In ‘ Championing internationalism in the post-coronavirus world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , this generally supportive statement morphed into something more critical : “ there are unresolved political tensions where human security and civil liberties are regularly by-passed , such as in… Venezuela ” .
This shift in emphasis was not presented to the international policy commission in the draft we considered before publication .
In another example of policy slide , and despite Britain ’ s disastrous military incursions in Iraq , Libya and elsewhere , the notion of humanitarian military intervention is creeping back into our dialogue .
There is little support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the interventionist wars of the last decade , which caused the Labour government ’ s reputation to nosedive and contributed to our 2010 defeat .
A YouGov poll in February this year , for example , showed 54 % of Labour Party members viewed Stop the War Coalition favourably , compared to the 14 % who took an unfavourable view .
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the consequences of neoliberalism : cuts in public expenditure , deregulation and privatisation have all contributed to rolling back the advances made by working people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the end of World War Two .
There is little acknowledgement of this overarching reality in the international policy consultation , however .
Responses to the pandemic have already shown that a new way forward is possible , based on social solidarity and notions of human security .
In a post-Brexit , post-coronavirus world , Britain can begin to build a new global role .
To do so , we must heed the advice of Black Lives Matter , recognise our imperialist past , and begin to build a non-aligned foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
Labour ’ s post-Covid internationalism starts with reaffirming our commitment to the primacy of peace and justice .
As the world emerges from the coronavirus crisis , there will be an opportunity to remake relationships at home and abroad .
That means developing policies that : • defend the right to national self-determination ; • uphold international law and working through global institutions such as the UN , WHO and the ILO .
We must argue to take this opportunity .
Contributing to the international policy consultation is one small way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step along this road .

Labour’s attention is rightly focused on the big-ticket issues of the day, like the Chancellor’s summer statement and the government’s confused and confusing response to Covid-19. Internal party matters may be lower down the list of priorities in these difficult times, but don’t let the last-minute opportunity to influence our international policy pass you by.
Responding to appeals from local parties, Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) decided to extend the deadline for responses to the party’s policy consultation by a few weeks. By visiting the policy forum, you can take a few minutes to comment and vote on the submissions of others and/or post your own views until Monday, July 20th. Many of us can identify shortfalls in the national policy forum (NPF) process. But, in a year when no annual conference will take place, this is a rare chance for local parties and members to make their views known.
Responses so far on international policy show continued support for the progressive policy agenda Labour has developed – on Palestine and UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, to mention just a couple of the most popular posts on the international policy commission page. It would be unwise, however, to imagine that motions passed by annual conference or even policies contained in the NPF’s annual report can be banked on.
The consultation document suggests that everything is up for grabs in the post-Covid era. Take just one example: Venezuela. The international section of the 2019 NPF report to conference included the following passage:
“The Commission considered the ongoing situation in Venezuela having received submissions which unanimously voiced opposition to the US interference in the country. The Commission agreed that the people of Venezuela should determine their own democratic future, free from external influence or military force.”
In ‘Championing internationalism in the post-coronavirus world’, the consultation document published in May, this generally supportive statement morphed into something more critical: “there are unresolved political tensions where human security and civil liberties are regularly by-passed, such as in… Venezuela”. This shift in emphasis was not presented to the international policy commission in the draft we considered before publication.
In another example of policy slide, and despite Britain’s disastrous military incursions in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, the notion of humanitarian military intervention is creeping back into our dialogue. There is little support from the public or within the party for the interventionist wars of the last decade, which caused the Labour government’s reputation to nosedive and contributed to our 2010 defeat. A YouGov poll in February this year, for example, showed 54% of Labour Party members viewed Stop the War Coalition favourably, compared to the 14% who took an unfavourable view.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the consequences of neoliberalism: cuts in public expenditure, deregulation and privatisation have all contributed to rolling back the advances made by working people in the developed economies of the Global North since the end of World War Two. There is little acknowledgement of this overarching reality in the international policy consultation, however.
Responses to the pandemic have already shown that a new way forward is possible, based on social solidarity and notions of human security. In a post-Brexit, post-coronavirus world, Britain can begin to build a new global role. To do so, we must heed the advice of Black Lives Matter, recognise our imperialist past, and begin to build a non-aligned foreign policy, independent of Trump and the United States.
Labour’s post-Covid internationalism starts with reaffirming our commitment to the primacy of peace and justice. As the world emerges from the coronavirus crisis, there will be an opportunity to remake relationships at home and abroad. That means developing policies that:
defend the right to national self-determination;
seek conflict resolution not foreign military adventures;
uphold international law and working through global institutions such as the UN, WHO and the ILO.
We must argue to take this opportunity. Contributing to the international policy consultation is one small way that you can help Labour take a step along this road.


labourlist--2020-07-18--Steve Turner wins United Left backing to succeed Len McCluskey

Steve Turner has won the backing of United Left , the biggest left-wing organisation within Unite the Union , in the race to succeed incumbent Len McCluskey as the affiliated trade union ’ s next general secretary .
The UL group , only open to Unite members , held an online hustings today in which Turner and Howard Beckett sought to become the left-wing candidate in next year ’ s Unite general secretary election .
The result was remarkably close , with Turner winning 370 votes to 367 on a turnout of more than 65 % .
United Left said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and described the contest outcome as “ stringently reinforced and verified ” .
Jim Kelly , UL national chair , has called for “ unity… to re-energise and continue to deliver a future that unites us ” .
But it is understood that Beckett has not accepted the result , as some members said their ballots were not received .
Unite assistant general secretary Steve Turner is responsible for the manufacturing sector at the union , and has recently contributed to a ‘ Build Back Better ’ series of comment pieces on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turner tweeted : “ RESULT IN and a huge THANK YOU for your support… 38 years ago when I joined our union as a bus conductor I would never have thought I could one day have been your @ ULnational candidate for general secretary .
“ The confidence you ’ ve put in me humbled me and I will never let you down !
I want to thank @ BeckettUnite for a great campaign between comrades and look forward to bringing our left together as we move forward in the coming fight to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started his union life as a bus conductor in 1982 , and soon became a shop steward who was active in the T & G ’ s youth section .
He is now national chair of the People ’ s Assembly Against Austerity .
The campaign video put out by Beckett , an ally of McCluskey and Unite ’ s assistant general secretary for politics and legal , set out a manifesto including proposals such as a new Unite TV channel .
Beckett criticised Starmer – for sacking left-wingers Richard Burgon , Ian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cabinet , amongst other things – whereas Turner was relatively positive about the Labour leader .
Unite executive officer Sharon Graham is also understood to be standing in the 2021 general secretary election , but the organising unit director – now working on the # BABetrayal campaign – did not seek United Left ’ s support .
McCluskey was first elected as general secretary in 2010 , and twice re-elected to the position .
His term is due to end in 2022 but a successor will be chosen earlier with an election taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other largest party-affiliated unions are also set to see changes of leadership , with UNISON ’ s Dave Prentis retiring at the end of 2020 and GMB currently picking a replacement for Tim Roache who resigned in April .

