labourlist--2020-02-17--As Labour’s deputy leader, I would proudly champion the BBC

There is a general rule of thumb I follow in politics : if the Tories want to get rid of something , it ’ s almost certainly worth saving .
That is certainly the case with the BBC .
I love the BBC , and unlike my fellow candidates for Labour deputy leader , I am not ashamed to say so .
I didn ’ t expect the future of something as precious as the BBC to be a dividing line in this contest , but it clearly demonstrates the need for our party to change .
Replacing the BBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an unpardonable folly that will have wide-ranging consequences for our country .
It would force the BBC to sell most of its flagship radio stations and cut down its world-leading website content .
In the era of fake news and conspiracy theory blogs , the BBC is respected around the world for its impartiality .
Taking away people ’ s access to its coverage would be to the detriment of our society .
The fact that extremes in every political movement think the BBC is biased against them suggests that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are boycotting BBC Radio 4 ’ s Today programme , think it is too liberal .
Some in my own party think the BBC is part of the Conservative propaganda machine .
The nationalists in Scotland blame it for their failure to convince people to break up the UK .
In the 2014 independence referendum , nationalist supporters even took to the streets to protest outside the BBC headquarters in Glasgow against its journalists , inflicting major damage on the Yes campaign by turning off most ordinary voters .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The labour movement can not fall into these traps .
We must fight tooth and nail to save the BBC , and defend its impartiality .
It is a key arm of social justice in this country and goes to the very heart of who we are .
There is a reason that extreme nationalists – whether in the SNP or the Tories – want to get rid of it .
Yes , sometimes we can be frustrated with its editorial choices , and it makes mistakes like any media organisation does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British equivalent of Fox News .
That is what the Tories want .
Dominic Cummings looks on enviously at the ludicrously impartial coverage that Donald Trump receives on the network , and he wants that for Boris Johnson .
That is what is at stake here .
The Tories want to evade scrutiny .
They already have an 80-seat majority and can do what they like in parliament .
They don ’ t want pesky journalists asking them too many difficult questions while they take an axe to public services and push people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they boycotting the Today programme , they have even banned selected lobby journalists from briefings .
This is straight from the Alex Salmond and Donald Trump playbook .
It is not a playbook that the Labour Party should ever open .
There is an online 38 Degrees petition to save the BBC , which I have signed , and I encourage other Labour members to do likewise .
The Tories ’ attack on the BBC is an attack on our democracy .
The broadcaster is the envy of the world and is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are .
It ’ s the driver of our creative production ecosystem and makes us laugh , cry , get angry and educated all in one – whether it ’ s Strictly , The Archers or Panorama .
The BBC is an institution that we should be proud of , champion and cherish .
As deputy leader of the Labour Party , that is what I will always do .
Our country would be much diminished without it and we lose it at our peril .

There is a general rule of thumb I follow in politics: if the Tories want to get rid of something, it’s almost certainly worth saving. That is certainly the case with the BBC. I love the BBC, and unlike my fellow candidates for Labour deputy leader, I am not ashamed to say so.
I didn’t expect the future of something as precious as the BBC to be a dividing line in this contest, but it clearly demonstrates the need for our party to change. Replacing the BBC licence fee with a Netflix-style subscription would be an unpardonable folly that will have wide-ranging consequences for our country.
It would force the BBC to sell most of its flagship radio stations and cut down its world-leading website content. In the era of fake news and conspiracy theory blogs, the BBC is respected around the world for its impartiality. Taking away people’s access to its coverage would be to the detriment of our society.
The fact that extremes in every political movement think the BBC is biased against them suggests that it is actually doing things right. The Tories, who are boycotting BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, think it is too liberal. Some in my own party think the BBC is part of the Conservative propaganda machine. The nationalists in Scotland blame it for their failure to convince people to break up the UK.
In the 2014 independence referendum, nationalist supporters even took to the streets to protest outside the BBC headquarters in Glasgow against its journalists, inflicting major damage on the Yes campaign by turning off most ordinary voters. Some of those who protested are now SNP MPs.
The labour movement cannot fall into these traps. We must fight tooth and nail to save the BBC, and defend its impartiality. It is a key arm of social justice in this country and goes to the very heart of who we are. There is a reason that extreme nationalists – whether in the SNP or the Tories – want to get rid of it.
Yes, sometimes we can be frustrated with its editorial choices, and it makes mistakes like any media organisation does. But imagine the alternative: a British equivalent of Fox News. That is what the Tories want. Dominic Cummings looks on enviously at the ludicrously impartial coverage that Donald Trump receives on the network, and he wants that for Boris Johnson. That is what is at stake here.
The Tories want to evade scrutiny. They already have an 80-seat majority and can do what they like in parliament. They don’t want pesky journalists asking them too many difficult questions while they take an axe to public services and push people deeper into poverty.
Not only are they boycotting the Today programme, they have even banned selected lobby journalists from briefings. This is straight from the Alex Salmond and Donald Trump playbook. It is not a playbook that the Labour Party should ever open.
There is an online 38 Degrees petition to save the BBC, which I have signed, and I encourage other Labour members to do likewise. The Tories’ attack on the BBC is an attack on our democracy. The broadcaster is the envy of the world and is the very essence of the kind of country we are. It’s the driver of our creative production ecosystem and makes us laugh, cry, get angry and educated all in one – whether it’s Strictly, The Archers or Panorama.
The BBC is an institution that we should be proud of, champion and cherish. As deputy leader of the Labour Party, that is what I will always do. Our country would be much diminished without it and we lose it at our peril.


labourlist--2020-02-18--Labour Together extends deadline on review survey as over 10,000 take part

Labour Together has announced that the deadline for submissions from Labour members and supporters to its 2019 general election review survey has been extended until 11pm on Sunday , February 23rd .
Those interested in contributing to the work of the commission by Labour Together , a non-factional organisation supportive of the Labour Party , will be able to share their views until the end of the week .
The extension follows the news uncovered by LabourList that ballots in Labour ’ s leadership contests have been delayed by the party , and will now not be sent out until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten days between the close of nominations and the start of voting .
After Labour ’ s heavy general election defeat in December , Labour Together convened a review looking at the reasons for which Labour lost and how the party could chart a route back to power .
The project involves a survey , which has so far received over 10,000 responses from party members and supporters .
Some have completed the survey fully , while others have engaged only with the section that interests them , such as experience of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many members as possible to take part in the survey , in a bid to ensure that the results reflect the breadth of the labour movement and all traditions within the party .
The survey on Labour ’ s 2019 general election campaign can be taken here .

Labour Together has announced that the deadline for submissions from Labour members and supporters to its 2019 general election review survey has been extended until 11pm on Sunday, February 23rd.
Those interested in contributing to the work of the commission by Labour Together, a non-factional organisation supportive of the Labour Party, will be able to share their views until the end of the week.
The extension follows the news uncovered by LabourList that ballots in Labour’s leadership contests have been delayed by the party, and will now not be sent out until February 24th – leaving a gap of ten days between the close of nominations and the start of voting.
After Labour’s heavy general election defeat in December, Labour Together convened a review looking at the reasons for which Labour lost and how the party could chart a route back to power.
The project involves a survey, which has so far received over 10,000 responses from party members and supporters. Some have completed the survey fully, while others have engaged only with the section that interests them, such as experience of the ground campaign.
Labour Together has encouraged as many members as possible to take part in the survey, in a bid to ensure that the results reflect the breadth of the labour movement and all traditions within the party.
The survey on Labour’s 2019 general election campaign can be taken here.


labourlist--2020-02-18--Labour has a historic opportunity to elect a woman as its next leader

