labourlist--2020-11-23--“Labour would make responsible choices” – Dodds’ full speech to Reuters

Below is the full text of Anneliese Dodds ’ speech to Reuters this afternoon on the upcoming spending review .
Last week , I visited the amazing team in Oxford developing a vaccine for Covid-19 .
As news emerges of increasing successes from clinical trials , we can finally sense some hope .
But we are not out of the woods .
Infections are still high and the economy is 10 % smaller today than it was at the end of last year .
The UK has the highest excess death rate in Europe and is suffering the worst downturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the British people .
Just as our scientists work every hour of the day so we can escape this health crisis , the government must do all it can to lay the foundations for our economic recovery .
Wednesday ’ s spending review should be the moment to make responsible choices .
Responsible choices that will support our frontline workers , ensure we have resilient public services and invest in a better , more secure future – right across the UK .
We ’ ve seen over the last eight months who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social carers who look after the elderly and vulnerable .
The staff in our NHS .
Not just nurses and doctors , but hospital porters and others who make our health service what it is .
And who , day after day , night after night , have put patients first , and themselves last .
The teachers and teaching assistants who ’ ve taught key workers ’ children while they helped to keep us all safe .
The delivery drivers and retail workers who ’ ve kept our economy going through lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during this time of need , have often had to survive on a shoestring .
7 in 10 care workers earn less than £10 an hour .
So do many of our hospital porters .
Many key workers in the private sector are barely keeping their heads above water .
And yet , unbelievably , it looks like the Chancellor is set to freeze the pay of those working on the Covid frontline .
And key workers right across the country are still waiting to hear if they ’ ll get the £10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freezing the pay of firefighters , hospital porters and teaching assistants will make them worried about making ends meet ahead of Christmas .
That means they ’ ll cut back on spending and our economy won ’ t recover as quickly .
Our high streets and small businesses would suffer .
That would mean yet more job losses , when we ’ ve already seen a record number of redundancies thanks to the Chancellor ’ s constant chopping and changing .
Penny-pinching for those on the frontline .
But profligacy when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a select group of contractors .
A National Audit Office report published last week found that suppliers with political connections are ten times more likely to have won work from this Conservative government .
The Conservatives paid £2,000 a day to a former executive of the collapsed outsourcer Interserve .
And they paid £7,000 a day to consultants building a Test and Trace system that still isn ’ t functioning properly .
That ’ s £1,000 an hour – more than a hundred times the hourly wage of the average care worker .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this government ’ s “ file of failure ” when it comes to waste and mismanagement of public money .
Incredibly , since then yet more has come to light .
Over two-thirds of a billion pounds on NHS coveralls that were never used , including a contract to a firm run by a Conservative councillor .
A £500m pilot testing programme in Salford that was supposed to test all of its 250,000 residents – but was paused when they couldn ’ t even manage 250 .
And record redundancies caused by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to announce changes to wage support , by which point many had already lost their jobs .
The British people shouldn ’ t have to pay the price for a government that doesn ’ t know the value of public money , splurging it on outsourced contracts to Tory-linked firms that don ’ t deliver .
And they shouldn ’ t have to pay for a Chancellor who ’ s had to come back week in week out to change his plans , blocked a circuit breaker leading to a longer , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t acted to fix Britain ’ s broken safety net – leaving millions excluded from support , including huge numbers of the self-employed .
The Chancellor ’ s irresponsible choices and unacceptable delays are damaging the economy .
That ’ s why we ’ re in the grip of a jobs crisis – and it ’ s got Rishi Sunak ’ s name all over it .
The British people deserve a responsible approach from their Chancellor .
A Chancellor who will use public money wisely to support resilient public services .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than grinding them down .
Who will protect delivery drivers and shop assistants from poverty pay instead of throwing them into it .
A Chancellor who acts responsibly , so our families and communities can have a more secure future .
We went into this crisis as one of the most unequal countries in Europe .
The pandemic has only made that worse .
People living in the North of England have experienced a larger fall in their mental wellbeing than people in the rest of the country .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working hours reduced , or to have lost their jobs altogether .
They have , bluntly and tragically , been more likely to die of Covid-19 .
This government claims it has the answers to regional inequality .
But the Conservatives have simply not delivered , and regional inequalities have deepened .
On Wednesday , they ’ ll make a lot of noise about ‘ levelling up ’ the country with another set of pledges on infrastructure .
But when it comes to infrastructure , from Boris Island to the Boris Bridge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering on his promises is one of utter failure .
And those failures don ’ t start and end with the Prime Minister .
Ten years of Conservative failures have seen billions wasted on pet projects and white elephants instead of action to make a difference to people ’ s lives .
People in the West Midlands are still waiting for the Midland Metropolitan University Hospital , which should have been open for two years by now .
Instead , it ’ ll be four years late and cost twice what it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill of £700m .
Northern Powerhouse rail , six years on from first being announced , still hasn ’ t even been approved , let alone started .
Right now , victims of domestic violence are being forced to wait for months to see their abusers brought to justice .
The government ’ s £1.2bn courts modernisation programme has completely failed – it ’ s now running three years behind schedule and is costing £172m a year more than the original plans .
Even where projects have got off the ground , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes the difference that it should – employing and up-skilling local people , and improving the local environment and people ’ s quality of life .
That is a collective Conservative failure .
After a decade of letting Britain down , people don ’ t want to hear more empty rhetoric and last-minute decision-making from this government .
They need urgent action on Wednesday to make this country the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in .
That means opportunities on people ’ s doorsteps , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Young people shouldn ’ t feel that they have to get out , to get on .
We need high-quality businesses in every town , providing well-paid and secure jobs so people don ’ t just survive but thrive .
Government has a clear responsibility : rewarding businesses who do the right thing and not handing public money to those who don ’ t .
And where government invests public money , it should commit to using local supply chains and providing opportunities for people who live locally .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a good place to set up home .
We need genuinely affordable homes , built to last and not expensive to heat .
Local authorities should be able to ensure our green spaces are high-quality and safe , and our high streets are places people want to visit .
Every local area deserves decent services we can all be proud of : children ’ s centres , schools , leisure centres , youth clubs , post offices and libraries .
Instead , we ’ ve had years of decline under Conservative governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bone and many being forced to shed even more staff this year – despite the jobs crisis .
The spirit of solidarity and mutual aid we ’ ve seen so much of throughout this crisis , from Aberdeen to Aberystwyth , from Cornwall to Caithness , from Blackburn to Brighton , should be supported – not forgotten .
People right across our country should feel safe and secure where they live – settled and part of a community .
Not insecure and just about clinging on .
Labour would make responsible choices to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and recover jobs in every part of the country .
We need to recover jobs – by bringing forward £30bn in capital spending over the next 18 months and investing it in the clean industries of the future right across the UK .
Action now , to build it in Britain again , match the green ambitions of other countries and deliver a clean , jobs-rich recovery .
And the Chancellor needs to learn from the damage he caused with his last-minute changes to wage support .
Rather than threatening yet more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide certainty for employers that they ’ ll be able to keep their staff on .
We need to retrain workers – with an emergency programme providing help right now .
Not waiting until April , when the government ’ s main plans for older workers are due to start – by which point many will have been looking for work for over a year .
And rooted in local communities , building on successes like Greater Manchester ’ s ‘ Working Well ’ scheme – not outsourced through giant contracts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with government providing clarity , not confusion , on how we will emerge from lockdown , including what support will be available under different tiers .
Still today , businesses in areas like Liverpool and Middlesbrough simply do not know what support they will receive if they go back into Tier 3 .
That ’ s additional , unnecessary uncertainty , when so many firms feel like they are already only just clinging on .
And we need Labour ’ s proposed National Investment Bank , to bring us in line with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance to fuel the recovery .
On Wednesday , the Chancellor has the chance to take the right , responsible choices for our country .
To use public money wisely in support of those at the front line – so we can be resilient against disease and resilient against economic decline .
And to face up to regional inequalities with action , not just rhetoric – for a more secure future right across our country – in every region and community .
Thank you .