Steve Turner has won the backing of United Left, the biggest left-wing organisation within Unite the Union, in the race to succeed incumbent Len McCluskey as the affiliated trade union’s next general secretary.
The UL group, only open to Unite members, held an online hustings today in which Turner and Howard Beckett sought to become the left-wing candidate in next year’s Unite general secretary election.
The result was remarkably close, with Turner winning 370 votes to 367 on a turnout of more than 65%. United Left said there was more than 50% attendance, and described the contest outcome as “stringently reinforced and verified”.
Jim Kelly, UL national chair, has called for “unity… to re-energise and continue to deliver a future that unites us”. But it is understood that Beckett has not accepted the result, as some members said their ballots were not received.
Unite assistant general secretary Steve Turner is responsible for the manufacturing sector at the union, and has recently contributed to a ‘Build Back Better’ series of comment pieces on LabourList.
Commenting on the result, Turner tweeted: “RESULT IN and a huge THANK YOU for your support… 38 years ago when I joined our union as a bus conductor I would never have thought I could one day have been your @ULnational candidate for general secretary.
“The confidence you’ve put in me humbled me and I will never let you down! I want to thank @BeckettUnite for a great campaign between comrades and look forward to bringing our left together as we move forward in the coming fight to keep our union left!”
Turner started his union life as a bus conductor in 1982, and soon became a shop steward who was active in the T&G’s youth section. He is now national chair of the People’s Assembly Against Austerity.
The campaign video put out by Beckett, an ally of McCluskey and Unite’s assistant general secretary for politics and legal, set out a manifesto including proposals such as a new Unite TV channel.
Beckett criticised Starmer – for sacking left-wingers Richard Burgon, Ian Lavery and Rebecca Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet, amongst other things – whereas Turner was relatively positive about the Labour leader.
Unite executive officer Sharon Graham is also understood to be standing in the 2021 general secretary election, but the organising unit director – now working on the #BABetrayal campaign – did not seek United Left’s support.
McCluskey was first elected as general secretary in 2010, and twice re-elected to the position. His term is due to end in 2022 but a successor will be chosen earlier with an election taking place next year.
Two of the other largest party-affiliated unions are also set to see changes of leadership, with UNISON’s Dave Prentis retiring at the end of 2020 and GMB currently picking a replacement for Tim Roache who resigned in April.


labourlist--2020-07-18--Tory faith in the private sector is proving calamitous – Ashworth’s Covid-19 update

It ’ s been a calamitous week for the government and its supposedly “ world-beating ” test and trace system .
First , we saw that the government suddenly paused all Randox home testing kits after it was found that they did not meet safety standards .
There has been a great deal of secrecy around the testing regime and for the government to now say that some tests are being withdrawn for safety reasons without further explanation is just not good enough .
Ministers should explain as a matter of urgency just what the problem is , how long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accuracy of previous tests is now in doubt .
It ’ s the latest in a long line of failures from government on test and trace : swabs have been recalled , contact tracing hasn ’ t met its targets , Serco have filled call centres with people not doing anything .
And all of this is costing taxpayers £10bn .
We saw on Thursday that the government ’ s solution is to hand even more money over to management consultancy McKinsey , which was asked by the Department of Health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance and form of the NHS Test and Trace programme , just as nearly all the programme ’ s top executives prepare to leave their jobs in the coming weeks .
From the start of this crisis , there has been an ideological faith in the private sector that has not been justified by their performance .
Typical Tory outsourcing has led to a poorer response , and the devastating consequence is my city Leicester being forced to remain in lockdown .
In yesterday ’ s press conference , Boris Johnson said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ substantial progress ” .
But data published this week shows that across a number of measures things have recently been getting worse , not better .
The government ’ s own figures show that the proportion of tests being done in 24 hours is falling .
Last week , 55 % of tests were done in 24 hours , down to 50.6 % this week .
Johnson promised that by the end of June , 100 % of non-home tests would be done in 24 hours .
But data this week reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being received within that timeframe .
In fact , all three types of test – regional testing sites , mobile testing unit , satellite testing units – are getting slower .
The government made a terrible judgment suspending track and trace in early March .
We ’ ve wasted precious time when we should have been building up tracing capacity , develop protocols and recruiting staff .
And it was a significant misjudgement not to put the local public health experts at the heart of this new operation .
Local government directors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – alongside other key local government staff such as environmental health officers , who know their local patch – have years of experience in contact tracing and case finding .
They must now be fully mobilised to spearhead tracing .
This is another failure of their own making .
Ministers need to get a grip of this situation : instead of handing contracts over to an ad hoc mishmash of private firms and wasting more money on management consultants , they should invest in local public health services and give local directors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the lead in hunting down this virus and eliminating it .

It’s been a calamitous week for the government and its supposedly “world-beating” test and trace system. First, we saw that the government suddenly paused all Randox home testing kits after it was found that they did not meet safety standards.
There has been a great deal of secrecy around the testing regime and for the government to now say that some tests are being withdrawn for safety reasons without further explanation is just not good enough. Ministers should explain as a matter of urgency just what the problem is, how long they have known about it and whether the accuracy of previous tests is now in doubt.
It’s the latest in a long line of failures from government on test and trace: swabs have been recalled, contact tracing hasn’t met its targets, Serco have filled call centres with people not doing anything. And all of this is costing taxpayers £10bn.
We saw on Thursday that the government’s solution is to hand even more money over to management consultancy McKinsey, which was asked by the Department of Health and Social Care this week to review the governance and form of the NHS Test and Trace programme, just as nearly all the programme’s top executives prepare to leave their jobs in the coming weeks.
From the start of this crisis, there has been an ideological faith in the private sector that has not been justified by their performance. Typical Tory outsourcing has led to a poorer response, and the devastating consequence is my city Leicester being forced to remain in lockdown.
In yesterday’s press conference, Boris Johnson said the government’s testing regime had made “substantial progress”. But data published this week shows that across a number of measures things have recently been getting worse, not better. The government’s own figures show that the proportion of tests being done in 24 hours is falling. Last week, 55% of tests were done in 24 hours, down to 50.6% this week.
Johnson promised that by the end of June, 100% of non-home tests would be done in 24 hours. But data this week reveals that only two thirds of non-home tests are being received within that timeframe. In fact, all three types of test – regional testing sites, mobile testing unit, satellite testing units – are getting slower.
The government made a terrible judgment suspending track and trace in early March. We’ve wasted precious time when we should have been building up tracing capacity, develop protocols and recruiting staff.
And it was a significant misjudgement not to put the local public health experts at the heart of this new operation. Local government directors of public health and public health staff – alongside other key local government staff such as environmental health officers, who know their local patch – have years of experience in contact tracing and case finding. They must now be fully mobilised to spearhead tracing.
This is another failure of their own making. Ministers need to get a grip of this situation: instead of handing contracts over to an ad hoc mishmash of private firms and wasting more money on management consultants, they should invest in local public health services and give local directors and teams the daily data they need to take the lead in hunting down this virus and eliminating it.


labourlist--2020-07-19--Mark Drakeford to step down after 2021 election

First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford has reaffirmed his intention to step down from the head of the devolved administration during his next term if re-elected in the 2021 election .
Drakeford told BBC Politics Wales this morning that his “ plan hasn ’ t changed ’ , and explained that his 70th birthday would “ be time for somebody else to have a chance to do this job ” .
The Welsh Labour leader argued that “ this is the normal pattern of things here in Wales ” , pointing out that Carwyn Jones had led the party into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drakeford in 2018 .
Asked whether he had changed his plans , he said : “ If we ’ re successful I will form a government , I will serve as head of that government well in to the next Senedd term and then my plan will be to hand it on to somebody else in advance of an election .
“ It will be time for somebody else to do this difficult and demanding job .
As well as a job , it is a privilege to have had the opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stand for the leadership in 2018 , Drakeford had said that he would lead Labour into the next election before stepping down for a “ new generation of leaders to put themselves forward ” .
The First Minister won the Welsh Labour leadership election in December 2018 , securing 53.9 % of the votes on the second round of counting and beating Vaughan Gething and Eluned Morgan .