The Labour Party prides itself on being the party of working women .
Whilst in government , we introduced Sure Start centres in the most disadvantaged areas of the country and extended maternity pay .
In the 1990s , Labour established all-women shortlists as a way to combat the lack of women representatives in Westminster .
In opposition , Labour ensured that the shadow cabinet was gender-balanced , and fiercely campaigned for women ’ s rights from forcing a review on the gender pay gap to championing the rights of WASPI women .
And the party has also been at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women in Northern Ireland , and advocating for more funding for victims of domestic and sexual violence .
Despite our record on advancing the rights of women , institutional sexism remains rife throughout the structures of the Labour Party .
Meetings can be held at awkward times for those with caring responsibilities and very few events provide creche facilities .
There is little effort to engage working mothers , shift-workers and carers through electronic voting outside of leadership elections .
At the parliamentary level , party staffers are often subject to archaic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westminster culture of silence .
Most recently , transgender women have been subject to horrendous , misogynistic abuse online and in some local Labour groups .
In terms of equality , Labour still has a long way to go .
After over a century of male leadership , the Labour Party now has a historic opportunity to elect our first ever woman as leader .
Yet among a qualified set of women candidates , the only man in the race is topping the polls and could continue the party ’ s long line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that advocates wholeheartedly for equality and a fairer society , it is time for Labour women to lead our movement .
Before the 2019 general election , many acknowledged the need for the next Labour leader to be a woman , including John McDonnell .
Now , the Labour Party is holding a leadership election with a range of women from across the political spectrum .
Yet the ballot has been whittled down to three candidates , with two other women failing to gather the support required from local parties and affiliates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be charismatic and competent , with a credible set of skills and experience .
Lisa Nandy has provided a clear analysis of Labour ’ s mistakes during the general election and recognises the need to regain the trust of our heartlands .
She has based her campaign on local radicalism and giving powers to local councils .
The first mixed race woman to win selection in her Wigan seat , she has reiterated throughout her campaign that leadership has never looked like her – but it certainly can .
Rebecca Long-Bailey has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution and economic democracy ; policies that she spent four years crafting alongside de-industrialised communities .
She has outlined the popularity of Labour ’ s policies but acknowledged the problematic way in which they were presented to the public .
She has called for a democratic revolution and to nationalise utilities , rail and mail , and has ruled out ever engaging with tabloids such as The Sun .
As a strong Northern woman with a forensic approach to policy , she is an impressive candidate .
Emily Thornberry has missed out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominations .
With the most political experience of all the leadership candidates and an impressive record as a human rights lawyer , it is shameful that she struggled to gather support from the membership and affiliated organisations whilst her male counterpart did not .
The Labour Party is now the only mainstream political party that has never elected a woman as leader .
We have two perfectly capable and electable women , each with a distinctive and well-articulated strategy for getting Labour back into power .
If members are genuinely convinced that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate in this contest , then we have completely and utterly failed as a party on equality and don ’ t deserve the trust of the electorate .
After over a century of male leadership , Labour may see two leaders named Keir before we see a woman as leader .
It is time for change .
We have one simple ask of Labour members : vote for the women in the order of your preference , and for the first time ever , let ’ s be bold and leave the male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you think that it is time for Labour to have a woman leader : • Pledge to preference all the women candidates ahead of the men on your ballot .
• Share your pledge with the hashtag # SheShouldLead and tweet us @ Women4Labour pledging your support .
• Email [ email protected ] with a short selfie video clip stating why you think Labour needs a woman leader .
Now is the time .
Let ’ s elect a woman as leader of the Labour Party !

The Labour Party prides itself on being the party of working women. Whilst in government, we introduced Sure Start centres in the most disadvantaged areas of the country and extended maternity pay. In the 1990s, Labour established all-women shortlists as a way to combat the lack of women representatives in Westminster. In opposition, Labour ensured that the shadow cabinet was gender-balanced, and fiercely campaigned for women’s rights from forcing a review on the gender pay gap to championing the rights of WASPI women. And the party has also been at the forefront of extending reproductive rights for women in Northern Ireland, and advocating for more funding for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Despite our record on advancing the rights of women, institutional sexism remains rife throughout the structures of the Labour Party. Meetings can be held at awkward times for those with caring responsibilities and very few events provide creche facilities. There is little effort to engage working mothers, shift-workers and carers through electronic voting outside of leadership elections. At the parliamentary level, party staffers are often subject to archaic and unfair sexual harassment reporting processes within the Westminster culture of silence. Most recently, transgender women have been subject to horrendous, misogynistic abuse online and in some local Labour groups. In terms of equality, Labour still has a long way to go.
After over a century of male leadership, the Labour Party now has a historic opportunity to elect our first ever woman as leader. Yet among a qualified set of women candidates, the only man in the race is topping the polls and could continue the party’s long line of male leaders. As a party that advocates wholeheartedly for equality and a fairer society, it is time for Labour women to lead our movement.
Before the 2019 general election, many acknowledged the need for the next Labour leader to be a woman, including John McDonnell. Now, the Labour Party is holding a leadership election with a range of women from across the political spectrum. Yet the ballot has been whittled down to three candidates, with two other women failing to gather the support required from local parties and affiliates. Both remaining female candidates have shown themselves to be charismatic and competent, with a credible set of skills and experience.
Lisa Nandy has provided a clear analysis of Labour’s mistakes during the general election and recognises the need to regain the trust of our heartlands. She has based her campaign on local radicalism and giving powers to local councils. The first mixed race woman to win selection in her Wigan seat, she has reiterated throughout her campaign that leadership has never looked like her – but it certainly can.
Rebecca Long-Bailey has focused her campaign on the Green Industrial Revolution and economic democracy; policies that she spent four years crafting alongside de-industrialised communities. She has outlined the popularity of Labour’s policies but acknowledged the problematic way in which they were presented to the public. She has called for a democratic revolution and to nationalise utilities, rail and mail, and has ruled out ever engaging with tabloids such as The Sun. As a strong Northern woman with a forensic approach to policy, she is an impressive candidate.
Emily Thornberry has missed out on the leadership ballot by two local party nominations. With the most political experience of all the leadership candidates and an impressive record as a human rights lawyer, it is shameful that she struggled to gather support from the membership and affiliated organisations whilst her male counterpart did not.
The Labour Party is now the only mainstream political party that has never elected a woman as leader. We have two perfectly capable and electable women, each with a distinctive and well-articulated strategy for getting Labour back into power. If members are genuinely convinced that we don’t have a credible woman candidate in this contest, then we have completely and utterly failed as a party on equality and don’t deserve the trust of the electorate.
After over a century of male leadership, Labour may see two leaders named Keir before we see a woman as leader. It is time for change. We have one simple ask of Labour members: vote for the women in the order of your preference, and for the first time ever, let’s be bold and leave the male candidates last on our leadership ballots. If you think that it is time for Labour to have a woman leader:
Pledge to preference all the women candidates ahead of the men on your ballot.
Share your pledge with the hashtag #SheShouldLead and tweet us @Women4Labour pledging your support.
Email [email protected] with a short selfie video clip stating why you think Labour needs a woman leader.
Now is the time. Let’s elect a woman as leader of the Labour Party!


labourlist--2020-02-18--The hiring of Andrew Sabisky was no mistake by 10 Downing Street

Andrew Sabisky once suggested that “ legally enforced contraception ” should be used to “ get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies , creating a permanent underclass ” .
It was a comment made in 2014 , not on the dark web or somewhere difficult to find , but on the very website of Boris Johnson ’ s chief special adviser Dominic Cummings .
That same year , Sabisky argued that black Americans were more likely to suffer from “ intellectual disability ” as “ a consequence of the normal distribution of cognitive ability ” , and appeared to endorse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sport is “ more comparable to the Paralympics than it is to men ’ s ” , and used Reddit to dole out advice on rape fantasies .
Sabisky was hired as a “ super-forecaster ” by the government , but quit last night .
Far from an apologetic resignation , he attributed the reaction to his past comments to “ media hysteria ” and “ selective quoting ” .
This was no mistake by 10 Downing Street .
The hire followed a call , put out on Cummings ’ blog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply for new No 10 jobs .
Sabisky was exactly the kind of employee being sought .
During the Monday lobby briefing , the Prime Minister ’ s spokesperson refused 32 times to comment on the views expressed by Sabisky or say whether Johnson agreed with them .
“ The Prime Minister ’ s views are well-publicised and well-documented , ” was the only response offered .
Well , there ’ s plenty of racism , misogyny and hatred of the poor to be found there , too .
Not that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s chances of success in politics .
Quite the opposite , perhaps : he ’ s so admirably honest and normal !
In a shameless U-turn , the government is now willing to describe the comments as “ racist ” and a minister did so this morning , before urging everyone to “ move on ” from the story .
Labour may want to portray these events as not only exposing the prevalence of vile views at the heart of government , but also revealing a competency issue .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go .
But Cummings has achieved something already .
This will be held up by the right as yet another example of unfair ‘ cancel culture ’ , which sees ‘ liberal elite ’ lobby journalists with too much power stamp all over freedom of speech .
Labour needs a robust plan for dealing with this discourse , and soon .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Andrew Sabisky once suggested that “legally enforced contraception” should be used to “get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies, creating a permanent underclass”. It was a comment made in 2014, not on the dark web or somewhere difficult to find, but on the very website of Boris Johnson’s chief special adviser Dominic Cummings. That same year, Sabisky argued that black Americans were more likely to suffer from “intellectual disability” as “a consequence of the normal distribution of cognitive ability”, and appeared to endorse eugenics. He also tweeted that women’s sport is “more comparable to the Paralympics than it is to men’s”, and used Reddit to dole out advice on rape fantasies. Sabisky was hired as a “super-forecaster” by the government, but quit last night. Far from an apologetic resignation, he attributed the reaction to his past comments to “media hysteria” and “selective quoting”.
This was no mistake by 10 Downing Street. The hire followed a call, put out on Cummings’ blog, for “weirdos and misfits” to apply for new No 10 jobs. Sabisky was exactly the kind of employee being sought. During the Monday lobby briefing, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson refused 32 times to comment on the views expressed by Sabisky or say whether Johnson agreed with them. “The Prime Minister’s views are well-publicised and well-documented,” was the only response offered. Well, there’s plenty of racism, misogyny and hatred of the poor to be found there, too. Not that any of those well-documented views have damaged Johnson’s chances of success in politics. Quite the opposite, perhaps: he’s so admirably honest and normal!
In a shameless U-turn, the government is now willing to describe the comments as “racist” and a minister did so this morning, before urging everyone to “move on” from the story. Labour may want to portray these events as not only exposing the prevalence of vile views at the heart of government, but also revealing a competency issue. After all, in the end, Sabisky had to go. But Cummings has achieved something already. This will be held up by the right as yet another example of unfair ‘cancel culture’, which sees ‘liberal elite’ lobby journalists with too much power stamp all over freedom of speech. Labour needs a robust plan for dealing with this discourse, and soon. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-02-18--The Tories are changing their tune on the economy. Labour must do the same