Below is the full text of Anneliese Dodds’ speech to Reuters this afternoon on the upcoming spending review.
Last week, I visited the amazing team in Oxford developing a vaccine for Covid-19. As news emerges of increasing successes from clinical trials, we can finally sense some hope. But we are not out of the woods. Infections are still high and the economy is 10% smaller today than it was at the end of last year.
The UK has the highest excess death rate in Europe and is suffering the worst downturn in the G7 – a double tragedy for the British people. Just as our scientists work every hour of the day so we can escape this health crisis, the government must do all it can to lay the foundations for our economic recovery.
Wednesday’s spending review should be the moment to make responsible choices. Responsible choices that will support our frontline workers, ensure we have resilient public services and invest in a better, more secure future – right across the UK.
We’ve seen over the last eight months who our key workers really are. The social carers who look after the elderly and vulnerable. The staff in our NHS. Not just nurses and doctors, but hospital porters and others who make our health service what it is. And who, day after day, night after night, have put patients first, and themselves last.
The teachers and teaching assistants who’ve taught key workers’ children while they helped to keep us all safe. The delivery drivers and retail workers who’ve kept our economy going through lockdown.
But these workers, so critical during this time of need, have often had to survive on a shoestring. 7 in 10 care workers earn less than £10 an hour. So do many of our hospital porters. Many key workers in the private sector are barely keeping their heads above water.
And yet, unbelievably, it looks like the Chancellor is set to freeze the pay of those working on the Covid frontline. And key workers right across the country are still waiting to hear if they’ll get the £10 an hour minimum wage they deserve.
Freezing the pay of firefighters, hospital porters and teaching assistants will make them worried about making ends meet ahead of Christmas. That means they’ll cut back on spending and our economy won’t recover as quickly.
Our high streets and small businesses would suffer. That would mean yet more job losses, when we’ve already seen a record number of redundancies thanks to the Chancellor’s constant chopping and changing.
Penny-pinching for those on the frontline. But profligacy when it comes to doling out billions of pounds to a select group of contractors. A National Audit Office report published last week found that suppliers with political connections are ten times more likely to have won work from this Conservative government.
The Conservatives paid £2,000 a day to a former executive of the collapsed outsourcer Interserve. And they paid £7,000 a day to consultants building a Test and Trace system that still isn’t functioning properly. That’s £1,000 an hour – more than a hundred times the hourly wage of the average care worker.
Two months ago, I warned of this government’s “file of failure” when it comes to waste and mismanagement of public money. Incredibly, since then yet more has come to light. Over two-thirds of a billion pounds on NHS coveralls that were never used, including a contract to a firm run by a Conservative councillor.
A £500m pilot testing programme in Salford that was supposed to test all of its 250,000 residents – but was paused when they couldn’t even manage 250. And record redundancies caused by the Chancellor waiting until the very last minute to announce changes to wage support, by which point many had already lost their jobs.
The British people shouldn’t have to pay the price for a government that doesn’t know the value of public money, splurging it on outsourced contracts to Tory-linked firms that don’t deliver.
And they shouldn’t have to pay for a Chancellor who’s had to come back week in week out to change his plans, blocked a circuit breaker leading to a longer, more painful lockdown, and still hasn’t acted to fix Britain’s broken safety net – leaving millions excluded from support, including huge numbers of the self-employed.
The Chancellor’s irresponsible choices and unacceptable delays are damaging the economy. That’s why we’re in the grip of a jobs crisis – and it’s got Rishi Sunak’s name all over it.
The British people deserve a responsible approach from their Chancellor. A Chancellor who will use public money wisely to support resilient public services. Who will treat our front line workers decently, rather than grinding them down.
Who will protect delivery drivers and shop assistants from poverty pay instead of throwing them into it. A Chancellor who acts responsibly, so our families and communities can have a more secure future.
We went into this crisis as one of the most unequal countries in Europe. The pandemic has only made that worse.
People living in the North of England have experienced a larger fall in their mental wellbeing than people in the rest of the country. They’ve been more likely to have their working hours reduced, or to have lost their jobs altogether. They have, bluntly and tragically, been more likely to die of Covid-19.
This government claims it has the answers to regional inequality. But the Conservatives have simply not delivered, and regional inequalities have deepened.
On Wednesday, they’ll make a lot of noise about ‘levelling up’ the country with another set of pledges on infrastructure. But when it comes to infrastructure, from Boris Island to the Boris Bridge, the Prime Minister’s record on delivering on his promises is one of utter failure.
And those failures don’t start and end with the Prime Minister. Ten years of Conservative failures have seen billions wasted on pet projects and white elephants instead of action to make a difference to people’s lives.
People in the West Midlands are still waiting for the Midland Metropolitan University Hospital, which should have been open for two years by now. Instead, it’ll be four years late and cost twice what it should have done, with taxpayers footing a bill of £700m.
Northern Powerhouse rail, six years on from first being announced, still hasn’t even been approved, let alone started.
Right now, victims of domestic violence are being forced to wait for months to see their abusers brought to justice. The government’s £1.2bn courts modernisation programme has completely failed – it’s now running three years behind schedule and is costing £172m a year more than the original plans.
Even where projects have got off the ground, the Conservatives never ensure that this spending really makes the difference that it should – employing and up-skilling local people, and improving the local environment and people’s quality of life. That is a collective Conservative failure.
After a decade of letting Britain down, people don’t want to hear more empty rhetoric and last-minute decision-making from this government. They need urgent action on Wednesday to make this country the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in.
That means opportunities on people’s doorsteps, not at the other end of the country. Young people shouldn’t feel that they have to get out, to get on.
We need high-quality businesses in every town, providing well-paid and secure jobs so people don’t just survive but thrive. Government has a clear responsibility: rewarding businesses who do the right thing and not handing public money to those who don’t.
And where government invests public money, it should commit to using local supply chains and providing opportunities for people who live locally.
It also means every part of our country feeling like a good place to set up home. We need genuinely affordable homes, built to last and not expensive to heat.
Local authorities should be able to ensure our green spaces are high-quality and safe, and our high streets are places people want to visit. Every local area deserves decent services we can all be proud of: children’s centres, schools, leisure centres, youth clubs, post offices and libraries.
Instead, we’ve had years of decline under Conservative governments, with local authorities cut to the bone and many being forced to shed even more staff this year – despite the jobs crisis.
The spirit of solidarity and mutual aid we’ve seen so much of throughout this crisis, from Aberdeen to Aberystwyth, from Cornwall to Caithness, from Blackburn to Brighton, should be supported – not forgotten.
People right across our country should feel safe and secure where they live – settled and part of a community. Not insecure and just about clinging on.
Labour would make responsible choices to protect our key workers, secure the economy and recover jobs in every part of the country. We need to recover jobs – by bringing forward £30bn in capital spending over the next 18 months and investing it in the clean industries of the future right across the UK.
Action now, to build it in Britain again, match the green ambitions of other countries and deliver a clean, jobs-rich recovery.
And the Chancellor needs to learn from the damage he caused with his last-minute changes to wage support. Rather than threatening yet more change just after Christmas, he needs to provide certainty for employers that they’ll be able to keep their staff on.
We need to retrain workers – with an emergency programme providing help right now. Not waiting until April, when the government’s main plans for older workers are due to start – by which point many will have been looking for work for over a year.
And rooted in local communities, building on successes like Greater Manchester’s ‘Working Well’ scheme – not outsourced through giant contracts.
And we need to rebuild business, with government providing clarity, not confusion, on how we will emerge from lockdown, including what support will be available under different tiers.
Still today, businesses in areas like Liverpool and Middlesbrough simply do not know what support they will receive if they go back into Tier 3.
That’s additional, unnecessary uncertainty, when so many firms feel like they are already only just clinging on. And we need Labour’s proposed National Investment Bank, to bring us in line with other countries and maximise public and private sector finance to fuel the recovery.
On Wednesday, the Chancellor has the chance to take the right, responsible choices for our country. To use public money wisely in support of those at the front line – so we can be resilient against disease and resilient against economic decline.
And to face up to regional inequalities with action, not just rhetoric – for a more secure future right across our country – in every region and community. Thank you.


labourlist--2020-11-23--Labour urges Electoral Commission to probe Towns Fund ads in 2019 election

Labour has called for an investigation into an “ alleged misuse of public funds ” over the targeting of Facebook ads about the government ’ s Towns Fund at key marginal seats in the run up to the 2019 general election .
In a letter to the Electoral Commission seen by HuffPost UK , shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs Cat Smith MP has urged that the body to look into the 20 ads that boasted £25m investment in “ your town ” .
The messages still visible on Facebook after MPs backed an early general election last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats with a majority of less than 5,000 votes , including Milton Keynes , Workington and Morley .
Labour ’ s Cat Smith wrote to Electoral Commission chief executive Bob Posner : “ On the cusp of a general election , this sort of targeted advertising is clearly inappropriate when paid for out of the public purse .
“ This is a clear case of public money being used to advance the political interest of the Conservative Party .
In light of the recent Towns Fund scandal , we know that taxpayers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party.
” She added : “ In a time of increasing disregard for democratic processes and norms worldwide , it is vital that the UK government is held to the highest democratic standards and acts both legally and transparently .
“ I would urge the Electoral Commission to investigate the circumstances of this alleged misuse of public funds , and to report on its findings publicly as soon as possible .
“ Ministers must answer these questions and reassure the public that taxpayers ’ cash is not being spent by the Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Smith follows comments made by Labour frontbencher Steve Reed , who voiced concerns in parliament last week that the £3.6bn Towns Fund was used to “ boost the Conservative Party ’ s general election campaign ” .
The Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary asked his opposite number to publish in full the advice and criteria used when ministers “ funnelled millions of pounds to each other ’ s constituencies ahead of the general election ” .
Housing , Communities and Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick refused to do as “ accounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and insisted that a “ robust process was established ” for allocating the funds .
The public accounts committee stated in a a report published earlier this month that it was “ not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others ” and concluded that the process “ was not impartial ” .
Jenrick has been called to the Commons several times to answer questions on the issue , and Labour last month demanded that the Cabinet Office look into his role in the controversial application of the fund established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlighted the allocation of funding to his constituency Newark , which is ranked as the 270th most deprived area , alongside 99 other towns .
32 on the list fell outside the 300 worst-off in England , according to the Office for National Statistics .