First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford has reaffirmed his intention to step down from the head of the devolved administration during his next term if re-elected in the 2021 election.
Drakeford told BBC Politics Wales this morning that his “plan hasn’t changed” and explained that his 70th birthday would “be time for somebody else to have a chance to do this job”.
The Welsh Labour leader argued that “this is the normal pattern of things here in Wales”, pointing out that Carwyn Jones had led the party into the last election before handing over to Drakeford in 2018.
Asked whether he had changed his plans, he said: “If we’re successful I will form a government, I will serve as head of that government well in to the next Senedd term and then my plan will be to hand it on to somebody else in advance of an election.
“It will be time for somebody else to do this difficult and demanding job. As well as a job, it is a privilege to have had the opportunity to fill.”
When he announced his intention to stand for the leadership in 2018, Drakeford had said that he would lead Labour into the next election before stepping down for a “new generation of leaders to put themselves forward”.
The First Minister won the Welsh Labour leadership election in December 2018, securing 53.9% of the votes on the second round of counting and beating Vaughan Gething and Eluned Morgan.


labourlist--2020-07-19--Sunday shows: “We got it wrong on Russia,” says Nandy

Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy discussed China ’ s treatment of the Uighar Muslims , and said that Labour had “ got it wrong ” in relation to Russia and the Salisbury attack .
• Asked if the Chinese government ’ s treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province amounts to genocide : “ Well it certainly looks that way.
” • She added : “ One very quick and simple thing that the UK could , and should , be doing is to impose sanctions on the Chinese officials involved.
” • Asked about Russia and the NHS documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t in the shadow cabinet at the time and I don ’ t know how those documents were obtained or why they were used.
” • On whether the party should have used the documents : “ I can see why a Labour leader who was concerned to defend the NHS would.
” • Asked if she would have used them : “ No , if I was making that decision , if Keir Starmer was making that decision , and we knew that they ’ d come from Russian agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use them.
” • On Russia : “ We got it wrong on Russia when the Salisbury attack happened… We should not have equivocated or prevaricated.
” • She added : “ We weren ’ t just failing to be tough on the Russian authoritarian regime… we also let the Tories off the hook for being too complacent and too slow to respond.
” • On Shamima Begum : “ The law was on the side of bringing her back to the UK , because it ’ s not legal to deny someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stateless.
” • On what the Home Secretary should have done when the case first emerged : “ [ He ] should have taken proper legal advice to see whether it was possible to deal with this case overseas… What he did was play to the gallery.
” • She added : “ A precedent may have been set where many other people may return as well .
Now , I ’ m not sure that we ’ re prepared for that , and I think that the blame for that lies squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ A precedent may have been set where many other people may return as well ” Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy says “ the blame lies squarely at the Conservative government ’ s door ” in response to Shamima Begum returning to the UK # Marr https : //t.co/hf0WxswIgW pic.twitter.com/Cw754ZzGFI Dominic Raab appeared on the show this morning as well .
He told viewers that the government thinks that the Shamima Begum ruling is wrong and will be seeking to appeal the decision .
The Foreign Secretary also discussed the offer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holders in Hong Kong , saying that the government would not “ put a cap on number ” of people that can come to the UK .
On getting people back to work in the pandemic , he said : “ We trust employers to say that , you know , we do need more people coming back to work – and so we ’ re giving them that discretion.
” Nandy also appeared on Ridge on Sunday this morning .
She discussed the Prime Minister ’ s comments on Friday about localised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China and Russia .
• On the PM ’ s comments : “ Well it ’ s right to implement local or national lockdowns if they ’ re needed , but I think he ’ s right to aspire to open up the economy again to get things moving.
” • On the local lockdown strategy : “ There are great gaping holes in the plan that the PM announced on Friday… many people aren ’ t coming out of their houses , they aren ’ t spending again in the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On what the government needs to do : “ We need to see far more contacts traced and told to isolate far more quickly , because the government is actually going backwards on that .
And we need a mass winter flu vaccination programme.
” • On China : “ We ’ ve got to be in a position first and foremost to safeguard our national security , and while Chinese investment is very welcome in the UK there are serious concerns… that we shouldn ’ t be handing over large chunks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ If we had acted sooner , if the government had paid heed to the warnings… then we wouldn ’ t be in a position now where the roll out of 5G is delayed and the costs have increased.
” • On human rights in China : “ We ’ re appalled by what is emerging out of the Xinjiang province… I ’ m also very concerned about the pattern of behaviour that is emerging from the Chinese government.
” • On that pattern of behaviour : “ We can not stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behaviour where freedom , democracy , the rule of law and human rights are abused and do nothing about it at all.
” • On what the government should do : “ Freeze the assets of any of the Chinese officials that are involved in those human rights abuses… The UK should not be a haven for people who abuse human rights overseas.
” • Asked if Labour has been naive on Russia : “ We got it wrong on Russia… When the Salisbury attack happened we prevaricated , we equivocated , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemical weapons had been used.
” • On the Tories ’ approach : “ The Conservatives have been desperately slow to wake up to the threat that is posed by the current Putin administration… We ’ ve got to have a much more strategic approach to Russia , or we will pay the price.
” • On Shamima Begum : “ We had a Home Secretary who shot from the hip , who tried to play to the gallery , and as a consequence we now face a real problem.
” • She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a fair trial… but it sets a precedent .
So , many other people may now return from overseas and it ’ s not at all clear that the UK is prepared for that.
” • She added : “ We could have avoided this mess if the Home Secretary had taken proper legal advice , observed the rule of law and handled this process properly in the first place.
” • Asked if Labour is “ siding ” with someone who joined Islamic State : “ I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined IS… This is about saying that people who take those actions must face justice.
” • On Harry Dunn : “ The first thing that would really help the family… is to be honest .
There are real inconsistencies in the account that the Foreign Secretary has given about how Anne Sacoolas came to leave the UK.
” • She added : “ If this happened to your child – I mean I would want to know that the British government was on my side .
That it wasn ’ t working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person who did it off the hook.
” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab insisted that the government is “ on the side of the family ” in the Harry Dunn case , and that the case would be discussed during the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s visit next week .
On incorrect reporting of Covid-19 deaths , he argued that “ there ’ s always been issues and methodological questions that we ’ ve been constantly trying to streamline ” .
The Foreign Secretary said that “ we need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China – but insisted that the government wants to maintain a “ positive relationship ” with the country .
He also said that the government had reviewed the UK ’ s extradition arrangements with the country and that he will be updating parliament “ on the conclusion of that review , along with other things that we ’ ve been looking at ” tomorrow .