Those of us who are following Labour ’ s leadership race could be forgiven for thinking that we have collectively travelled back in time .
Like the ghost of Ed Miliband ’ s past , Lisa Nandy ’ s comments on the fiscal viability of the 2019 manifesto and the need for a Labour leader to make “ tough choices ” during the Newsnight leadership hustings served as a reminder that in 2015 Labour tried to beat the Tories by offering austerity-light messaging , and failed .
This line of argument illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of current Conservative thinking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s strategy going forward .
Labour must pay close attention to the forthcoming budget – supposed to be delivered on March 11th , though there may be a delay – as it will give us the clearest insight yet into what kind of government we will be dealing with over the next four years .
The Downing Street shake-up last week , which saw Rishi Sunak replace Sajid Javid , hints at Boris Johnson being committed to an economic policy that will diverge from the simple “ austerity ” narrative advocated by David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are faced with the challenge of holding together a new electoral coalition that stretches from wealthy constituencies to deprived parts of the country .
To consolidate their vote , the plan is to make money available for infrastructure spending , the NHS and social care .
Another piece of the puzzle will be government spending on research and development to encourage private investment .
This , so the logic goes , will stimulate growth , create jobs and level up parts of the country hat have suffered from chronic underdevelopment .
In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s messaging will not say that we are “ all in this together ” during hard times that require tough choices .
This government will tell us that a land of opportunity lies ahead .
It is optimistic , and it urges people to feel proud and excited about the future .
For Labour , this creates a variety of challenges .
Firstly , whilst our messaging and policies should tap into the anger and frustration many people in this country feel , the challenge lies within channelling this anger into a call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than helplessness and despair .
How we talk about the systemic problems of our economic and political system can feel paralysing .
Where to even start with the fightback ?
We must make sure that we do not simply overwhelm the public , and instead give them a tangible idea of things that they can do , and that we will do , to enact change .
Secondly , by pushing out a message along the lines of “ socialism is when the state does things , like investing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat neutralised ourselves in the political debate .
Some public spending , such as for the NHS or the police , are deemed common sense and necessary .
But this does not extend to welfare or local arts and culture projects .
On welfare specifically , the underlying political narrative has not changed .
The Tory manifesto still talked about “ getting people back into work ” as the best route out of poverty .
It is certainly true that job creation will help those who have lost their job due to closure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capability assessments targeting those with illness and disability and a narrative of “ benefit scrounging ” if one can not work is also rooted in this thinking .
This plays into the narrative that portrays a Labour Party supportive of a strong welfare state as paternalistic , one that wants to “ keep people poor ” , while a Conservative government “ understands ” the proud working class that doesn ’ t want “ handouts ” .
This creates the perception of two types of spending – one good ( NHS , police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
As long as the Conservative government comes through on investing in the first , the public will forgive them for neglecting the second , as it is believed that economic growth will solve problems that led to the need for welfare spending in the first place .
Attacking the Tories for softening fiscal rules to make investment in “ good ” public services will not help Labour .
By being “ tough ” on spending , we reinforce their messaging and will still be considered irresponsible for our spending plans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to make the argument for a universalism of all public services .
Should the R & D strategy be successful and attract new businesses that create jobs and increase prosperity across the Midlands and the North of England , it will be tough for Labour to shift the argument on the role of the private sector in leading innovation , which is a classic argument in favour of neoliberal policies of marketisation .
An argument for public ownership and workers ’ control of these industries that will mean we can invest the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , rather than private profit , rests on having made the case for universalism first .
To operate companies in the public interest , rather than to serve the profit motive , will mean that the money it makes can be invested back in our public services rather than line bosses ’ pockets .
It means we can create a higher standard of living for all , by paying for affordable publicly owned housing for all , nationalised rail and bus services , education , arts and culture for the benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that an individual ’ s ability to make money trumps paying for things they might themselves not need or use , we will struggle to beat the Tories .
Labour must make the case for an economy that operates on anti-capitalist principles , rather than for private profit , to pay for universal public services that will serve to empower people .
That is the only way to deconstruct the government ’ s narrative .
Without fundamentally changing how we see the economy , we will forever play catch-up with the Tories in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the class they represent .

Those of us who are following Labour’s leadership race could be forgiven for thinking that we have collectively travelled back in time. Like the ghost of Ed Miliband’s past, Lisa Nandy’s comments on the fiscal viability of the 2019 manifesto and the need for a Labour leader to make “tough choices” during the Newsnight leadership hustings served as a reminder that in 2015 Labour tried to beat the Tories by offering austerity-light messaging, and failed. This line of argument illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of current Conservative thinking and has the potential to harm Labour’s strategy going forward.
Labour must pay close attention to the forthcoming budget – supposed to be delivered on March 11th, though there may be a delay – as it will give us the clearest insight yet into what kind of government we will be dealing with over the next four years. The Downing Street shake-up last week, which saw Rishi Sunak replace Sajid Javid, hints at Boris Johnson being committed to an economic policy that will diverge from the simple “austerity” narrative advocated by David Cameron and George Osborne.
The Conservatives are faced with the challenge of holding together a new electoral coalition that stretches from wealthy constituencies to deprived parts of the country. To consolidate their vote, the plan is to make money available for infrastructure spending, the NHS and social care. Another piece of the puzzle will be government spending on research and development to encourage private investment. This, so the logic goes, will stimulate growth, create jobs and level up parts of the country hat have suffered from chronic underdevelopment.
In contrast to the Cameron government, Johnson’s messaging will not say that we are “all in this together” during hard times that require tough choices. This government will tell us that a land of opportunity lies ahead. It is optimistic, and it urges people to feel proud and excited about the future. For Labour, this creates a variety of challenges.
Firstly, whilst our messaging and policies should tap into the anger and frustration many people in this country feel, the challenge lies within channelling this anger into a call to action and a feeling of empowerment, rather than helplessness and despair. How we talk about the systemic problems of our economic and political system can feel paralysing. Where to even start with the fightback? We must make sure that we do not simply overwhelm the public, and instead give them a tangible idea of things that they can do, and that we will do, to enact change.
Secondly, by pushing out a message along the lines of “socialism is when the state does things, like investing in the police or NHS”, we have somewhat neutralised ourselves in the political debate. Some public spending, such as for the NHS or the police, are deemed common sense and necessary. But this does not extend to welfare or local arts and culture projects.
On welfare specifically, the underlying political narrative has not changed. The Tory manifesto still talked about “getting people back into work” as the best route out of poverty. It is certainly true that job creation will help those who have lost their job due to closure of industries. And yet punitive work capability assessments targeting those with illness and disability and a narrative of “benefit scrounging” if one cannot work is also rooted in this thinking. This plays into the narrative that portrays a Labour Party supportive of a strong welfare state as paternalistic, one that wants to “keep people poor”, while a Conservative government “understands” the proud working class that doesn’t want “handouts”.
This creates the perception of two types of spending – one good (NHS, police), and one bad (welfare). As long as the Conservative government comes through on investing in the first, the public will forgive them for neglecting the second, as it is believed that economic growth will solve problems that led to the need for welfare spending in the first place. Attacking the Tories for softening fiscal rules to make investment in “good” public services will not help Labour. By being “tough” on spending, we reinforce their messaging and will still be considered irresponsible for our spending plans. Our fundamental problem is that we have failed to make the argument for a universalism of all public services.
Should the R&D strategy be successful and attract new businesses that create jobs and increase prosperity across the Midlands and the North of England, it will be tough for Labour to shift the argument on the role of the private sector in leading innovation, which is a classic argument in favour of neoliberal policies of marketisation. An argument for public ownership and workers’ control of these industries that will mean we can invest the money it generates to the benefit of all, rather than private profit, rests on having made the case for universalism first.
To operate companies in the public interest, rather than to serve the profit motive, will mean that the money it makes can be invested back in our public services rather than line bosses’ pockets. It means we can create a higher standard of living for all, by paying for affordable publicly owned housing for all, nationalised rail and bus services, education, arts and culture for the benefit of the people. If the public believes that an individual’s ability to make money trumps paying for things they might themselves not need or use, we will struggle to beat the Tories.
Labour must make the case for an economy that operates on anti-capitalist principles, rather than for private profit, to pay for universal public services that will serve to empower people. That is the only way to deconstruct the government’s narrative. Without fundamentally changing how we see the economy, we will forever play catch-up with the Tories in a political framework set by them and the class they represent.


labourlist--2020-02-18--Could Labour’s next leader be in favour of cannabis law reform?