Labour has called for an investigation into an “alleged misuse of public funds” over the targeting of Facebook ads about the government’s Towns Fund at key marginal seats in the run up to the 2019 general election.
In a letter to the Electoral Commission seen by HuffPost UK, shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs Cat Smith MP has urged that the body to look into the 20 ads that boasted £25m investment in “your town”.
The messages still visible on Facebook after MPs backed an early general election last year appeared to be targeted specifically at seats with a majority of less than 5,000 votes, including Milton Keynes, Workington and Morley.
Labour’s Cat Smith wrote to Electoral Commission chief executive Bob Posner: “On the cusp of a general election, this sort of targeted advertising is clearly inappropriate when paid for out of the public purse.
“This is a clear case of public money being used to advance the political interest of the Conservative Party. In light of the recent Towns Fund scandal, we know that taxpayers’ money has been used to benefit the Conservative Party.”
She added: “In a time of increasing disregard for democratic processes and norms worldwide, it is vital that the UK government is held to the highest democratic standards and acts both legally and transparently.
“I would urge the Electoral Commission to investigate the circumstances of this alleged misuse of public funds, and to report on its findings publicly as soon as possible.
“Ministers must answer these questions and reassure the public that taxpayers’ cash is not being spent by the Conservatives for their own gain.”
The letter from Smith follows comments made by Labour frontbencher Steve Reed, who voiced concerns in parliament last week that the £3.6bn Towns Fund was used to “boost the Conservative Party’s general election campaign”.
The Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary asked his opposite number to publish in full the advice and criteria used when ministers “funnelled millions of pounds to each other’s constituencies ahead of the general election”.
Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick refused to do as “accounting officer assessments are not routinely published” and insisted that a “robust process was established” for allocating the funds.
The public accounts committee stated in a a report published earlier this month that it was “not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others” and concluded that the process “was not impartial”.
Jenrick has been called to the Commons several times to answer questions on the issue, and Labour last month demanded that the Cabinet Office look into his role in the controversial application of the fund established in the summer of 2019.
Labour highlighted the allocation of funding to his constituency Newark, which is ranked as the 270th most deprived area, alongside 99 other towns. 32 on the list fell outside the 300 worst-off in England, according to the Office for National Statistics.


labourlist--2020-11-24--Sunak “choking off any chance of recovery”, says Dodds

Anneliese Dodds has criticised the Chancellor and argued that he is “ choking off any chance of recovery ” from the pandemic following reports that he is preparing to cancel the planned rise in the national living wage in the spending review .
Commenting ahead of the statement to be delivered by Rishi Sunak on Wednesday , Dodds condemned the decision not to award the 5.6 % increase to those on the lowest wages over fears it could force companies hit by Covid out of business .
The Shadow Chancellor argued : “ It ’ s astonishing that the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day and then U-turn on a promised pay rise for the lowest paid the next – especially during a second national lockdown .
“ It ’ s another irresponsible choice by a Chancellor who ’ s choking off any chance of recovery by hitting workers in their pockets.
” The remarks from Dodds follow her speech to Reuters , during which she stressed that the public deserves a “ responsible approach from their Chancellor ” and told attendees that Labour “ would make responsible choices ” .
It also comes amid a growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay freeze , which Angela Rayner has slammed as a “ disgrace ” and reiterated the party ’ s 2019 general election call for a £10 minimum wage for all workers .
The deputy Labour leader said : “ The Chancellor says that a pay freeze for millions of the key workers who have put their lives on the line through this crisis is not a return to austerity .
He is wrong .
“ Tell that to the care worker trying to feed their family on £8 an hour .
Tell that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table .
“ Tory Ministers fell over themselves to clap our key workers when the cameras were rolling and now they want to sell them out .
“ Under this government our key workers are getting their pay frozen whilst ministers are handing out contracts to their mates .
It ’ s a disgrace and the Chancellor must think again before the spending review on Wednesday.
” Concern over a pay freeze have been mounting in recent weeks and were last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think tank Centre for Policy Studies , which Sunak favours , arguing the policy could save £23bn over three years .
The concerns voiced by trade unions and Labour also follow Treasury documents leaked in May this year that provided the Chancellor with a “ blueprint ” to pay for the crisis – including a pay freeze for public sector employees and raised taxes .
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell criticised the proposals in an interview on Sunday as not only bad economic policy , but also described the move as a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers in the coronavirus pandemic .
TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady told Sophy Ridge on Sunday : “ Millions of key workers cared for us during the crisis , and continue to care for us… I don ’ t think this would be the time to reward them with a real pay cut.
” Amid the growing backlash over the public sector pay freeze , Downing Street ’ s spokesperson has insisted that “ both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will not return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims from Johnson and the Chancellor follow an interview given by the Prime Minister in June this year , in which he said the government will “ not go back to the austerity of ten years ago ” .
Reports around the decision not to award the lowest paid workers with the planned pay rise emerged on Monday evening , after the Low Pay Commission previously advised that the minimum pay rate should increase from £8.72 to £9.21 per hour .
The commission has now concluded that the proposed increase is unaffordable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sunak has accepted the recommendation from the organisation .

Anneliese Dodds has criticised the Chancellor and argued that he is “choking off any chance of recovery” from the pandemic following reports that he is preparing to cancel the planned rise in the national living wage in the spending review.
Commenting ahead of the statement to be delivered by Rishi Sunak on Wednesday, Dodds condemned the decision not to award the 5.6% increase to those on the lowest wages over fears it could force companies hit by Covid out of business.
The Shadow Chancellor argued: “It’s astonishing that the government can clap for our key workers one day and then U-turn on a promised pay rise for the lowest paid the next – especially during a second national lockdown.
“It’s another irresponsible choice by a Chancellor who’s choking off any chance of recovery by hitting workers in their pockets.”
The remarks from Dodds follow her speech to Reuters, during which she stressed that the public deserves a “responsible approach from their Chancellor” and told attendees that Labour “would make responsible choices”.
It also comes amid a growing backlash over plans for a public sector pay freeze, which Angela Rayner has slammed as a “disgrace” and reiterated the party’s 2019 general election call for a £10 minimum wage for all workers.
The deputy Labour leader said: “The Chancellor says that a pay freeze for millions of the key workers who have put their lives on the line through this crisis is not a return to austerity. He is wrong.
“Tell that to the care worker trying to feed their family on £8 an hour. Tell that to the hospital porter or the teaching assistant struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table.
“Tory Ministers fell over themselves to clap our key workers when the cameras were rolling and now they want to sell them out.
“Under this government our key workers are getting their pay frozen whilst ministers are handing out contracts to their mates. It’s a disgrace and the Chancellor must think again before the spending review on Wednesday.”
Concern over a pay freeze have been mounting in recent weeks and were last week heightened by a report from the right-wing think tank Centre for Policy Studies, which Sunak favours, arguing the policy could save £23bn over three years.
The concerns voiced by trade unions and Labour also follow Treasury documents leaked in May this year that provided the Chancellor with a “blueprint” to pay for the crisis – including a pay freeze for public sector employees and raised taxes.
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell criticised the proposals in an interview on Sunday as not only bad economic policy, but also described the move as a “kick in the teeth” for frontline workers in the coronavirus pandemic.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady told Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “Millions of key workers cared for us during the crisis, and continue to care for us… I don’t think this would be the time to reward them with a real pay cut.”
Amid the growing backlash over the public sector pay freeze, Downing Street’s spokesperson has insisted that “both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will not return to the austerity of the past”.
The claims from Johnson and the Chancellor follow an interview given by the Prime Minister in June this year, in which he said the government will “not go back to the austerity of ten years ago”.
Reports around the decision not to award the lowest paid workers with the planned pay rise emerged on Monday evening, after the Low Pay Commission previously advised that the minimum pay rate should increase from £8.72 to £9.21 per hour.
The commission has now concluded that the proposed increase is unaffordable for struggling companies. It has been reported that Sunak has accepted the recommendation from the organisation.


labourlist--2020-11-24--Labour’s ruling body descends into infighting over NEC chair role