The Andrew Marr Show
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy discussed China’s treatment of the Uighar Muslims, and said that Labour had “got it wrong” in relation to Russia and the Salisbury attack.
Asked if the Chinese government’s treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province amounts to genocide: “Well it certainly looks that way.”
She added: “One very quick and simple thing that the UK could, and should, be doing is to impose sanctions on the Chinese officials involved.”
Asked about Russia and the NHS documents uncovered during the election: “I wasn’t in the shadow cabinet at the time and I don’t know how those documents were obtained or why they were used.”
On whether the party should have used the documents: “I can see why a Labour leader who was concerned to defend the NHS would.”
Asked if she would have used them: “No, if I was making that decision, if Keir Starmer was making that decision, and we knew that they’d come from Russian agents then of course we wouldn’t use them.”
On Russia: “We got it wrong on Russia when the Salisbury attack happened… We should not have equivocated or prevaricated.”
She added: “We weren’t just failing to be tough on the Russian authoritarian regime… we also let the Tories off the hook for being too complacent and too slow to respond.”
On Shamima Begum: “The law was on the side of bringing her back to the UK, because it’s not legal to deny someone a fair trial or to make them stateless.”
On what the Home Secretary should have done when the case first emerged: “[He] should have taken proper legal advice to see whether it was possible to deal with this case overseas… What he did was play to the gallery.”
She added: “A precedent may have been set where many other people may return as well. Now, I’m not sure that we’re prepared for that, and I think that the blame for that lies squarely at the Conservative government’s door.”
“A precedent may have been set where many other people may return as well” Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy says “the blame lies squarely at the Conservative government’s door” in response to Shamima Begum returning to the UK#Marr https://t.co/hf0WxswIgW pic.twitter.com/Cw754ZzGFI — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 19, 2020
Dominic Raab appeared on the show this morning as well. He told viewers that the government thinks that the Shamima Begum ruling is wrong and will be seeking to appeal the decision.
The Foreign Secretary also discussed the offer of citizenship made to British national overseas passport holders in Hong Kong, saying that the government would not “put a cap on number” of people that can come to the UK.
On getting people back to work in the pandemic, he said: “We trust employers to say that, you know, we do need more people coming back to work – and so we’re giving them that discretion.”
Ridge on Sunday
Nandy also appeared on Ridge on Sunday this morning. She discussed the Prime Minister’s comments on Friday about localised lockdowns and the UK’s relationship with China and Russia.
On the PM’s comments: “Well it’s right to implement local or national lockdowns if they’re needed, but I think he’s right to aspire to open up the economy again to get things moving.”
On the local lockdown strategy: “There are great gaping holes in the plan that the PM announced on Friday… many people aren’t coming out of their houses, they aren’t spending again in the economy because they’re nervous.”
On what the government needs to do: “We need to see far more contacts traced and told to isolate far more quickly, because the government is actually going backwards on that. And we need a mass winter flu vaccination programme.”
On China: “We’ve got to be in a position first and foremost to safeguard our national security, and while Chinese investment is very welcome in the UK there are serious concerns… that we shouldn’t be handing over large chunks of our key infrastructure.”
On Huawei: “If we had acted sooner, if the government had paid heed to the warnings… then we wouldn’t be in a position now where the roll out of 5G is delayed and the costs have increased.”
On human rights in China: “We’re appalled by what is emerging out of the Xinjiang province… I’m also very concerned about the pattern of behaviour that is emerging from the Chinese government.”
On that pattern of behaviour: “We cannot stand by while we see a pattern of behaviour where freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are abused and do nothing about it at all.”
On what the government should do: “Freeze the assets of any of the Chinese officials that are involved in those human rights abuses… The UK should not be a haven for people who abuse human rights overseas.”
Asked if Labour has been naive on Russia: “We got it wrong on Russia… When the Salisbury attack happened we prevaricated, we equivocated, we called for dialogue at a moment when chemical weapons had been used.”
On the Tories’ approach: “The Conservatives have been desperately slow to wake up to the threat that is posed by the current Putin administration… We’ve got to have a much more strategic approach to Russia, or we will pay the price.”
On Shamima Begum: “We had a Home Secretary who shot from the hip, who tried to play to the gallery, and as a consequence we now face a real problem.”
She explained: “She has the right to a fair trial… but it sets a precedent. So, many other people may now return from overseas and it’s not at all clear that the UK is prepared for that.”
She added: “We could have avoided this mess if the Home Secretary had taken proper legal advice, observed the rule of law and handled this process properly in the first place.”
Asked if Labour is “siding” with someone who joined Islamic State: “I don’t think that is about siding with someone who joined IS… This is about saying that people who take those actions must face justice.”
On Harry Dunn: “The first thing that would really help the family… is to be honest. There are real inconsistencies in the account that the Foreign Secretary has given about how Anne Sacoolas came to leave the UK.”
She added: “If this happened to your child – I mean I would want to know that the British government was on my side. That it wasn’t working with other countries in order to let the person who did it off the hook.”
"We got it wrong on Russia" says Lisa Nandy and adds, "the Conservatives have been desperately slow to wake up to the threat that is posed by the current Putin administration". #Ridge Follow live: https://t.co/OePBk0iRj4 pic.twitter.com/Ab72RpiGNI — Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) July 19, 2020
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab insisted that the government is “on the side of the family” in the Harry Dunn case, and that the case would be discussed during the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit next week.
On incorrect reporting of Covid-19 deaths, he argued that “there’s always been issues and methodological questions that we’ve been constantly trying to streamline”.
The Foreign Secretary said that “we need to be very careful in our dealings” with China – but insisted that the government wants to maintain a “positive relationship” with the country.
He also said that the government had reviewed the UK’s extradition arrangements with the country and that he will be updating parliament “on the conclusion of that review, along with other things that we’ve been looking at” tomorrow.


labourlist--2020-07-20--UK must align export finance with Paris agreement obligations, says Labour