Over the past few years , drug reform has become a hot topic in the Labour Party .
It was only fitting , then , that one of the questions put to the Labour leadership candidates during the televised Channel 4 debate last night asked whether they would decriminalise cannabis .
None of the candidates responded ‘ yes ’ to this quick-fire question , much to the frustration of many Labour members who are all too aware that criminalisation disproportionately affects BAME communities and creates barriers to accessing support services .
But there is much more that can be unpacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as none answered with a simple ‘ no ’ either .
Rebecca Long-Bailey , who has positioned herself as the candidate furthest to the left , was – to some surprise – the least committed to reform or review .
She said she would not decriminalise cannabis , though added that there needed to be a “ conversation nationally ” on the issue “ because the war on drugs isn ’ t working ” .
Given that Long-Bailey is considered to be closest to Jeremy Corbyn out of all the candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : drug policy was not a priority during his tenure .
Lisa Nandy was the only candidate who fulfilled the brief of the quick-fire round by giving a concise and concrete position on the issue .
“ No , let ’ s have a proper review , ” she declared .
Nandy will have been referring to Labour ’ s September announcement that the party would seek to review its position on drugs through a royal commission .
It was Keir Starmer ’ s response that we found most intriguing .
It revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I wouldn ’ t immediately , ” he said .
“ I have supported schemes where cannabis possession… you ’ re not arrested for it , you ’ re not prosecuted for it .
And I believe in that.
” For Starmer to say that he believes we shouldn ’ t be arresting or prosecuting cannabis users means that he backs decriminalisation – even if he doesn ’ t name it as such .
Decriminalisation means no longer treating cannabis possession as a criminal offence , and the schemes Starmer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the criminal justice system and into drug education workshops , much like a speed awareness course .
Given his personal position on the issue , it would reasonable to predict that Starmer would decriminalise personal possession of cannabis , most likely through a national roll out of diversion schemes .
Starmer has only ruled out immediate policy change , which is in line with the 2019 Labour manifesto “ to develop a public health approach to substance misuse , focusing on harm reduction rather than criminalisation ” .
If local party nominations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer is the clear frontrunner in Labour ’ s leadership race .
Under his direction , we would expect to see a continuation of Labour ’ s commitment to a public health based approach to drugs .
What is unclear from last night ’ s debate is where the candidates stand on legalisation , which is frequently conflated by the media , politicians and the general public with decriminalisation .
Legalisation would involve the state legally regulating the market , much like we do with alcohol and tobacco , whereas decriminalisation simply removes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer , David Lammy – incidentally Starmer ’ s campaign vice-chair – came out strongly in favour of cannabis legalisation , as this would take the market out of the hands of criminal gangs and allow the state to control the potency .
The next leader will have to navigate Labour ’ s stance on the issue , which must involve consultation with all corners of the party .
The Labour Campaign for Drug Policy Reform , a grassroots initiative that consults with the Labour membership , will play a key role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins the Labour leadership contest , there is now a consensus that current cannabis policy is failing and there is a need for a new approach .
This is a marked departure from previous leadership elections and should be celebrated .

Over the past few years, drug reform has become a hot topic in the Labour Party. It was only fitting, then, that one of the questions put to the Labour leadership candidates during the televised Channel 4 debate last night asked whether they would decriminalise cannabis.
None of the candidates responded ‘yes’ to this quick-fire question, much to the frustration of many Labour members who are all too aware that criminalisation disproportionately affects BAME communities and creates barriers to accessing support services. But there is much more that can be unpacked from each candidate’s state position, as none answered with a simple ‘no’ either.
Rebecca Long-Bailey, who has positioned herself as the candidate furthest to the left, was – to some surprise – the least committed to reform or review. She said she would not decriminalise cannabis, though added that there needed to be a “conversation nationally” on the issue “because the war on drugs isn’t working”. Given that Long-Bailey is considered to be closest to Jeremy Corbyn out of all the candidates, perhaps her answer should have been anticipated: drug policy was not a priority during his tenure.
Lisa Nandy was the only candidate who fulfilled the brief of the quick-fire round by giving a concise and concrete position on the issue. “No, let’s have a proper review,” she declared. Nandy will have been referring to Labour’s September announcement that the party would seek to review its position on drugs through a royal commission.
It was Keir Starmer’s response that we found most intriguing. It revealed a clear policy position on the issue. “I wouldn’t immediately,” he said. “I have supported schemes where cannabis possession… you’re not arrested for it, you’re not prosecuted for it. And I believe in that.”
For Starmer to say that he believes we shouldn’t be arresting or prosecuting cannabis users means that he backs decriminalisation – even if he doesn’t name it as such. Decriminalisation means no longer treating cannabis possession as a criminal offence, and the schemes Starmer is referring to divert cannabis users away from the criminal justice system and into drug education workshops, much like a speed awareness course.
Given his personal position on the issue, it would reasonable to predict that Starmer would decriminalise personal possession of cannabis, most likely through a national roll out of diversion schemes. Starmer has only ruled out immediate policy change, which is in line with the 2019 Labour manifesto “to develop a public health approach to substance misuse, focusing on harm reduction rather than criminalisation”.
If local party nominations and polling are anything to go by, Starmer is the clear frontrunner in Labour’s leadership race. Under his direction, we would expect to see a continuation of Labour’s commitment to a public health based approach to drugs.
What is unclear from last night’s debate is where the candidates stand on legalisation, which is frequently conflated by the media, politicians and the general public with decriminalisation. Legalisation would involve the state legally regulating the market, much like we do with alcohol and tobacco, whereas decriminalisation simply removes the criminal penalties for possession. Last summer, David Lammy – incidentally Starmer’s campaign vice-chair – came out strongly in favour of cannabis legalisation, as this would take the market out of the hands of criminal gangs and allow the state to control the potency.
The next leader will have to navigate Labour’s stance on the issue, which must involve consultation with all corners of the party. The Labour Campaign for Drug Policy Reform, a grassroots initiative that consults with the Labour membership, will play a key role in facilitating this conversation. Regardless of who wins the Labour leadership contest, there is now a consensus that current cannabis policy is failing and there is a need for a new approach. This is a marked departure from previous leadership elections and should be celebrated.


labourlist--2020-02-18--Another NEC by-election candidate suspended as Jo Bird returns to party

Another candidate in Labour ’ s national executive committee by-elections – Graham Durham – has been suspended from the party , LabourList can confirm .
The news of a fresh suspension related to alleged antisemitism follows confirmed reports that Jo Bird has been reinstated as a member .
She was also suspended whilst running for Labour ’ s NEC .
Durham – a resident of Brent Central , who gained 13 local party nominations from across the country after declaring his candidacy on January 30th – is currently ineligible to stand for the ruling body .
LabourList understands that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a meeting and reported by the Jewish Chronicle in mid-January .
According to the JC , Durham criticised Rebecca Long-Bailey , saying : “ She has been cuddling up to the Jewish Labour Movement and the Chief Rabbi , a well-known Tory .
We should not be allowing that.
” On Sunday , Durham tweeted : “ I am not to my knowledge suspended but , whilst anti-racist to my core , I did call the Chief Rabbi a Tory ..are facts illegal now ” .
When contacted by LabourList today , Durham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , adding that “ luckily there were 150 people present , most of whom applauded the points I made in critical support of Rebecca Long-Bailey ” .
Birkenhead councillor Jo Bird was one of two candidates suspended earlier in the race , but she has now been un-suspended and all of her CLP nominations are considered valid .
Mohammed Azam , also removed as a party member earlier in the NEC contest , is understood to still be suspended and therefore not eligible to run as a candidate in the by-elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place alongside Labour ’ s leadership and deputy leadership contests , will see two CLP representative posts filled and one for BAME Labour .
The three NEC spots were vacated by Navendu Mishra and Claudia Webbe in the CLP section , as both were elected as Labour MPs in the general election , and by former MP Keith Vaz .
To secure a place on the ballot paper , those seeking to become CLP representatives on the NEC must first be nominated by five CLPs .
Bird has secured a place on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Azam and Durham also surpassed the threshold but will not be included on the ballot if still suspended from the party .
Corbynsceptic groups Labour First and Progress are endorsing Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan for the CLP rep places .
The Labour left is split , with the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy ( CLPD ) backing Lauren Townsend and Cecile Wright , while Momentum is supporting Townsend and Leigh Drennan .
The Labour Left Alliance has Jo Bird and Mohammed Azam on its slate , and the Labour Representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The all-member ballot is expected to open on February 24th , when voting also starts in the two leadership contests .