Labour criticised rumoured plans of a public sector pay freeze last week , but was not keen to consider the policy a fait accompli : the Treasury has a habit of briefing tougher measures before revealing kinder-than-expected ones .
With the spending review set to be unveiled tomorrow , the opposition is now attacking the freeze with certainty , however .
Angela Rayner has called the move a “ disgrace ” and reiterated Labour ’ s 2019 policy of a real living wage of at least £10 an hour for all workers .
This is not the only demand of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statement : the TUC is again emphasising that scrapping the Union Learning Fund would be hugely counterproductive , particularly at this time , and MPs are calling for increased sick pay .
Labour ’ s key message on the economy : responsibility .
Anneliese Dodds made that theme clear in her speech to Reuters yesterday , which argued that the public deserves a “ responsible approach from their Chancellor ” and that Labour “ would make responsible choices ” .
This ties in with Bridget Phillipson ’ s emphasis on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
The party is acutely aware that it still has a long way to go before it is trusted by voters on the economy , and that this is only going to become more potent as an electoral factor amid a Covid recovery .
Keir Starmer adopted a similar tone when responding to the Prime Minister ’ s Covid plans in the Commons .
Boris Johnson confirmed to MPs , via dodgy video link , that the English lockdown will end on December 2nd and be replaced by a return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uniform – not subject to local negotiations – and tougher than before .
But the Labour leader branded the move “ risky ” and pointed out that last time it resulted in a national lockdown .
“ There are huge gaps in this plan , huge uncertainties and huge risk , ” Starmer concluded .
Johnson merely cracked a couple of jokes and experienced technical difficulties in response , but the opposition leader has put his concerns on the record .
In internal Labour news , Jeremy Corbyn has been told by chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments that led to his suspension and edit or delete the original Facebook post .
Few believe that the former party leader will issue such an apology , and the matter will therefore go through the courts or drag on until Corbyn ’ s disciplinary case goes through a new independent system .
Meanwhile , the party ’ s left flank is struggling to keep hold of any power base .
The leadership is changing the process by which Labour ’ s national executive committee chair is chosen , which will see Margaret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBU ’ s Ian Murray who signed the letter criticising Corbyn ’ s whip suspension last week .
The first meeting of the new NEC is taking place today , and it was set to be another long and fiery one – but I ’ ve just been told the Labour left have walked out , digitally speaking .
They are furious , as reported last night , over the NEC chair decision that they say represents a rejection of left-wing trade unions , especially after the Bakers ’ Union last week announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Labour .
A row over Young Labour aggravated the situation after its new chair said Labour ’ s head office had ordered the removal of a statement opposing the Corbyn whip decision .
Margaret Beckett has been elected unanimously as Labour ’ s new NEC chair and Alice Perry as vice-chair .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Labour criticised rumoured plans of a public sector pay freeze last week, but was not keen to consider the policy a fait accompli: the Treasury has a habit of briefing tougher measures before revealing kinder-than-expected ones. With the spending review set to be unveiled tomorrow, the opposition is now attacking the freeze with certainty, however. Angela Rayner has called the move a “disgrace” and reiterated Labour’s 2019 policy of a real living wage of at least £10 an hour for all workers. This is not the only demand of the labour movement ahead of the Chancellor’s statement: the TUC is again emphasising that scrapping the Union Learning Fund would be hugely counterproductive, particularly at this time, and MPs are calling for increased sick pay.
Labour’s key message on the economy: responsibility. Anneliese Dodds made that theme clear in her speech to Reuters yesterday, which argued that the public deserves a “responsible approach from their Chancellor” and that Labour “would make responsible choices”. This ties in with Bridget Phillipson’s emphasis on “value for money” during the coronavirus crisis. The party is acutely aware that it still has a long way to go before it is trusted by voters on the economy, and that this is only going to become more potent as an electoral factor amid a Covid recovery.
Keir Starmer adopted a similar tone when responding to the Prime Minister’s Covid plans in the Commons. Boris Johnson confirmed to MPs, via dodgy video link, that the English lockdown will end on December 2nd and be replaced by a return to the three tiers. Those tiers will be uniform – not subject to local negotiations – and tougher than before. But the Labour leader branded the move “risky” and pointed out that last time it resulted in a national lockdown. “There are huge gaps in this plan, huge uncertainties and huge risk,” Starmer concluded. Johnson merely cracked a couple of jokes and experienced technical difficulties in response, but the opposition leader has put his concerns on the record.
In internal Labour news, Jeremy Corbyn has been told by chief whip Nick Brown to apologise for the comments that led to his suspension and edit or delete the original Facebook post. Few believe that the former party leader will issue such an apology, and the matter will therefore go through the courts or drag on until Corbyn’s disciplinary case goes through a new independent system. Meanwhile, the party’s left flank is struggling to keep hold of any power base. The leadership is changing the process by which Labour’s national executive committee chair is chosen, which will see Margaret Beckett head the body rather than the FBU’s Ian Murray who signed the letter criticising Corbyn’s whip suspension last week.
The first meeting of the new NEC is taking place today, and it was set to be another long and fiery one – but I’ve just been told the Labour left have walked out, digitally speaking. They are furious, as reported last night, over the NEC chair decision that they say represents a rejection of left-wing trade unions, especially after the Bakers’ Union last week announced it would consult members on staying affiliated to Labour. A row over Young Labour aggravated the situation after its new chair said Labour’s head office had ordered the removal of a statement opposing the Corbyn whip decision. Margaret Beckett has been elected unanimously as Labour’s new NEC chair and Alice Perry as vice-chair. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-11-24--Margaret Beckett elected as NEC chair after left stage digital walk-out

Margaret Beckett has been elected as Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) chair at the first meeting of the new ruling body following a digital walk-out by 13 members aligned with the party ’ s left .
Beckett , the longest-serving NEC member , has taken over from the TSSA ’ s Andi Fox as chair .
The left had expected NEC vice-chair Ian Murray of the FBU to succeed Fox based on an existing rotating chair system .
Veteran Labour MP Beckett was instead elected unanimously with 24 votes , while Alice Perry – an Islington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEC – was chosen as the new vice-chair of the ruling body .
Before the walk-out , Unite ’ s Howard Beckett and ex-MP Laura Pidcock made points of order criticising Keir Starmer .
Although members left the online meeting , sources say it was quorate when the elections took place .
LabourList understands that Howard Beckett , Jayne Taylor , Ian Murray , Andi Fox , Mick Whelan , Andy Kerr , Pauline McCarthy , Lara McNeill , Mish Rahman , Laura Pidcock , Yasmine Dar , Nadia Jama and Gemma Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LabourList that Angela Rayner was not present at the NEC meeting today , and that new Momentum-backed disabled representative Ellen Morrison stayed in the meeting but did not take part in the elections .
It is understood that the NEC ’ s ‘ swing voters ’ – local party rep Ann Black , Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard , GMB reps Tom Warnett and Kathy Abu-Bakir – all voted in favour of Beckett for chair .
Those who led the move to elect Margaret Beckett said the leadership was simply restoring the old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to which the longest-serving NEC member becomes chair and the next longest-serving vice-chair .
But newly elected NEC member Momentum ’ s Mish Rahman accused Starmer of “ trying to play games with democracy ” and “ undermine the role of trade unions ” with a “ factional attack… reminiscent of the New Labour years ” .
He added : “ There can be no party unity until Starmer fully understands the need to work with the labour movement and the many tens of thousands of grassroots members who can help deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the NEC today was to remind him of this , and to send a message that we will not put up with petty and repeated attacks on trade unions and members.
” LabourList can reveal that the 13 NEC members who walked out have written a letter to general secretary David Evans making the case that Starmer is “ promoting factional division within Labour ” through the change in NEC chair plans .
The “ true reason ” for Starmer wanted Margaret Beckett to become NEC chair , the letter argues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to Evans last week criticising Starmer for withholding the whip from Jeremy Corbyn .
The NEC members have asked Evans to “ uphold the rulebook ” , “ maintain protocol ” , “ remind the leader that he is an officer of the NEC ” and “ prevent factionalism ” .
They have pledged to return to future NEC meetings .
Beckett , who was first elected to the NEC in 1980 and is the longest-serving female MP overall , is one of only three people in Labour history to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to party sources .
Former Momentum chair Jon Lansman said he was “ sorry Ian Murray wasn ’ t elected NEC chair because it was his turn ” , but added that “ we can not argue with democracy ” and advised members : “ Get over it !
” .
Below is the full text of the letter to David Evans .
As proud members of the NEC we find ourselves unable to stay in today ’ s meeting .
As you will be aware we recently wrote to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Labour , Sir Keir Starmer , for his decision to undermine the role of the NEC by withdrawing the whip from Jeremy Corbyn MP .
The withdrawal of the whip directly undermined the legitimacy of the NEC decision to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn ’ s membership .
It was made worse by Keir Starmer subsequently permitting his shadow cabinet members to make commentary on media that was clearly intended to undermine the legitimacy of the NEC process .
At today ’ s NEC the agenda item of election of the chair and vice-chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of disagreement as to whether these agenda items can be heard absent the officers agreeing the agenda .
But regardless it has become apparent that the longstanding protocol of the vice-chair being elected as chair is not to be followed .
Instead the leadership has lobbied for Dame Margaret Beckett to be chair .
The public reason for such lobbying is to be given as Dame Margaret being the longest-serving member of the NEC .
This is not protocol and is another example of the leader promoting factional division within Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader lobbying for Dame Margaret , and indeed the reason that had been given by senior party MPs in private , is because the vice-chair , Ian Murray , was a signature to the previous correspondence sent to you seeking admonishment of the leader .
The leader ’ s decision to again promote factionalism comes at a time when the historic relationship with trade unions is under tremendous strain .
Already we know that the Bakers ’ Union are balloting their membership as to affiliation and the decision of the Leader to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBU taking the chair , as would be protocol , must be seen in this context .
As the general secretary of the Labour Party you should be stepping in to uphold the rulebook , maintain protocol , remind the leader that he is an officer of the NEC and prevent factionalism .
We have decided not to remain in the NEC meeting today in order to show very clearly how factional the decisions of the current Labour leader have become .
We will be returning to future NEC meetings to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue to demand that the party unite and reject the current factional approach of the leader .