Labour has urged the government to align the UK ’ s export finance with the country ’ s climate change obligations under the Paris agreement .
In a letter to the Business Secretary today , Labour ’ s Matthew Pennycook called on the government to take urgent action ahead of the COP26 UN climate summit next year to “ ensure the UK remains credible on climate change ” .
The shadow climate change minister highlighted that between 2013 and 2018 , 96 % of support for global energy projects from the UK ’ s export credit agency UK Export Finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also referenced a report from the committee on climate change , which said that UKEF “ is not aligned with climate goals , and often supports high-carbon investments ” .
He outlined four demands : • “ End all financing of new overseas fossil fuel projects and review the decision to use public money to underwrite the Mozambique onshore LNG project ; • “ Change UKEF ’ s mandate to ensure that any financing provided by it is aligned with the UK ’ s climate commitments and the Paris agreement ; • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OECD export credit agencies to ensure multilateral action towards net zero emissions by taking up the EAC ’ s recommendations from last June ; and • “ Bring forward a just transition plan for affected British workers to retrain and reemploy them in decent , long term jobs in renewable projects instead.
” Commenting on the call , a spokesperson for Labour for a Green New Deal said : “ This is a vital and urgent intervention from Labour .
The UK isn ’ t just failing to take climate action at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colonialism abroad .
“ We fully support Labour ’ s call to end international fossil fuel finance , a key demand of our campaign in recent months .
The Party should also renew our commitments to provide technology and finance to global south countries as part of a just transition .
“ As we look towards a green recovery , we hope Labour matches this plan for a global just transition with an ambitious plan for a Green New Deal at home .
“ Labour should extend the green retraining and jobs guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our own carbon-intensive industries .
With Siberia burning and thousands of workers losing their jobs , there ’ s no time to lose.
” UKEF is the country ’ s export credit agency and a government department .
It works alongside the Department for International Trade and helps UK companies access export finance .
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the government today .
I am writing to you as the Minister with lead responsibility for tackling climate change regarding the need for consistency across government policy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the crucial COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow next year .
As you know , we are at the start of the decisive decade in the fight against runaway global heating .
COP26 , now rescheduled for November 2021 , will be a critical moment in that fight .
As the first country in the world to industrialise , the world ’ s sixth-largest economy and the summit ’ s host , we have a particular responsibility to make it a success .
Establishing the credibility of our COP26 Presidency depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here at home with action to make up the ground lost over recent years and put us on track for net zero emissions .
The need to rebuild our economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic presents the government with a once in a generation opportunity to bring forward an ambitious stimulus package geared towards the rapid decarbonisation of our economy ; one that would create swathes of new jobs across the country , lay the foundations for an enhanced 2030 climate pledge and build momentum in the lead up to COP26 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racing ahead , we risk slipping behind .
The energy efficiency measures set out in the summer statement were welcome but what has been announced to date in no way amounts to the “ green recovery ” that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised .
Narrowing the gulf between the government ’ s rhetoric on climate action and the reality is going to require far more domestic ambition before the year ’ s end .
However , the credibility of our COP26 Presidency also rests on the consistency of our actions abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact and I note that just this month , you used your London Climate Action Week keynote address to state your commitment to making sure that “ climate risk is factored into every single investment decision taken around the world ” [ 1 ] .
Yet over the last decade the government has directed £6 billion of public money into fossil fuel projects around the world via UK Export Finance ( ‘ UKEF ’ ) [ 2 ] , the UK ’ s export credit agency .
Indeed , between 2013 and 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of UKEF ’ s support for global energy projects went to fossil fuel ventures – the vast majority of which ( £2.4 billion ) was channelled in projects in low and middle-income countries [ 3 ] .
In May 2019 , a report from the Committee on Climate Change made clear that UKEF “ is not aligned with climate goals , and often supports high-carbon investments ” [ 4 ] .
Similarly , in June 2019 , the House of Commons ’ Environment Audit Committee ( ‘ EAC ’ ) found that UKEF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s international climate and development targets ” and called for UKEF to end its support for new fossil fuel projects by 2021 and to align all its investments with the UK ’ s 2050 net zero target [ 5 ] .
Those recommendations have so far been ignored .
Instead , at this year ’ s UK-Africa Investment Summit , 90 % of the £2bn invested in energy deals went into fossil fuel projects [ 6 ] with the government committing at that summit only to end UKEF support for overseas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the UK has not provided finance for overseas coal projects since 2012 [ 7 ] .
Just last month , it was reported that UKEF will provide a £1bn loan guarantee for Mozambique ’ s first onshore gas pipeline which , on completion , will account for 10 % of that country ’ s greenhouse gas emissions [ 8 ] .
When it comes to the climate crisis , the government ’ s deeds need to consistently match its words .
It is clear that the government ’ s support for overseas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line with the UK ’ s obligations under the Paris Agreement , which commits signatories to make “ finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development ” [ 9 ] .
What is more , by backing these projects , we send a strong signal about their viability to other investors ; de-risking them , crowding in further financing , and locking low and middle-income countries into high-carbon dependency for decades to come .
Nor is it at all clear that investing in such schemes provides value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Paris-complaint world most will not be economically competitive and will become stranded assets [ 10 ] .
As the Conservative MP and current chair of the EAC Philip Dunne said last month , “ such investments look very poor value for British taxpayers compared with renewable alternatives ” [ 11 ] .
The government has highlighted [ 12 ] the jobs in the UK oil and gas sector that could be put at risk by ending support for fossil fuel projects abroad .
This is a legitimate concern and one that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the right policies , job creation in clean energy industries will exceed affected oil and gas jobs more than threefold in the years ahead [ 13 ] .
Rather than ducking this issue and simply storing up problems for the future , the government must align its policies at home and abroad with the transition that we know must take place and bring forward the investment and support necessary to help those whose jobs currently depend on the financing of overseas oil and gas projects begin the transition to the low-carbon industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different approach .
The government has an opportunity to match its stated net zero priorities at home with its practices abroad , and to show the leadership and consistency required from its COP Presidency to make next year ’ s summit a success .
As such , we are asking the government to : • End all financing of new overseas fossil fuel projects and review the decision to use public money to underwrite the Mozambique onshore LNG project ; • Change UKEF ’ s mandate to ensure that any financing provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s climate commitments and the Paris agreement ; • Leverage UKEF ’ s position among other OECD export credit agencies to ensure multilateral action towards net zero emissions by taking up the EAC ’ s recommendations from last June ; and • Bring forward a just transition plan for affected British workers to retrain and reemploy them in decent , long term jobs in renewable projects instead .
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience .

Labour has urged the government to align the UK’s export finance with the country’s climate change obligations under the Paris agreement.
In a letter to the Business Secretary today, Labour’s Matthew Pennycook called on the government to take urgent action ahead of the COP26 UN climate summit next year to “ensure the UK remains credible on climate change”.
The shadow climate change minister highlighted that between 2013 and 2018, 96% of support for global energy projects from the UK’s export credit agency UK Export Finance went to fossil fuel ventures.
Pennycook also referenced a report from the committee on climate change, which said that UKEF “is not aligned with climate goals, and often supports high-carbon investments”. He outlined four demands:
“End all financing of new overseas fossil fuel projects and review the decision to use public money to underwrite the Mozambique onshore LNG project; “Change UKEF’s mandate to ensure that any financing provided by it is aligned with the UK’s climate commitments and the Paris agreement; “Leverage UKEF’s position among other OECD export credit agencies to ensure multilateral action towards net zero emissions by taking up the EAC’s recommendations from last June; and “Bring forward a just transition plan for affected British workers to retrain and reemploy them in decent, long term jobs in renewable projects instead.”
Commenting on the call, a spokesperson for Labour for a Green New Deal said: “This is a vital and urgent intervention from Labour. The UK isn’t just failing to take climate action at home – it’s actively fuelling climate colonialism abroad.
“We fully support Labour’s call to end international fossil fuel finance, a key demand of our campaign in recent months. The Party should also renew our commitments to provide technology and finance to global south countries as part of a just transition.
“As we look towards a green recovery, we hope Labour matches this plan for a global just transition with an ambitious plan for a Green New Deal at home.
“Labour should extend the green retraining and jobs guarantee Matt Pennycook rightly calls for to plans for our own carbon-intensive industries. With Siberia burning and thousands of workers losing their jobs, there’s no time to lose.”
UKEF is the country’s export credit agency and a government department. It works alongside the Department for International Trade and helps UK companies access export finance.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the government today.
Dear Alok,
UK credibility on climate change
I am writing to you as the Minister with lead responsibility for tackling climate change regarding the need for consistency across government policy to ensure the UK’s credibility ahead of the crucial COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow next year.
As you know, we are at the start of the decisive decade in the fight against runaway global heating. COP26, now rescheduled for November 2021, will be a critical moment in that fight. As the first country in the world to industrialise, the world’s sixth-largest economy and the summit’s host, we have a particular responsibility to make it a success.
Establishing the credibility of our COP26 Presidency depends on demonstrable leadership. That has to begin here at home with action to make up the ground lost over recent years and put us on track for net zero emissions.
The need to rebuild our economy in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic presents the government with a once in a generation opportunity to bring forward an ambitious stimulus package geared towards the rapid decarbonisation of our economy; one that would create swathes of new jobs across the country, lay the foundations for an enhanced 2030 climate pledge and build momentum in the lead up to COP26.
Yet while other major economies are racing ahead, we risk slipping behind. The energy efficiency measures set out in the summer statement were welcome but what has been announced to date in no way amounts to the “green recovery” that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised. Narrowing the gulf between the government’s rhetoric on climate action and the reality is going to require far more domestic ambition before the year’s end.
However, the credibility of our COP26 Presidency also rests on the consistency of our actions abroad. I know that you recognise this fact and I note that just this month, you used your London Climate Action Week keynote address to state your commitment to making sure that “climate risk is factored into every single investment decision taken around the world”[1].
Yet over the last decade the government has directed £6 billion of public money into fossil fuel projects around the world via UK Export Finance (‘UKEF’)[2], the UK’s export credit agency. Indeed, between 2013 and 2018, 96% (£2.5 billion) of UKEF’s support for global energy projects went to fossil fuel ventures – the vast majority of which (£2.4 billion) was channelled in projects in low and middle-income countries[3].
In May 2019, a report from the Committee on Climate Change made clear that UKEF “is not aligned with climate goals, and often supports high-carbon investments”[4]. Similarly, in June 2019, the House of Commons’ Environment Audit Committee (‘EAC’) found that UKEF’s activities were “undermining the UK’s international climate and development targets” and called for UKEF to end its support for new fossil fuel projects by 2021 and to align all its investments with the UK’s 2050 net zero target [5].
Those recommendations have so far been ignored. Instead, at this year’s UK-Africa Investment Summit, 90% of the £2bn invested in energy deals went into fossil fuel projects[6] with the government committing at that summit only to end UKEF support for overseas coal – an easy pledge to make given the UK has not provided finance for overseas coal projects since 2012[7]. Just last month, it was reported that UKEF will provide a £1bn loan guarantee for Mozambique’s first onshore gas pipeline which, on completion, will account for 10% of that country’s greenhouse gas emissions[8].
When it comes to the climate crisis, the government’s deeds need to consistently match its words. It is clear that the government’s support for overseas fossil fuel energy projects is not in line with the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, which commits signatories to make “finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”[9].
What is more, by backing these projects, we send a strong signal about their viability to other investors; de-risking them, crowding in further financing, and locking low and middle-income countries into high-carbon dependency for decades to come.
Nor is it at all clear that investing in such schemes provides value for money for UK taxpayers. In a Paris-complaint world most will not be economically competitive and will become stranded assets[10]. As the Conservative MP and current chair of the EAC Philip Dunne said last month, “such investments look very poor value for British taxpayers compared with renewable alternatives”[11].
The government has highlighted[12] the jobs in the UK oil and gas sector that could be put at risk by ending support for fossil fuel projects abroad. This is a legitimate concern and one that we share. However, research shows that with the right policies, job creation in clean energy industries will exceed affected oil and gas jobs more than threefold in the years ahead[13].
Rather than ducking this issue and simply storing up problems for the future, the government must align its policies at home and abroad with the transition that we know must take place and bring forward the investment and support necessary to help those whose jobs currently depend on the financing of overseas oil and gas projects begin the transition to the low-carbon industries of the future.
We urgently need a different approach. The government has an opportunity to match its stated net zero priorities at home with its practices abroad, and to show the leadership and consistency required from its COP Presidency to make next year’s summit a success.
As such, we are asking the government to:
End all financing of new overseas fossil fuel projects and review the decision to use public money to underwrite the Mozambique onshore LNG project; Change UKEF’s mandate to ensure that any financing provided by it is aligned with the UK’s climate commitments and the Paris agreement; Leverage UKEF’s position among other OECD export credit agencies to ensure multilateral action towards net zero emissions by taking up the EAC’s recommendations from last June; and Bring forward a just transition plan for affected British workers to retrain and reemploy them in decent, long term jobs in renewable projects instead.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Best wishes,
Matthew


labourlist--2020-07-20--Row over childcare ramps up as parents are left in an “impossible position”

Assistant general secretary Steve Turner has secured the backing of United Left ( UL ) in the race to succeed general secretary Len McCluskey .
In an online hustings held by the group on Saturday , he went head-to-head with Howard Beckett before members of the group voted 370 to 367 in favour of Turner .
UL reported that there was over 50 % attendance at the event , describing the contest as “ stringently reinforced and verified ” .
However , supporters of Beckett have released a dossier outlining 30 “ violations ” in the ballot process , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a ballot .
They have suggested that “ had these violations not occurred , Howard Beckett would have recorded more votes than Steve Turner ” .
McCluskey ’ s term is due to end in 2022 but a successor will be chosen earlier with an election taking place next year .
Meanwhile , Lisa Nandy did the rounds on the Sunday politics shows .
She said Labour “ got it wrong on Russia ” in relation to the Salisbury attack , and that the party should not have “ equivocated ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also called for sanctions for Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses relating to the treatment of Uighar Muslims – similar to the way in which the UK is targeting high-ranking Russian officials in the Putin administration .
We can expect to hear more from the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the matter today , as Dominic Raab is due to update parliament on the escalating dispute with China .
He is expected to announce a suspension of Britain ’ s extradition treaty with Hong Kong and Nandy will likely push the government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already rejected her proposal for sanctions .
Elsewhere , Labour is continuing its line of attack on childcare as parents face an increasingly difficult few weeks ahead .
Starmer has accused the government of putting parents in an “ impossible position ” by calling for a return to offices without providing adequate support for childcare .
The Labour leader has pointed out that the PM ’ s announcement on Friday – that the public should return to work – came just as schools broke up for the summer holiday .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boasting of delivering his year-on-year increase in per-pupil funding , one of the Tories ’ 2019 manifesto commitments .
Labour has said that this will still leave children worse off than in 2010 , highlighting analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that the plans don ’ t reverse the cuts in school spending seen over the past decade .
Both Starmer and Johnson will be out visiting schools today to make their points .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Assistant general secretary Steve Turner has secured the backing of United Left (UL) in the race to succeed general secretary Len McCluskey. In an online hustings held by the group on Saturday, he went head-to-head with Howard Beckett before members of the group voted 370 to 367 in favour of Turner. UL reported that there was over 50% attendance at the event, describing the contest as “stringently reinforced and verified”. However, supporters of Beckett have released a dossier outlining 30 “violations” in the ballot process, including claims that some members didn’t receive a ballot. They have suggested that “had these violations not occurred, Howard Beckett would have recorded more votes than Steve Turner”. McCluskey’s term is due to end in 2022 but a successor will be chosen earlier with an election taking place next year.
Meanwhile, Lisa Nandy did the rounds on the Sunday politics shows. She said Labour “got it wrong on Russia” in relation to the Salisbury attack, and that the party should not have “equivocated” or “called for dialogue”. Nandy also called for sanctions for Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses relating to the treatment of Uighur Muslims – similar to the way in which the UK is targeting high-ranking Russian officials in the Putin administration. We can expect to hear more from the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the matter today, as Dominic Raab is due to update parliament on the escalating dispute with China. He is expected to announce a suspension of Britain’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong and Nandy will likely push the government to go further, although the Foreign Secretary has already rejected her proposal for sanctions.
Elsewhere, Labour is continuing its line of attack on childcare as parents face an increasingly difficult few weeks ahead. Starmer has accused the government of putting parents in an “impossible position” by calling for a return to offices without providing adequate support for childcare. The Labour leader has pointed out that the PM’s announcement on Friday – that the public should return to work – came just as schools broke up for the summer holiday. At the same time, Boris Johnson is today boasting of delivering his year-on-year increase in per-pupil funding, one of the Tories’ 2019 manifesto commitments. Labour has said that this will still leave children worse off than in 2010, highlighting analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that the plans don’t reverse the cuts in school spending seen over the past decade. Both Starmer and Johnson will be out visiting schools today to make their points. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-20--We need “sensible implementation plans” for childcare, says Labour