Another candidate in Labour’s national executive committee by-elections – Graham Durham – has been suspended from the party, LabourList can confirm.
The news of a fresh suspension related to alleged antisemitism follows confirmed reports that Jo Bird has been reinstated as a member. She was also suspended whilst running for Labour’s NEC.
Durham – a resident of Brent Central, who gained 13 local party nominations from across the country after declaring his candidacy on January 30th – is currently ineligible to stand for the ruling body.
LabourList understands that his suspension is related to comments made at a meeting and reported by the Jewish Chronicle in mid-January.
According to the JC, Durham criticised Rebecca Long-Bailey, saying: “She has been cuddling up to the Jewish Labour Movement and the Chief Rabbi, a well-known Tory. We should not be allowing that.”
On Sunday, Durham tweeted: “I am not to my knowledge suspended but, whilst anti-racist to my core, I did call the Chief Rabbi a Tory ..are facts illegal now”.
When contacted by LabourList today, Durham described the JC report as “inaccurate”, adding that “luckily there were 150 people present, most of whom applauded the points I made in critical support of Rebecca Long-Bailey”.
Birkenhead councillor Jo Bird was one of two candidates suspended earlier in the race, but she has now been un-suspended and all of her CLP nominations are considered valid.
Mohammed Azam, also removed as a party member earlier in the NEC contest, is understood to still be suspended and therefore not eligible to run as a candidate in the by-elections.
The NEC by-elections, which are taking place alongside Labour’s leadership and deputy leadership contests, will see two CLP representative posts filled and one for BAME Labour.
The three NEC spots were vacated by Navendu Mishra and Claudia Webbe in the CLP section, as both were elected as Labour MPs in the general election, and by former MP Keith Vaz.
To secure a place on the ballot paper, those seeking to become CLP representatives on the NEC must first be nominated by five CLPs.
Bird has secured a place on the ballot paper with over 110 nominations, while Azam and Durham also surpassed the threshold but will not be included on the ballot if still suspended from the party.
Corbynsceptic groups Labour First and Progress are endorsing Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan for the CLP rep places.
The Labour left is split, with the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) backing Lauren Townsend and Cecile Wright, while Momentum is supporting Townsend and Leigh Drennan.
The Labour Left Alliance has Jo Bird and Mohammed Azam on its slate, and the Labour Representation Committee is recommending Bird and Deborah Hobson.
The all-member ballot is expected to open on February 24th, when voting also starts in the two leadership contests.


labourlist--2020-02-18--Leigh Drennan: Why I’m standing to be a member of Labour’s NEC

December ’ s election was devastating , and our movement is still hurting as a result .
The worst thing about it ?
Our loss will now see even more pain inflicted on our communities .
It ’ s a difficult load to bear – but there is a path to recovery .
It ’ s now essential that we learn lessons for the future .
In 2017 , we defied all expectations with a socialist vision that won us mass support from the electorate .
That election proved that our platform – of public ownership , investment in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with people and communities up and down the country .
Scared of our message , the establishment tried to pin our defeat this time around on these ideals .
But our failures in 2019 were not down to our progressive policies .
Yes , we should have communicated them better – but the main reason for our loss was a lack of trust many feel towards the party in former Labour heartlands .
This decline in trust is something that has been going on for decades .
I am a working class , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , proud of where I am from but sad that Labour ’ s support has ebbed away in the north west .
As a UNISON trade union organiser – one who has proudly been banned by anti-union companies for successfully organising care workers – I see on a daily basis how desperately people in my area need a Labour government .
Yet the process of de-industrialisation and the weakening of the trade union link has meant large sections of society have been peeled away from Labour .
In the next five years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengthen trade unions as a matter of urgency .
They are our best hope for renewing class consciousness in Britain .
As a councillor over the last eight years , I ’ ve become only too familiar with the Tories ’ draconian austerity programme and the devastating effect it has had on our communities .
Too many of our voters see us as the architects of poor public services when it is the Tories who have implemented billions of pounds worth of cuts .
I have always been vigilant in pinning austerity on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential that more Labour councillors do the same .
If elected to the party ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) , my experience and expertise both in local government and on the shop floor can help us understand how we can appeal to our heartlands once again .
To win in 2024 , we need an active and empowered membership .
For many years , Labour ’ s internal political culture has been cliquey and unhealthy , often aimed at keeping people out rather than bringing them in .
I aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actively encourage working class people to join the party .
I was inspired to get involved by a Labour councillor many years ago , and I hope to do the same for others .
In practical terms , as a NEC member I promise I will advocate for the enhanced representation of members on the NEC ; campaign for better political education for members ; and promise to reform and strengthen our liberation groups such as LGBT Labour , BAME Labour and Disability Labour .
It is time that these groups had representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a LGBT person with non-visible disabilities was one of the main reasons I joined Labour .
I grew up with dyslexia , dyspraxia and Asperger ’ s syndrome , but without the support I received from the Labour government I wouldn ’ t have had the life chances , nor the confidence to stand for our NEC .
As a gay working-class man who has faced the brunt of the bigotry and classism whipped up by the Conservative Party , I know how important it is that we succeed in defeating the Tories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a serious blow to our movement .
But if elected to the NEC , I promise I will do all I can to revitalise the party so we can win elections once again .

December’s election was devastating, and our movement is still hurting as a result. The worst thing about it? Our loss will now see even more pain inflicted on our communities. It’s a difficult load to bear – but there is a path to recovery.
It’s now essential that we learn lessons for the future. In 2017, we defied all expectations with a socialist vision that won us mass support from the electorate. That election proved that our platform – of public ownership, investment in public services and ending austerity – was popular with people and communities up and down the country.
Scared of our message, the establishment tried to pin our defeat this time around on these ideals. But our failures in 2019 were not down to our progressive policies. Yes, we should have communicated them better – but the main reason for our loss was a lack of trust many feel towards the party in former Labour heartlands. This decline in trust is something that has been going on for decades.
I am a working class, LGBT socialist from the north of England, proud of where I am from but sad that Labour’s support has ebbed away in the north west. As a UNISON trade union organiser – one who has proudly been banned by anti-union companies for successfully organising care workers – I see on a daily basis how desperately people in my area need a Labour government.
Yet the process of de-industrialisation and the weakening of the trade union link has meant large sections of society have been peeled away from Labour. In the next five years, the party must focus on how to strengthen trade unions as a matter of urgency. They are our best hope for renewing class consciousness in Britain.
As a councillor over the last eight years, I’ve become only too familiar with the Tories’ draconian austerity programme and the devastating effect it has had on our communities. Too many of our voters see us as the architects of poor public services when it is the Tories who have implemented billions of pounds worth of cuts.
I have always been vigilant in pinning austerity on the Tories, and it’s essential that more Labour councillors do the same. If elected to the party’s national executive committee (NEC), my experience and expertise both in local government and on the shop floor can help us understand how we can appeal to our heartlands once again.
To win in 2024, we need an active and empowered membership. For many years, Labour’s internal political culture has been cliquey and unhealthy, often aimed at keeping people out rather than bringing them in. I aim to be as inclusive as possible and actively encourage working class people to join the party. I was inspired to get involved by a Labour councillor many years ago, and I hope to do the same for others.
In practical terms, as a NEC member I promise I will advocate for the enhanced representation of members on the NEC; campaign for better political education for members; and promise to reform and strengthen our liberation groups such as LGBT Labour, BAME Labour and Disability Labour. It is time that these groups had representation on the NEC.
My experience as a LGBT person with non-visible disabilities was one of the main reasons I joined Labour. I grew up with dyslexia, dyspraxia and Asperger’s syndrome, but without the support I received from the Labour government I wouldn’t have had the life chances, nor the confidence to stand for our NEC.
As a gay working-class man who has faced the brunt of the bigotry and classism whipped up by the Conservative Party, I know how important it is that we succeed in defeating the Tories in 2024. December’s election was a serious blow to our movement. But if elected to the NEC, I promise I will do all I can to revitalise the party so we can win elections once again.


labourlist--2020-02-18--How you can be a part of Labour Together’s election review

In the days immediately following Labour ’ s general election defeat , Labour Together launched an independent review .
We are asking two questions .
Why did we lose ?
What do we need to do to win again ?
The first step we took was to open up the review to the whole labour movement , inviting submissions and responses to an online survey .
We want to hear every perspective of what happened and capture all the best ideas for what needs to change .
And in the process , we are trying to model a constructive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey is not a poll or representative survey , and the findings won ’ t purport to capture the views of all members .
Rather it is part of an open conversation , designed to help us learn from the experiences and ideas of members , supporters and others .
The response has been overwhelming .
Thousands have shared their views so far .
Our team is busy reading each of these responses , to provide an honest , accurate analysis of how members feel and their ideas for the future .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no no-go areas and our initial analysis is showing its fair share of the good , the bad and ugly of the Labour Party .
There are shining examples of local campaigns pulling together , harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of volunteers and using every platform available to make a difference .
Yet there is a sense that we are often less than the sum of our parts .
That although we had some great policies individually and strong local campaigns , the manifesto fell flat and our national communications fell short .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues hamstrung campaigns – with members telling us of how they found themselves speaking to the wrong voters , in the wrong seats , with technology that didn ’ t work .
And yes , the factional rancour that hobbled the party in recent years is well represented , with a palpable anger in many responses , calling on “ Blairites ” or “ Trots ” to be kicked out .
This is how many feel .
It can ’ t be ignored , and these sentiments are unlikely to disappear overnight with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what comes out far louder are people who – in the words of one response – feel we should “ stop the pathetic infighting and focus on the real enemy ” .
Responses are full to the brim with insights about how we can communicate better , be more inventive with technology and build a more effective organisation .
We need to channel this energy and passion to rebuild the party .
The Labour Together review is by and for the whole labour movement .
We are looking at forming recommendations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re looking at how we can better talk and listen to each other , learn from what works , and make the most of the enormous potential of our membership and organisation .
If you haven ’ t yet responded , you have until this Sunday to be part of this .
Tell us how you feel .
Don ’ t hold back in your responses , and we promise not to hold back in our conclusions .