Margaret Beckett has been elected as Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) chair at the first meeting of the new ruling body following a digital walkout by 13 members aligned with the party’s left.
Beckett, the longest-serving NEC member, has taken over from the TSSA’s Andi Fox as chair. The left had expected NEC vice-chair Ian Murray of the FBU to succeed Fox based on an existing rotating chair system.
Veteran Labour MP Beckett was instead elected unopposed, while Alice Perry – an Islington councillor who represents local government on the NEC – was chosen as the new vice-chair of the ruling body.
Before the walkout, Unite’s Howard Beckett and ex-MP Laura Pidcock made points of order criticising Keir Starmer. Although members left the online meeting, sources say it was quorate when the elections took place.
LabourList understands that Howard Beckett, Jayne Taylor, Ian Murray, Andi Fox, Mick Whelan, Andy Kerr, Pauline McCarthy, Lara McNeill, Mish Rahman, Laura Pidcock, Yasmine Dar, Nadia Jama and Gemma Bolton joined the walkout.
Sources have told LabourList that Angela Rayner was not present at the NEC meeting today, and that new Momentum-backed disabled representative Ellen Morrison stayed in the meeting but did not take part in the elections.
It is understood that the NEC’s ‘swing voters’ – local party rep Ann Black, GMB reps Tom Warnett and Kathy Abu-Bakir – all supported Beckett and Perry. Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard was not present.
Those who led the move to elect Margaret Beckett said the leadership was simply restoring the old system, in place until recently, according to which the longest-serving NEC member becomes chair and the next longest-serving vice-chair.
But newly elected NEC member Momentum’s Mish Rahman accused Starmer of “trying to play games with democracy” and “undermine the role of trade unions” with a “factional attack… reminiscent of the New Labour years”.
He added: “There can be no party unity until Starmer fully understands the need to work with the labour movement and the many tens of thousands of grassroots members who can help deliver a Labour government.
“Our walkout from the NEC today was to remind him of this, and to send a message that we will not put up with petty and repeated attacks on trade unions and members.”
LabourList can reveal that the 13 NEC members who walked out have written a letter to general secretary David Evans making the case that Starmer is “promoting factional division within Labour” through the change in NEC chair plans.
The “true reason” for Starmer wanted Margaret Beckett to become NEC chair, the letter argues, was that Ian Murray had signed a letter to Evans last week criticising Starmer for withholding the whip from Jeremy Corbyn.
The NEC members have asked Evans to “uphold the rulebook”, “maintain protocol”, “remind the leader that he is an officer of the NEC” and “prevent factionalism”. They have pledged to return to future NEC meetings.
Beckett, who was first elected to the NEC in 1980 and is the longest-serving female MP overall, is one of only three people in Labour history to have been leader, deputy leader and NEC chair, according to party sources.
Former Momentum chair Jon Lansman said he was “sorry Ian Murray wasn’t elected NEC chair because it was his turn”, but added that “we cannot argue with democracy” and advised members: “Get over it!”.
Commenting on the election of Beckett and Perry, new NEC member Luke Akehurst told LabourList: “Both of them are people who seek consensus, who are extremely experienced and who passionately care about returning Labour to electability.
“Margaret is an iconic figure who was on the NEC before many current NEC members were even born. She is unique in having been the first woman deputy leader, acting leader and Foreign Secretary, and is a figure that everyone across the party has the utmost respect for.”
FBU general secretary Matt Wrack told LabourList he was “disappointed” that the union’s president Ian Murray was not elected, saying: “The decision will be seen as factional and a slap in the face to Labour’s trade union affiliates.
“Tens of thousands of ordinary party members have just voted for left-wing NEC candidates and their views are being ignored. Taken with the removal of the Labour whip from Jeremy Corbyn, this will be seen as another attack on the party left.”
Below is the full text of the letter to David Evans.
Dear David
As proud members of the NEC we find ourselves unable to stay in today’s meeting.
As you will be aware we recently wrote to you to request that you admonish the leader of Labour, Sir Keir Starmer, for his decision to undermine the role of the NEC by withdrawing the whip from Jeremy Corbyn MP.
The withdrawal of the whip directly undermined the legitimacy of the NEC decision to reinstate Jeremy Corbyn’s membership. It was made worse by Keir Starmer subsequently permitting his shadow cabinet members to make commentary on media that was clearly intended to undermine the legitimacy of the NEC process.
At today’s NEC the agenda item of election of the chair and vice-chair of the NEC appears. It is a matter of disagreement as to whether these agenda items can be heard absent the officers agreeing the agenda.
But regardless it has become apparent that the longstanding protocol of the vice-chair being elected as chair is not to be followed. Instead the leadership has lobbied for Dame Margaret Beckett to be chair. The public reason for such lobbying is to be given as Dame Margaret being the longest-serving member of the NEC. This is not protocol and is another example of the leader promoting factional division within Labour.
We believe the true reason for the leader lobbying for Dame Margaret, and indeed the reason that had been given by senior party MPs in private, is because the vice-chair, Ian Murray, was a signature to the previous correspondence sent to you seeking admonishment of the leader.
The leader’s decision to again promote factionalism comes at a time when the historic relationship with trade unions is under tremendous strain. Already we know that the Bakers’ Union are balloting their membership as to affiliation and the decision of the Leader to lobby and brief against the president of the FBU taking the chair, as would be protocol, must be seen in this context.
As the general secretary of the Labour Party you should be stepping in to uphold the rulebook, maintain protocol, remind the leader that he is an officer of the NEC and prevent factionalism.
We have decided not to remain in the NEC meeting today in order to show very clearly how factional the decisions of the current Labour leader have become. We will be returning to future NEC meetings to be the legitimate voice of the membership and to continue to demand that the party unite and reject the current factional approach of the leader.


labourlist--2020-11-25--“We withdrew in the hope of pressing a reset button,” say new left NEC reps

Labour left national executive committee members have said they took the decision to withdraw from the meeting on Tuesday “ in the hope of pressing a reset button and returning hopefully to a more reasonable environment ” .
Speaking at a Momentum-hosted event this evening , newly-elected representatives Gemma Bolton and Mish Rahman discussed the decision of 13 left-wing members to leave the first NEC meeting since the elections .
The reps staged the digital walkout because the existing rotating chair system was being overturned by the leadership , which allowed veteran MP Margaret Beckett to become chair rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice-chair Ian Murray .
Bolton said tonight : “ After the undermining of the NEC ’ s processes in refusing to restore the whip to Jeremy , left reps on the NEC wrote to our new general secretary almost a week ago asking in the strongest terms that they reconsider.
” The NEC members wrote to David Evans after the walkout and argued the “ true reason ” Starmer wanted Beckett to become chair was that Murray had signed the first letter to the general secretary about restoring the whip to Corbyn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was added to the agenda by the general secretary without going through the usual channels of agreeing the agenda through the officers ’ group .
This agenda item was to elect a new chair and vice-chair .
“ Chair and vice-chair is usually elected at an NEC meeting directly after annual conference , which of course didn ’ t happen this year .
The rulebook states that an election would happen at the start of each year… “ The controversy came when the right decided to do away with convention and put Dame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Alice Perry into the role of vice-chair , which would replace two trade union representatives who held the roles with none and ignoring usual practice of the current vice-chair taking the chair when the vacancy became available.
” Bolton said this happened in the context of the Bakers ’ Union opting to consult its members on whether to remain affiliated to the party .
She argued that it “ begs the question of what , if any , relationship Starmer wants to have with the trade unions ” .
She described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and said she hopes that it “ sent a message to our leadership that the utter disregard and disrespect for elected representatives is something that we ’ re not going to put up with ” .
Bolton added : “ The leadership is undermining the governance of the NEC .
It ’ s censoring debate .
It ’ s ignoring our processes by doubling down on the removal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn .
“ This failure on the part of the majority to respect convention in one of our first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factionalism and we withdrew in the hope of pressing a reset button and returning hopefully to a more reasonable environment.
” Delivering his report after Bolton , Rahman said : “ We were lobbied by the leader ’ s office to support Dame Margaret Beckett the night before the NEC meeting despite it being usual chair for the vice-chair to become chair and for the new vice-chair to be the most senior person in the NEC .
“ So when people like myself questioned this , we were told ‘ come on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s highly decorated within the party ’ .
But our party is not the party of entitlement .
It can not be .
There has to be due process.
” Commenting on the election of Beckett , Jon Lansman said on Tuesday : “ If it ’ s just about process , it was an election… Since [ when ] was [ Buggins ’ ] turn a socialist principle ?
It was Ian ’ s turn but we can not argue with democracy !
” Rahman told those watching online this evening that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling body “ hasn ’ t happened in a vacuum ” and described it as “ the latest in a series of crackdown in recent weeks and months ” .
Rahman highlighted the suspension of Corbyn , reports that the London executive committee was blocked from expressing solidarity with the former Labour leader , and instructions prohibiting certain motions being passed at local parties .
He concluded by saying : “ Unless we have [ party ] unity – May 2021 is important – we ’ re going to struggle to campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win elections and its going to be really , really damaging for the party .
“ So we ’ ve got to get our house in order ASAP – bring everyone together , and by doing that we ’ ve got to respect the members who are the lifeblood of the party.
” Murray , Howard Beckett and Jayne Taylor of Unite , the TSSA ’ s Andi Fox , ASLEF ’ s Mick Whelan , CWU ’ s Andy Kerr , BFAWU ’ s Pauline McCarthy , youth rep Lara McNeill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yasmine Dar and Nadia Jama joined the walkout .
Veteran Labour MP Beckett was elected unopposed as the meeting went ahead without the left reps , while Alice Perry – an Islington councillor and local government representative on the party ’ s ruling body – was picked as vice-chair .
It is understood that the NEC ’ s ‘ swing voters ’ – local party representative Ann Black , GMB reps Tom Warnett and Kathy Abu-Bakir – all supported Beckett and Perry .
Deputy leader Angela Rayner and Scottish leader Richard Leonard were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Beckett and Perry , new NEC member Luke Akehurst told LabourList : “ Both of them are people who seek consensus , who are extremely experienced and who passionately care about returning Labour to electability .
“ Margaret is an iconic figure who was on the NEC before many current NEC members were even born .
She is unique in having been the first woman deputy leader , acting leader and Foreign Secretary , and is a figure that everyone across the party has the utmost respect for.
” Beckett , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980 and is the longest-serving female MP overall , is one of only three people in Labour history to have been leader , deputy leader and NEC chair , according to party sources .