Kate Green has called for “ decent , sensible implementation plans ” to get schools and childcare settings back to full capacity , and has accused the government of a “ tendency to wash its hands of all of that detail ” .
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning , the Shadow Education Secretary reiterated Labour ’ s call for a task force to work towards the return of children to schools in September .
Green said : “ We want to see children back in childcare settings because that ’ s a good experience for children… but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand announcements if you ’ re the government .
“ You ’ ve got to make sure that decent , sensible implementation plans are being put in place and I ’ m afraid the government has a bit of a tendency to wash its hands of all of that detail.
” She added : “ That ’ s why Labour was calling for a task force from the outset so that we can properly plan these things on a cross-party basis with experts in the room , and I ’ m afraid that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government.
” The comments follow the announcement from Boris Johnson on Friday , calling for parents to return to work .
Labour has accused the PM of placing parents in an “ impossible position ” by not also providing adequate support for childcare .
Labour leader Keir Starmer said : “ We all want society to get moving again , but it requires a clear plan and national leadership from the government .
Despite ordering millions of parents back to the office , the Prime Minister has refused to provide any extra help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in an impossible position .
“ Parents got a back-to-work notice on Friday just as the summer holidays began .
But they got no support for structured activities , no summer catch-up schemes , and no support for a childcare sector on its knees .
“ If we are going to reopen our society and economy safely and successfully , we need the public to have confidence in the government ’ s advice , we need test , track and trace to be working properly , and we need proper support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get back to work.
” The call from Green for more detail this morning also comes as Johnson is today unveiling the government ’ s pupil funding plans , boasting a year-on-year increase – one of the Tory manifesto commitments in the 2019 election .
Labour has said that this will still leave children worse off than in 2010 – highlighting analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies , which shows that the plans do not reverse the cuts seen over the past decade .
On funding , Green said : “ Additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it was this Conservative government that cut school budgets for the first time in a generation , and only began to provide additional investment due to tireless campaigning from parents , school staff , and the Labour Party .
“ The fact is schools will still be worse off in 2023 than they were in 2010 under these plans , as a direct result of the Conservatives ’ decision to cut school budgets .
Far more must be done for every child to have the opportunity to reach their full potential @ @

Kate Green has called for “decent, sensible implementation plans” to get schools and childcare settings back to full capacity, and has accused the government of a “tendency to wash its hands of all of that detail”.
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning, the Shadow Education Secretary reiterated Labour’s call for a task force to work towards the return of children to schools in September.
Green said: “We want to see children back in childcare settings because that’s a good experience for children… but you can’t just make these grand announcements if you’re the government.
“You’ve got to make sure that decent, sensible implementation plans are being put in place and I’m afraid the government has a bit of a tendency to wash its hands of all of that detail.”
She added: “That’s why Labour was calling for a task force from the outset so that we can properly plan these things on a cross-party basis with experts in the room, and I’m afraid that’s been totally ignored by the government.”
"The government has a bit of a tendency to wash its hands of all that detail"
Shadow Education Secretary, Kate Green MP, tells #BBCBreakfast schools and nurseries need "sensible implementation plans" for returning to full capacity.
More here: https://t.co/9fR0POBd49 pic.twitter.com/lzsHNNlZek — BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) July 20, 2020
The comments follow the announcement from Boris Johnson on Friday, calling for parents to return to work. Labour has accused the PM of placing parents in an “impossible position” by not also providing adequate support for childcare.
Labour leader Keir Starmer said: “We all want society to get moving again, but it requires a clear plan and national leadership from the government. Despite ordering millions of parents back to the office, the Prime Minister has refused to provide any extra help for families, penalising parents by putting them in an impossible position.
“Parents got a back-to-work notice on Friday just as the summer holidays began. But they got no support for structured activities, no summer catch-up schemes, and no support for a childcare sector on its knees.
“If we are going to reopen our society and economy safely and successfully, we need the public to have confidence in the government’s advice, we need test, track and trace to be working properly, and we need proper support for children to learn and for parents to get back to work.”
The call from Green for more detail this morning also comes as Johnson is today unveiling the government’s pupil funding plans, boasting a year-on-year increase – one of the Tory manifesto commitments in the 2019 election.
Labour has said that this will still leave children worse off than in 2010 – highlighting analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which shows that the plans do not reverse the cuts seen over the past decade.
On funding, Green said: “Additional funding for schools is necessary and welcome, but it was this Conservative government that cut school budgets for the first time in a generation, and only began to provide additional investment due to tireless campaigning from parents, school staff, and the Labour Party.
“The fact is schools will still be worse off in 2023 than they were in 2010 under these plans, as a direct result of the Conservatives’ decision to cut school budgets. Far more must be done for every child to have the opportunity to reach their full potential.”


labourlist--2020-07-20--Starmer hasn’t backed universal basic income. Here’s why he is right