In the days immediately following Labour’s general election defeat, Labour Together launched an independent review. We are asking two questions. Why did we lose? What do we need to do to win again?
The first step we took was to open up the review to the whole labour movement, inviting submissions and responses to an online survey. We want to hear every perspective of what happened and capture all the best ideas for what needs to change. And in the process, we are trying to model a constructive, evidence-based, cross-factional approach.
This online survey is not a poll or representative survey, and the findings won’t purport to capture the views of all members. Rather it is part of an open conversation, designed to help us learn from the experiences and ideas of members, supporters and others.
The response has been overwhelming. Thousands have shared their views so far. Our team is busy reading each of these responses, to provide an honest, accurate analysis of how members feel and their ideas for the future. From the outset, we said there were no no-go areas and our initial analysis is showing its fair share of the good, the bad and ugly of the Labour Party.
There are shining examples of local campaigns pulling together, harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of volunteers and using every platform available to make a difference. Yet there is a sense that we are often less than the sum of our parts. That although we had some great policies individually and strong local campaigns, the manifesto fell flat and our national communications fell short. And often, most frustratingly, practical issues hamstrung campaigns – with members telling us of how they found themselves speaking to the wrong voters, in the wrong seats, with technology that didn’t work.
And yes, the factional rancour that hobbled the party in recent years is well represented, with a palpable anger in many responses, calling on “Blairites” or “Trots” to be kicked out. This is how many feel. It can’t be ignored, and these sentiments are unlikely to disappear overnight with a new leader.
But alongside this, what comes out far louder are people who – in the words of one response – feel we should “stop the pathetic infighting and focus on the real enemy”. Responses are full to the brim with insights about how we can communicate better, be more inventive with technology and build a more effective organisation. We need to channel this energy and passion to rebuild the party.
The Labour Together review is by and for the whole labour movement. We are looking at forming recommendations that can help us move forward together. We’re looking at how we can better talk and listen to each other, learn from what works, and make the most of the enormous potential of our membership and organisation.
If you haven’t yet responded, you have until this Sunday to be part of this. Tell us how you feel. Don’t hold back in your responses, and we promise not to hold back in our conclusions.


labourlist--2020-02-19--Why we need to shut up about ‘Labour heartlands’

Since that devastating exit poll dropped at 10pm on December 12th , the ‘ Labour heartlands ’ have been the focal point of an intense , disorderly postmortem .
When the Blyth Valley result was followed by Workington , Darlington and a slew of seats across the North and Midlands , it was clear something had gone awry .
Leadership contenders and their proxies swooped on the TV studios to deliver the soundbites of their competing narratives .
It was because of Brexit .
It was because of antisemitism .
It was because of Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ – some simplistic – to winning back our ‘ heartlands ’ .
The arrogance of claiming communities that have just rejected Labour as ‘ ours ’ will presumably not be lost on the very areas that had just given us a swift kick in the ballots .
At 3.35am on December 13th , Sedgefield totemically fell .
To me , it was not just Tony Blair ’ s old seat that I knew through election night outside broadcasts from the Trimdon Labour Club ; it was my grandparents ’ constituency .
Fortunately for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around to see the first Tory MP for the area in 88 years .
But as shocking as the losses of Sedgefield or Bolsover were , it wasn ’ t like we couldn ’ t see it coming .
We lost Mansfield , Stoke-on-Trent South and Walsall North in 2017 .
We lost Scotland in 2015 , and let ’ s not forget Blaenau Gwent in 2005 .
Did these not also constitute our heartlands ?
The bonds that tied many of these voters to the Labour tribe were stretched and fraying before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural reasons tipping the balance in the privacy of the voting booth .
Just junking the leader and/or the Brexit position and hoping that ‘ heartland ’ voters drift back to us flies in the face of years of evidence .
We have lost four general elections in a row , and haven ’ t won the popular vote in England since 2001 .
Winning back the ‘ heartlands ’ alone isn ’ t enough to form a government .
And without a reliable block of Scottish constituencies returning Labour MPs , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can humpty dumpty back together , so focusing solely on the seats with which we feel an emotive connection risks further extending our period of opposition .
Mansfield is now 200th on our list of target seats , requiring a nearly 17 % swing from Tories to Labour .
True blue places like the Isle of Wight , Huntingdon and Mid Derbyshire are theoretically easier to win next time around .
Labour voters in Mansfield need a Labour Prime Minister more than they need a local Labour MP .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall ’ seats such as Bassetlaw and Bishop Auckland because losing them hurts , I believe we should be looking at developing a viable coalition that can win over seats like Lincoln and Ipswich – two of the seats that we lost in 2019 and we will need again to become the largest party at a presumptive 2024 general election .
Neither would be typically described as ‘ heartlands ’ but the last time Labour formed a viable government without electing an MP in Lincoln was 1923 and we ’ ve never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ipswich in our column .
Lincoln , Ipswich , Truro and Falmouth , Wycombe , Reading West , Southampton Itchen , Hastings and Rye , Filton and Bradley Stoke and both Milton Keynes seats require less than 6 % swings to win next time .
Repair the Red Wall , of course , but don ’ t hide behind it .
Whoever is elected leader and deputy have difficult choices ahead of them .
If the next leader of the opposition focusses on the heartlands , they may be judged to be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , after 14 years of Tory rule and who knows how many years of full-fat Brexit , we don ’ t need a strong second place in 2024 – and neither will our heartlands .

Since that devastating exit poll dropped at 10pm on December 12th, the ‘Labour heartlands’ have been the focal point of an intense, disorderly postmortem. When the Blyth Valley result was followed by Workington, Darlington and a slew of seats across the North and Midlands, it was clear something had gone awry.
Leadership contenders and their proxies swooped on the TV studios to deliver the soundbites of their competing narratives. It was because of Brexit. It was because of antisemitism. It was because of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Each talking head with their own solution – some simplistic – to winning back our ‘heartlands’. The arrogance of claiming communities that have just rejected Labour as ‘ours’ will presumably not be lost on the very areas that had just given us a swift kick in the ballots.
At 3.35am on December 13th, Sedgefield totemically fell. To me, it was not just Tony Blair’s old seat that I knew through election night outside broadcasts from the Trimdon Labour Club; it was my grandparents’ constituency. Fortunately for my grandfather, he wasn’t around to see the first Tory MP for the area in 88 years.
But as shocking as the losses of Sedgefield or Bolsover were, it wasn’t like we couldn’t see it coming. We lost Mansfield, Stoke-on-Trent South and Walsall North in 2017. We lost Scotland in 2015, and let’s not forget Blaenau Gwent in 2005. Did these not also constitute our heartlands?
The bonds that tied many of these voters to the Labour tribe were stretched and fraying before Brexit, with often only familial and cultural reasons tipping the balance in the privacy of the voting booth. Just junking the leader and/or the Brexit position and hoping that ‘heartland’ voters drift back to us flies in the face of years of evidence.
We have lost four general elections in a row, and haven’t won the popular vote in England since 2001. Winning back the ‘heartlands’ alone isn’t enough to form a government. And without a reliable block of Scottish constituencies returning Labour MPs, there’s no prior coalition of voters that we can humpty dumpty back together, so focusing solely on the seats with which we feel an emotive connection risks further extending our period of opposition.
Mansfield is now 200th on our list of target seats, requiring a nearly 17% swing from Tories to Labour. True blue places like the Isle of Wight, Huntingdon and Mid Derbyshire are theoretically easier to win next time around. Labour voters in Mansfield need a Labour Prime Minister more than they need a local Labour MP.
Instead of just obsessing over former so-called ‘Red Wall’ seats such as Bassetlaw and Bishop Auckland because losing them hurts, I believe we should be looking at developing a viable coalition that can win over seats like Lincoln and Ipswich – two of the seats that we lost in 2019 and we will need again to become the largest party at a presumptive 2024 general election.
Neither would be typically described as ‘heartlands’ but the last time Labour formed a viable government without electing an MP in Lincoln was 1923 and we’ve never been able to get to Downing Street without Ipswich in our column.
Lincoln, Ipswich, Truro and Falmouth, Wycombe, Reading West, Southampton Itchen, Hastings and Rye, Filton and Bradley Stoke and both Milton Keynes seats require less than 6% swings to win next time. Repair the Red Wall, of course, but don’t hide behind it.
Whoever is elected leader and deputy have difficult choices ahead of them. If the next leader of the opposition focusses on the heartlands, they may be judged to be better than Jeremy Corbyn at the job. However, after 14 years of Tory rule and who knows how many years of full-fat Brexit, we don’t need a strong second place in 2024 – and neither will our heartlands.