Labour left national executive committee members have said they took the decision to withdraw from the meeting on Tuesday “in the hope of pressing a reset button and returning hopefully to a more reasonable environment”.
Speaking at a Momentum-hosted event this evening, newly-elected representatives Gemma Bolton and Mish Rahman discussed the decision of 13 left-wing members to leave the first NEC meeting since the elections.
The reps staged the digital walkout because the existing rotating chair system was being overturned by the leadership, which allowed veteran MP Margaret Beckett to become chair rather than Labour left FBU rep and then NEC vice-chair Ian Murray.
Bolton said tonight: “After the undermining of the NEC’s processes in refusing to restore the whip to Jeremy, left reps on the NEC wrote to our new general secretary almost a week ago asking in the strongest terms that they reconsider.”
The NEC members wrote to David Evans after the walkout and argued the “true reason” Starmer wanted Beckett to become chair was that Murray had signed the first letter to the general secretary about restoring the whip to Corbyn.
Bolton told attendees: “An item was added to the agenda by the general secretary without going through the usual channels of agreeing the agenda through the officers’ group. This agenda item was to elect a new chair and vice-chair.
“Chair and vice-chair is usually elected at an NEC meeting directly after annual conference, which of course didn’t happen this year. The rulebook states that an election would happen at the start of each year…
“The controversy came when the right decided to do away with convention and put Dame Margaret Beckett into the role of chair and Alice Perry into the role of vice-chair, which would replace two trade union representatives who held the roles with none and ignoring usual practice of the current vice-chair taking the chair when the vacancy became available.”
Bolton said this happened in the context of the Bakers’ Union opting to consult its members on whether to remain affiliated to the party. She argued that it “begs the question of what, if any, relationship Starmer wants to have with the trade unions”.
She described the virtual walkout as a “bold move” and said she hopes that it “sent a message to our leadership that the utter disregard and disrespect for elected representatives is something that we’re not going to put up with”.
Bolton added: “The leadership is undermining the governance of the NEC. It’s censoring debate. It’s ignoring our processes by doubling down on the removal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn.
“This failure on the part of the majority to respect convention in one of our first meetings shows the meeting descending into pointless factionalism and we withdrew in the hope of pressing a reset button and returning hopefully to a more reasonable environment.”
Delivering his report after Bolton, Rahman said: “We were lobbied by the leader’s office to support Dame Margaret Beckett the night before the NEC meeting despite it being usual chair for the vice-chair to become chair and for the new vice-chair to be the most senior person in the NEC.
“So when people like myself questioned this, we were told ‘come on, this is Margaret Beckett, she’s highly decorated within the party’. But our party is not the party of entitlement. It cannot be. There has to be due process.”
Commenting on the election of Beckett, Jon Lansman said on Tuesday: “If it’s just about process, it was an election… Since [when] was [Buggins’] turn a socialist principle? It was Ian’s turn but we cannot argue with democracy!”
Rahman told those watching online this evening that the development regarding the chair of the ruling body “hasn’t happened in a vacuum” and described it as “the latest in a series of crackdown in recent weeks and months”.
Rahman highlighted the suspension of Corbyn, reports that the London executive committee was blocked from expressing solidarity with the former Labour leader, and instructions prohibiting certain motions being passed at local parties.
He concluded by saying: “Unless we have [party] unity – May 2021 is important – we’re going to struggle to campaign, we’re going to struggle to win elections and its going to be really, really damaging for the party.
“So we’ve got to get our house in order ASAP – bring everyone together, and by doing that we’ve got to respect the members who are the lifeblood of the party.”
Murray, Howard Beckett and Jayne Taylor of Unite, the TSSA’s Andi Fox, ASLEF’s Mick Whelan, CWU’s Andy Kerr, BFAWU’s Pauline McCarthy, youth rep Lara McNeill, Bolton, Rahman, Laura Pidcock, Yasmine Dar and Nadia Jama joined the walkout.
Veteran Labour MP Beckett was elected unopposed as the meeting went ahead without the left reps, while Alice Perry – an Islington councillor and local government representative on the party’s ruling body – was picked as vice-chair.
It is understood that the NEC’s ‘swing voters’ – local party representative Ann Black, GMB reps Tom Warnett and Kathy Abu-Bakir – all supported Beckett and Perry. Deputy leader Angela Rayner and Scottish leader Richard Leonard were not present.
Commenting on the election of Beckett and Perry, new NEC member Luke Akehurst told LabourList: “Both of them are people who seek consensus, who are extremely experienced and who passionately care about returning Labour to electability.
“Margaret is an iconic figure who was on the NEC before many current NEC members were even born. She is unique in having been the first woman deputy leader, acting leader and Foreign Secretary, and is a figure that everyone across the party has the utmost respect for.”
Beckett, who was first elected to the NEC in 1980 and is the longest-serving female MP overall, is one of only three people in Labour history to have been leader, deputy leader and NEC chair, according to party sources.


labourlist--2020-11-25--Battle over Corbyn whip suspension intensifies as legal process begins

The row over Keir Starmer deciding to withhold the Labour whip from Jeremy Corbyn , after the former leader was readmitted to the party on the basis of an internal disciplinary process , is set to escalate , LabourList can reveal .
It is understood that Corbyn ’ s team is starting legal proceedings and will submit a pre-action disclosure application on Thursday morning .
One source said : “ One way or another , things will come out in the wash soon enough.
” The former Labour leader is a party member but currently sits as an Independent MP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months pending an investigation conducted under Parliamentary Labour Party rules .
Sources close to Corbyn say there was a deal with Starmer ’ s office for his reinstatement , though this claim is disputed .
The national executive committee panel that met last week decided Corbyn would be reinstated with a ‘ reminder of conduct ’ .
Corbyn had been suspended in October after claiming that “ the scale of the problem was… dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ” in his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was held the day after his original suspension from the party , attended by Keir Starmer , Angela Rayner , a leader ’ s office staffer , Unite ’ s Len McCluskey and Jon Trickett , to discuss a de-escalation of the situation .
According to these sources , it was agreed that discussions would be taken forward with two members of Starmer ’ s staff , and these negotiations – via Zoom calls and written exchanges – led to an agreement on the timing and content of Corbyn ’ s second statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readmitted to the party , Corbyn released a statement commenting on his suspension in which he tried to clarify previous comments and expressed hope that “ this matter is resolved as quickly as possible ” .
In the fresh statement , posted on Facebook and sent to the party as part of the disciplinary process , Corbyn said : “ I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it .
“ To be clear , concerns about antisemitism are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.
” Corbyn allies have told LabourList that the text of what Corbyn would need to say for his reinstatement via Labour ’ s complaints process was agreed with the leader ’ s office , as well as the timing of its release and the timing of the NEC panel meeting .
But a Labour source disagreed with this telling of events that led up to the NEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this was a deal or an attempt to determine the outcome of the NEC panel and disciplinary process is wrong.
” According to one account of the talks , there was “ much more than lobbying ” and a deal was brokered .
According to another account , there was dialogue with Corbyn ’ s team to get him to apologise for the EHRC response statement but no deal .
Asked about a deal being brokered last week , Starmer ’ s spokesperson told a ‘ huddle ’ of journalists : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Jeremy ’ s reinstatement – that was no secret , that is their right.
” It is understood that the Labour leader ’ s office wanted Corbyn to apologise for his statement in response to the EHRC report due to the hurt caused to the Jewish community and because it is the role of the office to speak to all parts of the party .
But Corbyn ’ s team believe the publication of correspondence between them and Starmer ’ s team will “ show that there was a deal ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were “ extensive written exchanges ” , another source told LabourList .
Chief whip Nick Brown has asked Corbyn to “ unequivocally , unambiguously and without reservation apologise ” for his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report as part of the PLP investigation .
LabourList understands that those close to Corbyn are not advising him to apologise , however , because there is a lack of trust and “ nobody thinks that ’ s going to get this over the line ” in terms of the whip being restored @ @ @ @ @

The row over Keir Starmer deciding to withhold the Labour whip from Jeremy Corbyn, after the former leader was readmitted to the party on the basis of an internal disciplinary process, is set to escalate, LabourList can reveal.
It is understood that Corbyn’s team is starting legal proceedings and will submit a pre-action disclosure application on Thursday morning. One source said: “One way or another, things will come out in the wash soon enough.”
The former Labour leader is a party member but currently sits as an Independent MP because the whip has been suspended for three months pending an investigation conducted under Parliamentary Labour Party rules.
Sources close to Corbyn say there was a deal with Starmer’s office for his reinstatement, though this claim is disputed. The national executive committee panel that met last week decided Corbyn would be reinstated with a ‘reminder of conduct’.
Corbyn had been suspended in October after claiming that “the scale of the problem was… dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents” in his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report.
His allies say a meeting was held the day after his original suspension from the party, attended by Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner, a leader’s office staffer, Unite’s Len McCluskey and Jon Trickett, to discuss a de-escalation of the situation.
According to these sources, it was agreed that discussions would be taken forward with two members of Starmer’s staff, and these negotiations – via Zoom calls and written exchanges – led to an agreement on the timing and content of Corbyn’s second statement.
On the morning that he was readmitted to the party, Corbyn released a statement commenting on his suspension in which he tried to clarify previous comments and expressed hope that “this matter is resolved as quickly as possible”.
In the fresh statement, posted on Facebook and sent to the party as part of the disciplinary process, Corbyn said: “I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it.
“To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated”. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.”
Corbyn allies have told LabourList that the text of what Corbyn would need to say for his reinstatement via Labour’s complaints process was agreed with the leader’s office, as well as the timing of its release and the timing of the NEC panel meeting.
But a Labour source disagreed with this telling of events that led up to the NEC panel, saying: “Any accusation that this was a deal or an attempt to determine the outcome of the NEC panel and disciplinary process is wrong.”
According to one account of the talks, there was “much more than lobbying” and a deal was brokered. According to another account, there was dialogue with Corbyn’s team to get him to apologise for the EHRC response statement but no deal.
Asked about a deal being brokered last week, Starmer’s spokesperson told a ‘huddle’ of journalists: “There were individuals who were publicly lobbying for Jeremy’s reinstatement – that was no secret, that is their right.”
It is understood that the Labour leader’s office wanted Corbyn to apologise for his statement in response to the EHRC report due to the hurt caused to the Jewish community and because it is the role of the office to speak to all parts of the party.
But Corbyn’s team believe the publication of correspondence between them and Starmer’s team will “show that there was a deal”, one Labour left source said, as there were “extensive written exchanges”, another source told LabourList.
Chief whip Nick Brown has asked Corbyn to “unequivocally, unambiguously and without reservation apologise” for his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report as part of the PLP investigation.
LabourList understands that those close to Corbyn are not advising him to apologise, however, because there is a lack of trust and “nobody thinks that’s going to get this over the line” in terms of the whip being restored to the Islington MP.