Everyone should be entitled to an income guaranteed not to fall below a level that is sufficient for a decent standard of living .
Most Labour Party members would agree about that .
But what form should it take ?
Mounting calls for a universal basic income ( UBI ) have so far failed to get backing from Keir Starmer ’ s team .
Here ’ s why Starmer is right .
UBI is a proposal to make regular , unconditional cash payments to everyone , whether they need it or not .
That ’ s different from payments guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient level .
The phrase ‘ UBI ’ signals a broad-brush ambition , to which many subscribe without thinking too hard about the practical and political implications .
On the practical side , the cost of paying everyone would be astronomical , even if some of it is later clawed back through taxes .
Familiar measures are listed as a means of paying for UBI : abolish tax allowances , eliminate tax avoidance , tax the rich , tax wealth and so forth .
But it remains very expensive and there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking to spend the same money – from ending a decade of austerity to implementing a green new deal and everything in between .
Most UBI proponents now suggest a ‘ partial ’ payment , arguing that this will provide income security and set us on the right track .
Compass , for example , suggests £60 a week for adults .
But even a relatively generous offer like that would fall well below the poverty line , requiring a range of means-tested , top-up benefits .
Further steps towards a ‘ full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more public funds that are urgently needed in other quarters – to retrofit homes , generate renewable energy , support social care and make sure local councils can function effectively .
By contrast , a guaranteed income scheme , such as that proposed by the New Economics Foundation , is a lot more affordable and cost-effective .
On the political side , the case for UBI is seriously flawed because it is only about money .
We need cash , of course .
But we also rely heavily on a ‘ virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded through taxes .
The value of this social wage is enormous , though we tend to take it for granted .
It is highly redistributive , as it is worth much more to low-income households .
And it reinforces a genuine sense of ‘ being in it together ’ – the social solidarity that is fundamental to Labour .
Earlier this year I published a book , co-authored with Andrew Percy : The Case for Universal Basic Services .
We set out detailed arguments for improving and expanding the social wage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has secure access to life ’ s essentials – according to need , not ability to pay .
Life ’ s essentials are what make it possible to survive , participate in society and flourish .
Healthcare and schooling are obvious examples , but the aim is to improve and expand what we already have – to make childcare , adult social care , housing , transport and internet services available to all as a social entitlement , according to need , not ability to pay .
The list doesn ’ t end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and water , energy , green spaces , libraries , recycling , street lighting , social work , legal aid and policing are part of the same picture .
Few of us can afford to pay directly for these essentials .
They require a collective approach , funded through taxes .
All our services have been catastrophically undermined by a decade of austerity and are in even greater peril as efforts are made to ‘ balance the books ’ after the Covid blow out .
That ’ s why it is so important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing risks so that everyone has access to life ’ s essentials , not just now but in future too .
Compared with UBI , universal basic services ( UBS ) makes better use of public money by investing in the social infrastructure on which all our lives depend .
It costs less by meeting needs collectively and thereby avoiding the moral hazards , transaction costs and profit-extraction of individual payments in the marketplace .
It generates huge social value by building a secure , fair , well-educated , caring and healthy society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymaking in different areas of human need .
There ’ s no nostalgic return to the ‘ good old days ’ of the post-war welfare state .
It involves a radical transformation of how services are designed and delivered , with devolution to localities and active engagement by citizens and service users .
The state provides directly where appropriate but otherwise has four key roles : to ensure equality of access , to collect , distribute and invest funds , to set and enforce standards and to co-ordinate across sectors to get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this approach can deliver substantial benefits in terms of equality , efficiency , solidarity and sustainability .
Progressive supporters of UBI usually insist that they too want more and better services .
But I ’ ve yet to meet anyone who has shown how UBI and UBS fit together or how both could be afforded at the same time .
Once you scratch below the surface sentiment , UBI is not an answer to our current problems , but a distraction .
Unless it is so minimal as to be self defeating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no fiscal space for improving and expanding the services we need .
Its exclusive focus on cash payments to individuals diverts political energy away from the collective purpose of UBS .
So what are the best emergency measures for post-pandemic recovery ?
If our goal is sustainable social justice then what matters is not just money and markets , but caring for each other and working together to make sure everyone gets what they need – reimagining the ambitions of Beveridge and Attlee for our times , and staying within planetary boundaries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most services are labour intensive , dependant on people and relationships more than technology .
It safeguards money income by including an income guarantee .
Crucially , it recognises the limits of cash in hand and the huge value of a generous , secure , collectively controlled social wage .

Everyone should be entitled to an income guaranteed not to fall below a level that is sufficient for a decent standard of living. Most Labour Party members would agree about that. But what form should it take? Mounting calls for a universal basic income (UBI) have so far failed to get backing from Keir Starmer’s team. Here’s why Starmer is right.
UBI is a proposal to make regular, unconditional cash payments to everyone, whether they need it or not. That’s different from payments guaranteed to all whose income falls below a sufficient level. The phrase ‘UBI’ signals a broad-brush ambition, to which many subscribe without thinking too hard about the practical and political implications.
On the practical side, the cost of paying everyone would be astronomical, even if some of it is later clawed back through taxes. Familiar measures are listed as a means of paying for UBI: abolish tax allowances, eliminate tax avoidance, tax the rich, tax wealth and so forth. But it remains very expensive and there’s an even longer list of urgent causes looking to spend the same money – from ending a decade of austerity to implementing a green new deal and everything in between.
Most UBI proponents now suggest a ‘partial’ payment, arguing that this will provide income security and set us on the right track. Compass, for example, suggests £60 a week for adults. But even a relatively generous offer like that would fall well below the poverty line, requiring a range of means-tested, top-up benefits. Further steps towards a ‘full’ and sufficient UBI would absorb more and more public funds that are urgently needed in other quarters – to retrofit homes, generate renewable energy, support social care and make sure local councils can function effectively. By contrast, a guaranteed income scheme, such as that proposed by the New Economics Foundation, is a lot more affordable and cost-effective.
On the political side, the case for UBI is seriously flawed because it is only about money. We need cash, of course. But we also rely heavily on a ‘virtual’ income made up of in-kind benefits funded through taxes. The value of this social wage is enormous, though we tend to take it for granted. It is highly redistributive, as it is worth much more to low-income households. And it reinforces a genuine sense of ‘being in it together’ – the social solidarity that is fundamental to Labour.
Earlier this year I published a book, co-authored with Andrew Percy: The Case for Universal Basic Services. We set out detailed arguments for improving and expanding the social wage. The aim is to make sure everyone has secure access to life’s essentials – according to need, not ability to pay. Life’s essentials are what make it possible to survive, participate in society and flourish. Healthcare and schooling are obvious examples, but the aim is to improve and expand what we already have – to make childcare, adult social care, housing, transport and internet services available to all as a social entitlement, according to need, not ability to pay. The list doesn’t end there, of course. Clean air and water, energy, green spaces, libraries, recycling, street lighting, social work, legal aid and policing are part of the same picture.
Few of us can afford to pay directly for these essentials. They require a collective approach, funded through taxes. All our services have been catastrophically undermined by a decade of austerity and are in even greater peril as efforts are made to ‘balance the books’ after the Covid blow out. That’s why it is so important now to focus on pooling resources and sharing risks so that everyone has access to life’s essentials, not just now but in future too.
Compared with UBI, universal basic services (UBS) makes better use of public money by investing in the social infrastructure on which all our lives depend. It costs less by meeting needs collectively and thereby avoiding the moral hazards, transaction costs and profit-extraction of individual payments in the marketplace. It generates huge social value by building a secure, fair, well-educated, caring and healthy society.
UBS offers a principled framework for policymaking in different areas of human need. There’s no nostalgic return to the ‘good old days’ of the post-war welfare state. It involves a radical transformation of how services are designed and delivered, with devolution to localities and active engagement by citizens and service users. The state provides directly where appropriate but otherwise has four key roles: to ensure equality of access, to collect, distribute and invest funds, to set and enforce standards and to co-ordinate across sectors to get the best results all round. We argue that this approach can deliver substantial benefits in terms of equality, efficiency, solidarity and sustainability.
Progressive supporters of UBI usually insist that they too want more and better services. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who has shown how UBI and UBS fit together or how both could be afforded at the same time. Once you scratch below the surface sentiment, UBI is not an answer to our current problems, but a distraction. Unless it is so minimal as to be self defeating in its own terms, it leaves no fiscal space for improving and expanding the services we need. Its exclusive focus on cash payments to individuals diverts political energy away from the collective purpose of UBS.
So what are the best emergency measures for post-pandemic recovery? If our goal is sustainable social justice then what matters is not just money and markets, but caring for each other and working together to make sure everyone gets what they need – reimagining the ambitions of Beveridge and Attlee for our times, and staying within planetary boundaries. The UBS framework generates secure employment because most services are labour intensive, dependant on people and relationships more than technology. It safeguards money income by including an income guarantee. Crucially, it recognises the limits of cash in hand and the huge value of a generous, secure, collectively controlled social wage.