labourlist--2020-02-19--Government’s immigration plan will shut the door on ‘low-skilled’ workers

The government has finally told us what they actually mean by the ‘ points-based ’ , Australian-style system they ’ ve been banging on about for so long .
The plan has been revealed in a document released overnight .
But , as pointed out by Labour ’ s Diane Abbott , it ’ s not so much a points-based system as a salary threshold .
The policy basically involves shutting the door on non-English speakers and ‘ low-skilled ’ workers : a quick overview of the ten-page briefing reveals that there will be no route in for the self-employed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a job offer with a salary of £25,600 and they will have to speak English .
The announcement commits the government to reducing immigration , which is interesting in both its ability to make businesses nervous and in that it ’ s another promise to bring down levels of immigration , a full decade after David Cameron promised and failed to do so .
Business has responded with concerns about how they ’ re going to find the people they need ; the Confederation of British Industry said that hospitality , care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new regime .
The Shadow Home Secretary said that the policy will “ need to have so many exemptions , for the NHS , for social care and many parts of the private sector , that it will be meaningless ” , and added that it will be difficult to attract the skilled workers the country needs with the “ Tories ’ hostile environment is in place ” .
Speaking of hostile environments , the Brit awards was a pretty unfriendly place for the PM last night .
London rapper Dave used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack victim Jack Merrit , but also called out the government on its continued failure to support Grenfell survivors and its treatment of the Windrush generation .
He labelled Boris Johnson a “ real racist ” .
Don ’ t worry though , because Conservative MP Priti Patel told us this morning that it is “ utter nonsense ” and that she doesn ’ t “ know what those comments are based on ” .
On quick reflection , it could based on his calling black people “ piccaninnies ” , the talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ description of Muslim women as bank robbers and letterboxes , or his account of hearing alarm bells when he sees a “ bunch of black kids ” .
Employing proponents of eugenics in government advisory roles probably doesn ’ t help either .
In the Labour leadership contest , we wait for the endorsement from the London mayor – Sadiq Khan has said that he is deciding between Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy , and will announce his support for one of them next week when the ballots drop .
As a longstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has ruled out voting for Rebecca Long-Bailey .
Voting in the process won ’ t begin until February 24th with ballots closing on April 2nd .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The government has finally told us what they actually mean by the ‘points-based’, Australian-style system they’ve been banging on about for so long. The plan has been revealed in a document released overnight. But, as pointed out by Labour’s Diane Abbott, it’s not so much a points-based system as a salary threshold. The policy basically involves shutting the door on non-English speakers and ‘low-skilled’ workers: a quick overview of the ten-page briefing reveals that there will be no route in for the self-employed, migrants coming to the UK will need a job offer with a salary of £25,600 and they will have to speak English.
The announcement commits the government to reducing immigration, which is interesting in both its ability to make businesses nervous and in that it’s another promise to bring down levels of immigration, a full decade after David Cameron promised and failed to do so. Business has responded with concerns about how they’re going to find the people they need; the Confederation of British Industry said that hospitality, care and construction will be most affected by the new regime. The Shadow Home Secretary said that the policy will “need to have so many exemptions, for the NHS, for social care and many parts of the private sector, that it will be meaningless”, and added that it will be difficult to attract the skilled workers the country needs with the “Tories’ hostile environment is in place”.
Speaking of hostile environments, the Brit awards was a pretty unfriendly place for the PM last night. London rapper Dave used his performance to pay tribute to terror attack victim Jack Merrit, but also called out the government on its continued failure to support Grenfell survivors and its treatment of the Windrush generation. He labelled Boris Johnson a “real racist”. Don’t worry though, because Conservative MP Priti Patel told us this morning that it is “utter nonsense” and that she doesn’t “know what those comments are based on”. On quick reflection, it could based on his calling black people “piccaninnies”, the talk of “watermelon smiles”, the description of Muslim women as bank robbers and letterboxes, or his account of hearing alarm bells when he sees a “bunch of black kids”. Employing proponents of eugenics in government advisory roles probably doesn’t help either.
In the Labour leadership contest, we wait for the endorsement from the London mayor – Sadiq Khan has said that he is deciding between Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy, and will announce his support for one of them next week when the ballots drop. As a longstanding Corbynsceptic, it’s perhaps unsurprising that he has ruled out voting for Rebecca Long-Bailey. Voting in the process won’t begin until February 24th with ballots closing on April 2nd. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-02-20--Labour must show that where we improve lives, we can prevent crime

Boris Johnson ’ s claim on the north is rapidly approaching its first big trial , and it is in these upcoming local elections that our Labour Party must show its real worth .
It is us – the rank and file – not the party leadership in London , which will have to make the first moves to win back the north .
What we are up against is a Conservative Party that is determined to reintroduce hard-right policies , and crime is the star of the show for them .
The odds , if we are honest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underwent a huge defeat , in an election in which we didn ’ t address this issue .
Our long-running leadership contest means that there is a distraction at the top as we gear up for the immediate challenge .
And a bullish Tory party is getting ready to try and distract voters once again from the unfairness and injustice we see all around us .
We will face a Tory Party eager for a post-Brexit con trick that lets them overlook years of harm while others continue to suffer .
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever .
Behind the Boris bluster is the same basic Tory belief : those at the bottom should just work harder , pay more for less and stop complaining .
We in the north know the truth – equality is not spontaneous and if you want social justice you have to make it happen .
That is why I and other Labour police commissioners are leading on tackling and preventing the causes of crime and violence .
We are doing this because inequality is rife , crucial support systems have been removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the pieces of after ten years of the Tories .
It is we – Labour in local government , police and crime commissioners , mayors and councils – who can show that if we improve lives then we can prevent crime .
After a decade of austerity we have seen crime , including violent crime , rise while Tory austerity strengthens its grip .
Let ’ s be clear , despite what the Tories say , we can not arrest our way out of this problem .
That ’ s an insulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the police should be supported .
Yes , we do need more police officers – and let ’ s not forget it is the Tory cuts that reduced the numbers in the first place – and yes , we do need to get offenders off of our streets .
But the police will have to keep going back to those neighbourhoods and make more arrests unless we stop the cycle of violence and crime that leads some people to feel that they have no option but to hit out , to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevention agenda the plan is simple .
Early intervention saves lives .
The Tories might have closed down our Sure Start buildings but they haven ’ t destroyed our Sure Start principles .
We need to shift the focus , we need to get in early at schools , or with families who come to the attention of services in other ways , and offer dedicated support .
We have got to genuinely get tough on the causes of crime .
But – and this is the big challenge for us – those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour members , in office and turning our values in to action .
We as a party have to clarify our position .
We must tell a story that shows Labour is the party that can fight and prevent crime and all the while , improve lives .
This May is the time to do it .
The police commissioner , mayoral and local council elections are vitally important .
These roles are vital for moving our people and our movement towards Downing Street .

Boris Johnson’s claim on the north is rapidly approaching its first big trial, and it is in these upcoming local elections that our Labour Party must show its real worth. It is us – the rank and file – not the party leadership in London, which will have to make the first moves to win back the north. What we are up against is a Conservative Party that is determined to reintroduce hard-right policies, and crime is the star of the show for them.
The odds, if we are honest, are stacked against us. We just underwent a huge defeat, in an election in which we didn’t address this issue. Our long-running leadership contest means that there is a distraction at the top as we gear up for the immediate challenge. And a bullish Tory party is getting ready to try and distract voters once again from the unfairness and injustice we see all around us.
We will face a Tory Party eager for a post-Brexit con trick that lets them overlook years of harm while others continue to suffer. We need Labour in power locally, now more than ever. Behind the Boris bluster is the same basic Tory belief: those at the bottom should just work harder, pay more for less and stop complaining.
We in the north know the truth – equality is not spontaneous and if you want social justice you have to make it happen. That is why I and other Labour police commissioners are leading on tackling and preventing the causes of crime and violence. We are doing this because inequality is rife, crucial support systems have been removed and it is our job to pick up the pieces of after ten years of the Tories.
It is we – Labour in local government, police and crime commissioners, mayors and councils – who can show that if we improve lives then we can prevent crime. After a decade of austerity we have seen crime, including violent crime, rise while Tory austerity strengthens its grip. Let’s be clear, despite what the Tories say, we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. That’s an insulting oversimplification that ignores the causes.
Yes, the police should be supported. Yes, we do need more police officers – and let’s not forget it is the Tory cuts that reduced the numbers in the first place – and yes, we do need to get offenders off of our streets. But the police will have to keep going back to those neighbourhoods and make more arrests unless we stop the cycle of violence and crime that leads some people to feel that they have no option but to hit out, to steal, to exploit others.
With a prevention agenda the plan is simple. Early intervention saves lives. The Tories might have closed down our Sure Start buildings but they haven’t destroyed our Sure Start principles. We need to shift the focus, we need to get in early at schools, or with families who come to the attention of services in other ways, and offer dedicated support. We have got to genuinely get tough on the causes of crime.
But – and this is the big challenge for us – those problems are solved by having us, Labour members, in office and turning our values in to action. We as a party have to clarify our position. We must tell a story that shows Labour is the party that can fight and prevent crime and all the while, improve lives. This May is the time to do it. The police commissioner, mayoral and local council elections are vitally important. These roles are vital for moving our people and our movement towards Downing Street.