labourlist--2020-11-25--How the Labour left won a majority of member reps in the NEC elections

In April this year , after losing the leadership , deputy leadership and ruling body by-elections , the Labour left was pronounced dead .
Just seven months later , it won a majority of the members ’ seats on the party ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) .
This is despite the introduction of single transferable vote ( STV ) – a voting system designed to produce a mixed outcome .
There is much to learn from these results , and Charlie Mansell has produced a comprehensive overview of the key points of interest .
I will focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did the Labour left win ?
Before we can properly analyse the results , we must first understand the system that produced them .
For voters , STV is quite simple .
They rank as many candidates as they like from # 1 at the top to the final candidate at the bottom , or for as many as they have the energy and interest .
This is exactly the same as the ‘ alternative vote ’ ( AV ) system that members use to elect the party leader .
The difference is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elects only one winner ; STV elects many .
The votes are counted in rounds .
The first round is straightforward : each candidate ’ s first preference votes are counted .
After this , it gets a little more complicated .
A quota is calculated from the total number of votes and number of seats to be elected .
We were electing nine seats , so the quota was a tenth of the total votes : 12,954.9 .
At the end of each round , one of two things must happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surplus votes ( that is , more than the quota ) , this surplus must be redistributed ; if not , the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed .
The redistribution of Labour to Win ( LtW ) candidate Luke Akehurst ’ s surplus votes .
Transfers to Grassroots Voice ( GV ) are in purple , Open Labour ( OL ) is yellow , Labour Left Alliance ( LLA ) is pale blue , Tribune MPs ( TMP ) are pale green , independents are pale grey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The votes that could not be transferred at all appear in black .
In our case , Akehurst and Laura Pidcock had enough votes to be elected in the first round .
Akehurst had the most , so his surplus was redistributed first .
He won 21,355 first preferences , which left a surplus of 8,400 over the quota .
But his voters put a wide range of other candidates second .
For instance , 12,110 put Joanna Baxter next .
This is 57 % of his total , so Baxter received 57 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – this was enough for her to be elected too .
Meanwhile , just 2 % put Terry Paul next , so Paul won 2 % of the surplus , 188 votes .
445 voters voted only for Akehurst and nobody else .
This represented 2 % of his total , therefore 2 % of his surplus votes ( 175 ) were non-transferable and effectively wasted .
We do not know how many put Akehurst # 1 , Pidcock # 2 .
She had already been elected when Akehurst ’ s surplus was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to receive any of his transfers .
It may be that some of his transfers to Baxter had Pidcock # 2 and Baxter # 3 .
For the purpose of the count , this makes no difference .
Pidcock was already out of the count , so these votes were treated just the same as Akehurst # 1 , Baxter # 2 votes .
If a round ends and no candidate has a surplus , the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed too .
This is done in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surplus votes from winning candidates ; they transfer to the next candidate still in the race , ignoring all those already elected or eliminated .
The only difference is that these transfer at their full value .
Surplus votes transfer at a fraction of their value because part of the vote has already been used to elect someone .
When a candidate is eliminated their votes have not been used at all , so they transfer at full value .
How do you win an STV election ?
There are four factors at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did well in all four .
The first factor is the number of first preferences .
The second is the proportion of a candidate ’ s votes that transfer to another candidate on the same slate – I call this slate loyalty .
The third is the potential for a slate to win transfers from candidates on other slates – I call this slate attractiveness .
The fourth and final factor is the number of rounds a candidate remains in the race , and is thus able to continue to collect transfers – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes are the most important factor to determine the end result .
They made up the majority of final votes for eight of the nine winning candidates and elected two candidates without any transfers at all .
The composition of each winning candidates ’ final vote .
White indicates first preference votes , other colours indicate transfers from other candidates .
GV had enough first preferences to win three candidates and to be competitive for a fourth .
After all the transfers , they won five .
Meanwhile , LtW also had enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that is all they won .
In fact , by the time the count was finished and all the transfers had been redistributed they had fewer votes than in the first round .
Thanks to the transfers , GV ended the count with 14,000 more votes than it started with .
LtW ended with 2,000 fewer .
This is explained by the remaining three factors : slate loyalty , slate attractiveness and survivability .
First preferences and final votes by slate .
Opaque columns are first preference votes ; transparent columns indicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under a first-past-the-post election system , you need to win votes .
With STV , you must win them and then keep them .
When a candidate is either eliminated or elected with surplus votes , their votes must be transferred .
If voters are loyal to the candidate ’ s slate , the votes will transfer to their teammates .
If they are not , many will transfer to its opponents .
It can sometimes seem like the Labour Party is fiercely divided between opposing camps .
In reality , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amongst different factions and ideological traditions .
Every time a candidate was removed from the count – by election or elimination – that slate leaked votes to its opponents .
In some cases , this was the vast majority of its vote .
The TMP slate only held on to 29 % of its vote when Liz McInnes was eliminated , and only 19 % when Theresa Griffin was knocked out .
Every candidate lost at least a quarter of its transferred vote to its rivals .
Pidcock and Akehurst enjoyed the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % and 69 % respectively .
Other LtW candidates were slightly lower than Akehurst ’ s , dropping from 65 % to 55 % .
In other words , they lost between a third and a half of their vote each time a candidate was excluded .
GV , by contrast , only lost 27 % from Pidcock .
The other candidates were neither eliminated nor elected with a surplus so they kept all their votes .
In all likelihood , the other candidates ’ voters would have been more loyal than Pidcock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and name recognition will mean her reach exceeded the GV slate , so a higher proportion of her voters are likely to pick and choose between candidates .
Transfers from Labour to Win and Grassroots Voice candidates .
Slate attractiveness concerns the number of transfers a slate wins from its opponents .
In a sense , it is the opposite of slate loyalty .
The number of transfers between the two major slates is negligible .
LtW won 2 % of GV ’ s transfers , while GV won 3 % of LtW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each chart shows the transfers from the labelled slate or group of slates .
Each section of the chart indicates the destination of the transfers , e.g .
the purple section on the LtW chart indicates the proportion of its transfers to GV .
But both LtW and GV won support from the minor slates and independents .
At first glance , it looks like GV was vastly more popular than LtW with supporters of all minor slates .
For example , GV won 41 % of LLA ’ s transfers compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was for OL – 40 % of its transfers went to GV and none of them went to LtW .
Alarm bells should ring at that last sentence .
It can not be that literally zero voters put LtW as their next choice after OL .
And it is probably not so .
The numbers appear as such because OL ’ s votes only transferred after all of the LtW candidates were excluded from the count .
In other words , there were no LtW candidates remaining to receive OL ’ s transfers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 32 .
This is the same as above except it only considers transfers in the first 32 rounds of counting , before the final LtW candidate was excluded .
If we look at the transfers that took place before the final LtW candidate was excluded , the picture is more mixed .
LLA ’ s transfers are unaffected but the others change considerably .
TMP now sends more of its transfers to LtW than to GV , and transfers from independent candidates are split equally between the major slates .
Overall , GV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not by such a huge margin , and primarily from the LLA .
This brings us to the final factor : survivability .
GV may have been more attractive to its opponents ’ voters than LtW , but this was greatly exaggerated by its candidates surviving in the race for much longer .
There were roughly 75,000 transfers over the course of the count .
GV had candidates in the race for the whole duration , whereas LtW had no candidates in the race for the final rounds of the count .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
First preference votes for GV and LtW candidates .
The difference between GV and LtW is the former ’ s strategy to equalise its candidates ’ first preferences .
GV issued six regional lists , putting its candidates in a different order for each one .
As a result , all its candidates received at least 5,000 first preference votes , putting them all in the top nine .
By contrast , LtW did little or nothing to guarantee their weaker candidates ’ first preference votes and it really showed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ first preference of its weakest .
Its top two candidates each received more first preferences than the bottom four combined .
Unsurprisingly , its candidates were eliminated much earlier .
Its candidates were outlived by both of OL ’ s , one of the TMP ’ s and even one independent .
Not one GV candidate was eliminated until the final round .
At the beginning of October , before the first votes were cast , I predicted the results from an analysis of Constituency Labour Parties ( CLPs ) nominations .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slate loyalty .
This has proven to be true : 73 % of Pidcock ’ s transfers went to fellow members of her slate , and this was the highest proportion of any candidate .
I also argued that GV would attract the most transfers from independents and minor slates , albeit with a strong correlation between TMP and LtW .
This , too , has proven true .
I made no predictions about the distribution of votes amongst candidates on each slate because we did not know how each slate would try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is clear that GV ’ s vote equalisation strategy was a big success .
It meant its candidates stayed in the race long enough to pick up many more transfers than LtW ever could .
Moreover , with only one of its candidates ever having her votes redistributed , the potential for leakage was minimised .
It may well be that this strategy won it the fifth seat .
I suspect this will be the last time GV enjoys such an advantage , and that other slates will try to replicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remembering , however , that although STV is complicated , it is not magic .
A proportion of the results are determined by the complex flow of vote-transfers but much of the final outcome is already clear from the first preference votes .
GV may have picked up a seat or two from its sophisticated electoral strategy , but the root of its success is the popularity of its political message .
Most Labour members want two things : radical left-wing politics and a route to Downing Street .
In a leadership contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered them this and won big .
In an internal election , the former matters most .
GV promised left-wing politics and Labour ’ s left-wing membership rewarded them for it .

In April this year, after losing the leadership, deputy leadership and ruling body by-elections, the Labour left was pronounced dead. Just seven months later, it won a majority of the members’ seats on the party’s national executive committee (NEC). This is despite the introduction of single transferable vote (STV) – a voting system designed to produce a mixed outcome. There is much to learn from these results, and Charlie Mansell has produced a comprehensive overview of the key points of interest. I will focus on just one key question. How did the Labour left win?
How does STV work?
Before we can properly analyse the results, we must first understand the system that produced them. For voters, STV is quite simple. They rank as many candidates as they like from #1 at the top to the final candidate at the bottom, or for as many as they have the energy and interest. This is exactly the same as the ‘alternative vote’ (AV) system that members use to elect the party leader. The difference is how the results are counted. AV elects only one winner; STV elects many.
The votes are counted in rounds. The first round is straightforward: each candidate’s first preference votes are counted. After this, it gets a little more complicated. A quota is calculated from the total number of votes and number of seats to be elected. We were electing nine seats, so the quota was a tenth of the total votes: 12,954.9. At the end of each round, one of two things must happen. If a candidate has been elected with surplus votes (that is, more than the quota), this surplus must be redistributed; if not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed.
The redistribution of Labour to Win (LtW) candidate Luke Akehurst’s surplus votes. Transfers to Grassroots Voice (GV) are in purple, Open Labour (OL) is yellow, Labour Left Alliance (LLA) is pale blue, Tribune MPs (TMP) are pale green, independents are pale grey and Labour to Win are pink. The votes that could not be transferred at all appear in black.
In our case, Akehurst and Laura Pidcock had enough votes to be elected in the first round. Akehurst had the most, so his surplus was redistributed first. He won 21,355 first preferences, which left a surplus of 8,400 over the quota. But his voters put a wide range of other candidates second. For instance, 12,110 put Joanna Baxter next. This is 57% of his total, so Baxter received 57% of his surplus (4,763) – this was enough for her to be elected too. Meanwhile, just 2% put Terry Paul next, so Paul won 2% of the surplus, 188 votes. 445 voters voted only for Akehurst and nobody else. This represented 2% of his total, therefore 2% of his surplus votes (175) were non-transferable and effectively wasted.
We do not know how many put Akehurst #1, Pidcock #2. She had already been elected when Akehurst’s surplus was redistributed, so she was not eligible to receive any of his transfers. It may be that some of his transfers to Baxter had Pidcock #2 and Baxter #3. For the purpose of the count, this makes no difference. Pidcock was already out of the count, so these votes were treated just the same as Akehurst #1, Baxter #2 votes.
If a round ends and no candidate has a surplus, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed too. This is done in much the same way as with the surplus votes from winning candidates; they transfer to the next candidate still in the race, ignoring all those already elected or eliminated. The only difference is that these transfer at their full value. Surplus votes transfer at a fraction of their value because part of the vote has already been used to elect someone. When a candidate is eliminated their votes have not been used at all, so they transfer at full value.
How do you win an STV election? There are four factors at play, and the left slate GV did well in all four. The first factor is the number of first preferences. The second is the proportion of a candidate’s votes that transfer to another candidate on the same slate – I call this slate loyalty. The third is the potential for a slate to win transfers from candidates on other slates – I call this slate attractiveness. The fourth and final factor is the number of rounds a candidate remains in the race, and is thus able to continue to collect transfers – I call this survivability.
First preference votes
First preference votes are the most important factor to determine the end result. They made up the majority of final votes for eight of the nine winning candidates and elected two candidates without any transfers at all.
The composition of each winning candidates’ final vote. White indicates first preference votes, other colours indicate transfers from other candidates.
GV had enough first preferences to win three candidates and to be competitive for a fourth. After all the transfers, they won five. Meanwhile, LtW also had enough first preferences to elect three candidates. But that is all they won. In fact, by the time the count was finished and all the transfers had been redistributed they had fewer votes than in the first round. Thanks to the transfers, GV ended the count with 14,000 more votes than it started with. LtW ended with 2,000 fewer. This is explained by the remaining three factors: slate loyalty, slate attractiveness and survivability.
First preferences and final votes by slate. Opaque columns are first preference votes; transparent columns indicate the number of votes after all transfers.
Slate loyalty
Under a first-past-the-post election system, you need to win votes. With STV, you must win them and then keep them. When a candidate is either eliminated or elected with surplus votes, their votes must be transferred. If voters are loyal to the candidate’s slate, the votes will transfer to their teammates. If they are not, many will transfer to its opponents.
It can sometimes seem like the Labour Party is fiercely divided between opposing camps. In reality, many members are willing to pick and choose amongst different factions and ideological traditions. Every time a candidate was removed from the count – by election or elimination – that slate leaked votes to its opponents. In some cases, this was the vast majority of its vote. The TMP slate only held on to 29% of its vote when Liz McInnes was eliminated, and only 19% when Theresa Griffin was knocked out. Every candidate lost at least a quarter of its transferred vote to its rivals.
Pidcock and Akehurst enjoyed the highest slate loyalty of all candidates: 73% and 69% respectively. Other LtW candidates were slightly lower than Akehurst’s, dropping from 65% to 55%. In other words, they lost between a third and a half of their vote each time a candidate was excluded. GV, by contrast, only lost 27% from Pidcock. The other candidates were neither eliminated nor elected with a surplus so they kept all their votes. In all likelihood, the other candidates’ voters would have been more loyal than Pidcock’s. Pidcock’s popularity and name recognition will mean her reach exceeded the GV slate, so a higher proportion of her voters are likely to pick and choose between candidates.
Transfers from Labour to Win and Grassroots Voice candidates.
Slate attractiveness
Slate attractiveness concerns the number of transfers a slate wins from its opponents. In a sense, it is the opposite of slate loyalty. The number of transfers between the two major slates is negligible. LtW won 2% of GV’s transfers, while GV won 3% of LtW’s.
Transfers by slate. Each chart shows the transfers from the labelled slate or group of slates. Each section of the chart indicates the destination of the transfers, e.g. the purple section on the LtW chart indicates the proportion of its transfers to GV.
But both LtW and GV won support from the minor slates and independents. At first glance, it looks like GV was vastly more popular than LtW with supporters of all minor slates. For example, GV won 41% of LLA’s transfers compared to just 4% for LtW.The most extreme was for OL – 40% of its transfers went to GV and none of them went to LtW.
Alarm bells should ring at that last sentence. It cannot be that literally zero voters put LtW as their next choice after OL. And it is probably not so. The numbers appear as such because OL’s votes only transferred after all of the LtW candidates were excluded from the count. In other words, there were no LtW candidates remaining to receive OL’s transfers.
Transfers by slate up to round 32. This is the same as above except it only considers transfers in the first 32 rounds of counting, before the final LtW candidate was excluded.
If we look at the transfers that took place before the final LtW candidate was excluded, the picture is more mixed. LLA’s transfers are unaffected but the others change considerably. TMP now sends more of its transfers to LtW than to GV, and transfers from independent candidates are split equally between the major slates. Overall, GV still won more transfers than LtW but not by such a huge margin, and primarily from the LLA.
Survivability
This brings us to the final factor: survivability. GV may have been more attractive to its opponents’ voters than LtW, but this was greatly exaggerated by its candidates surviving in the race for much longer. There were roughly 75,000 transfers over the course of the count. GV had candidates in the race for the whole duration, whereas LtW had no candidates in the race for the final rounds of the count. They were therefore ineligible for approximately 24,000 transferred votes.
First preference votes for GV and LtW candidates.
The difference between GV and LtW is the former’s strategy to equalise its candidates’ first preferences. GV issued six regional lists, putting its candidates in a different order for each one. As a result, all its candidates received at least 5,000 first preference votes, putting them all in the top nine. By contrast, LtW did little or nothing to guarantee their weaker candidates’ first preference votes and it really showed. Its strongest candidate won 16 times the first preference of its weakest. Its top two candidates each received more first preferences than the bottom four combined. Unsurprisingly, its candidates were eliminated much earlier. Its candidates were outlived by both of OL’s, one of the TMP’s and even one independent. Not one GV candidate was eliminated until the final round.
Conclusion
At the beginning of October, before the first votes were cast, I predicted the results from an analysis of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) nominations. I argued that GV would have the highest slate loyalty. This has proven to be true: 73% of Pidcock’s transfers went to fellow members of her slate, and this was the highest proportion of any candidate. I also argued that GV would attract the most transfers from independents and minor slates, albeit with a strong correlation between TMP and LtW. This, too, has proven true. I made no predictions about the distribution of votes amongst candidates on each slate because we did not know how each slate would try to shape this.
We now know. It is clear that GV’s vote equalisation strategy was a big success. It meant its candidates stayed in the race long enough to pick up many more transfers than LtW ever could. Moreover, with only one of its candidates ever having her votes redistributed, the potential for leakage was minimised. It may well be that this strategy won it the fifth seat. I suspect this will be the last time GV enjoys such an advantage, and that other slates will try to replicate it next time.
It is worth remembering, however, that although STV is complicated, it is not magic. A proportion of the results are determined by the complex flow of vote-transfers but much of the final outcome is already clear from the first preference votes. GV may have picked up a seat or two from its sophisticated electoral strategy, but the root of its success is the popularity of its political message. Most Labour members want two things: radical left-wing politics and a route to Downing Street. In a leadership contest, members expect both. Keir Starmer offered them this and won big. In an internal election, the former matters most. GV promised left-wing politics and Labour’s left-wing membership rewarded them for it.