labourlist--2020-02-20--We need to talk about electoral reform

We need to talk about electoral reform

Satisfaction with democracy is at an all-time low among the British public , according to a report by Cambridge University researchers .
This is dire news , but not all that surprising .
If recent years have shown anything , it ’ s how distant our political system feels to many people .
It ’ s no wonder so many felt the impulse to ‘ take back control ’ .
With the country polarised like never before , huge numbers have ended up distrusting either the government , parliament or both .
That ’ s why I ’ m glad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leadership and deputy leadership elections .
An elected second chamber , devolution , federalism – these are issues we can not afford to ignore if we want to repair faith in democracy .
And while some may say , ‘ we never hear about democratic reform on the doorstep ’ , I say that we ’ re hearing about it every time a voter says they don ’ t trust politicians .
But there ’ s one issue that isn ’ t discussed so much , which must be a part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change the voting system that we use for general elections .
Why do I think this is so important ?
For one thing , it ’ s all very well for us MPs to call for a radical shake-up of British politics , but this may ring hollow if what we actually mean is a shake up of everything except the way we ’ re elected and held to account .
The House of Commons sits right at the centre of the UK ’ s power structures .
To exclude electoral reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would look strange and , frankly , a bit suspect .
Besides , there are real grievances with the first-past-the-post system that need to be addressed .
Our electoral system meant that 14.5 million votes went to losing candidates in 2019 , effectively having no impact on election results .
This isn ’ t unusual for the UK but would be considered a travesty in many modern democracies – and it goes a long way to explaining why so many people feel that they have little or no stake in our politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the risk of ‘ wasting your vote ’ puts huge pressure on people to vote for a candidate who can win , rather than who they really believe in .
35 % of voters said that they planned to vote tactically , which puts a third of the electorate through the dispiriting experience of voting for something that they don ’ t really believe in .
Linked to this is the obsession all parties have about marginal seats .
In countries across Europe that use proportional representation systems , votes count equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lapland has the same say over Finnish politics as a voter in Helsinki .
But in the UK , marginal seats are paramount .
This leads us to pour activists and resources into the relatively small number of seats which we think may change hands , while paying much less attention to the majority of constituencies where the outcome is pretty certain .
The point about so-called ‘ safe seats ’ isn ’ t that they never change hands .
It ’ s that can end up being taken for granted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
The voters hear from us less often than they should – and can eventually conclude that we ’ ve stopped listening to them .
It ’ s this complacency that sows the seeds of disasters like the loss of Scotland in 2015 or the fall of the “ red wall ” last year .
It all starts with a system that forces us to act as if some votes are more important than others .
If we are going to rebuild trust in our democracy , we need to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As we have this debate , I ’ ll be arguing that the constituency link between an MP and their local voters is vital .
We can hardly rebuild trust in politics by getting rid of locally accountable representatives .
This is why serious discussion about electoral reform quickly leads to systems that keep this link , such as those used in Holyrood and Stormont .
But there ’ s another reason Labour should be looking at the voting system : first-past-the-post has repeatedly enabled right-wing government on a minority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the left of the Conservatives in December .
In fact , as Make Votes Matter have pointed out , most people did so in 19 of the last 20 general elections .
Yet by the end of their current term , the Tories will have been in power for two-thirds of this time .
Political scientists have highlighted a right-wing bias in countries that use first-past-the-post across the world , as well as a resulting tendency for these societies to slide towards inequality in comparison to countries with proportional representation .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globe , countries like Norway and Denmark bucked the trend and posted record satisfaction with theirs .
It may be no coincidence that they also use proportional representation , governing by consensus rather than confrontation , and have become some of the most socialist societies in the world today .
As we consider how to reshape our democracy , this would be a good place to start .
There ’ s a strong consensus forming around holding a constitutional convention .
Led by a representative assembly of citizens , this would bring together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence from experts and other countries ’ experiences , and decide how to reshape our democracy for the 21st century .
As Labour ’ s deputy leader , I will ensure that electoral reform is part of this conversation .

Satisfaction with democracy is at an all-time low among the British public, according to a report by Cambridge University researchers. This is dire news, but not all that surprising. If recent years have shown anything, it’s how distant our political system feels to many people. It’s no wonder so many felt the impulse to ‘take back control’. With the country polarised like never before, huge numbers have ended up distrusting either the government, parliament or both.
That’s why I’m glad that constitutional reform is being discussed in the leadership and deputy leadership elections. An elected second chamber, devolution, federalism – these are issues we cannot afford to ignore if we want to repair faith in democracy. And while some may say, ‘we never hear about democratic reform on the doorstep’, I say that we’re hearing about it every time a voter says they don’t trust politicians.
But there’s one issue that isn’t discussed so much, which must be a part of this conversation. That’s whether to change the voting system that we use for general elections. Why do I think this is so important?
For one thing, it’s all very well for us MPs to call for a radical shake-up of British politics, but this may ring hollow if what we actually mean is a shake up of everything except the way we’re elected and held to account. The House of Commons sits right at the centre of the UK’s power structures. To exclude electoral reform from a national conversation about our democracy would look strange and, frankly, a bit suspect.
Besides, there are real grievances with the first-past-the-post system that need to be addressed. Our electoral system meant that 14.5 million votes went to losing candidates in 2019, effectively having no impact on election results. This isn’t unusual for the UK but would be considered a travesty in many modern democracies – and it goes a long way to explaining why so many people feel that they have little or no stake in our politics.
As we saw in the general election, the risk of ‘wasting your vote’ puts huge pressure on people to vote for a candidate who can win, rather than who they really believe in. 35% of voters said that they planned to vote tactically, which puts a third of the electorate through the dispiriting experience of voting for something that they don’t really believe in.
Linked to this is the obsession all parties have about marginal seats. In countries across Europe that use proportional representation systems, votes count equally wherever they are cast. A voter in Lapland has the same say over Finnish politics as a voter in Helsinki. But in the UK, marginal seats are paramount. This leads us to pour activists and resources into the relatively small number of seats which we think may change hands, while paying much less attention to the majority of constituencies where the outcome is pretty certain.
The point about so-called ‘safe seats’ isn’t that they never change hands. It’s that can end up being taken for granted and deprioritised in our campaigning, year after year. The voters hear from us less often than they should – and can eventually conclude that we’ve stopped listening to them. It’s this complacency that sows the seeds of disasters like the loss of Scotland in 2015 or the fall of the “red wall” last year. It all starts with a system that forces us to act as if some votes are more important than others.
If we are going to rebuild trust in our democracy, we need to keep the positives that exist in our current system. As we have this debate, I’ll be arguing that the constituency link between an MP and their local voters is vital. We can hardly rebuild trust in politics by getting rid of locally accountable representatives. This is why serious discussion about electoral reform quickly leads to systems that keep this link, such as those used in Holyrood and Stormont.
But there’s another reason Labour should be looking at the voting system: first-past-the-post has repeatedly enabled right-wing government on a minority of the vote. Most people voted for parties to the left of the Conservatives in December. In fact, as Make Votes Matter have pointed out, most people did so in 19 of the last 20 general elections. Yet by the end of their current term, the Tories will have been in power for two-thirds of this time.
Political scientists have highlighted a right-wing bias in countries that use first-past-the-post across the world, as well as a resulting tendency for these societies to slide towards inequality in comparison to countries with proportional representation.
As faith in democracy has fallen around the globe, countries like Norway and Denmark bucked the trend and posted record satisfaction with theirs. It may be no coincidence that they also use proportional representation, governing by consensus rather than confrontation, and have become some of the most socialist societies in the world today. As we consider how to reshape our democracy, this would be a good place to start.
There’s a strong consensus forming around holding a constitutional convention. Led by a representative assembly of citizens, this would bring together ideas for radical democratic reform, hear evidence from experts and other countries’ experiences, and decide how to reshape our democracy for the 21st century. As Labour’s deputy leader, I will ensure that electoral reform is part of this conversation.