labourlist--2020-07-20--Letter sent to NEC as only 2 make it onto Labour’s West of England mayor shortlist

A letter has been sent to Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) after only two people have made it onto the shortlist in the process to select the party ’ s candidate for West of England metro mayor .
Concerns were raised by members following the outcome of the shortlisting process undertaken by the selection committee , in which Helen Godwin and Dan Norris were shortlisted but others who received more nominations were dropped .
Bristol Momentum tweeted that “ it seems they ’ ve removed all candidates who could be seen as on the left ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who did not make it onto the shortlist have stood as Labour candidates before .
Lesley Mansell , one of the applicants not shortlisted , came within 3.2 % of winning the West of England metro mayor election for Labour in 2017 .
She also received the most overall nominations in the current selection process .
Members have highlighted that Mhairi Threlfall and Mike Davies – contenders also not shortlisted – represented the Labour Party as parliamentary candidates in the 2019 general election .
Threlfall and Davies are also current party representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wards respectively in Bristol .
Threlfall held a cabinet member position previously .
Threlfall received three nominations while Davies received two .
Bristol Momentum organising group member Isaac Kneebone-Hopkins told LabourList : “ The decision should be overturned and unless there is very specific reasons why those candidates are unsuitable , I think the members should be able to vote on a shortlist of all of those who got two CLP nominations or more.
” He added : “ Because it ’ s not really a choice if all the political difference has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter , signed by 25 CLP officers from the constituencies in the area , states that “ somewhat inexplicably , only two candidates were shortlisted ” despite five receiving enough nominations .
The group added : “ It is extremely concerning that Lesley Mansell , with the most CLP nominations and , we understand , by far the most nominations overall , was not shortlisted – yet the candidate with the fewest nominations to be eligible , Dan Norris , was shortlisted.
” The procedures issued by Labour state that all candidates who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either from CLPs wholly or partly within the combined area , or affiliates , or a combination of both ” will be considered by the selection committee .
The members wrote : “ By shortlisting just two candidates , rather than more candidates to represent the breadth of party opinion , the panel has left itself open to accusations of factionalism.
” The West of England metro mayoral election is due to take place next year .
Mansell stood for Labour last time against Tory candidate , and current mayor , Tim Bowles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Labour Party has been contacted for comment .
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the NEC this weekend .
Andi Fox , Chair of NEC Andy Kerr , Chair of Organisational Committee Jayne Taylor , NEC member ( Unite ) , Chair of the West of England combined authority mayoral ( WECA ) shortlisting panel We are writing to you as lead members of all nine CLP teams that conducted nomination meetings for the West of England combined authority mayoral candidate .
Each of us put in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process was conducted according to the new rules for online nomination meetings and using the new online balloting system , while ensuring that as many of our members as possible were able to participate .
After the nomination process by CLPs , trade unions and other affiliated organisations , five candidates out of 13 had received sufficient nominations to be considered for shortlisting .
An additional candidate was the only BAME applicant , so was automatically considered for shortlisting .
Thus six candidates were interviewed and considered for shortlisting .
Somewhat inexplicably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with four rejected .
We have compiled the number of CLP nominations but have struggled to obtain the numbers of nominations from trade unions and other affiliates , although we believe them to be as follows : Nominations for Metro Mayor : CLP/ Trade unions and other affiliates/ Total The candidates who were shortlisted were candidate B Helen Godwin , with ( we believe ) five nominations in total , four from CLPs and one from a trade union , and candidate E Dan Norris , with ( we believe ) two nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none from trade unions or other affiliates .
It is extremely concerning that candidate A Lesley Mansell , with the most CLP nominations and , we understand , by far the most nominations overall , was not shortlisted , yet the candidate with the fewest nominations to be eligible , candidate E Dan Norris , was shortlisted .
Lesley was the previous WECA Mayor candidate in 2017 .
This was deemed unwinnable by Labour but , without financial or officer support from the Party , Lesley was able to come just 4,377 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a margin of 3.2 % , pushing the LibDems to a distant third .
Why would the previous WECA Mayor candidate not even be shortlisted this time ?
Candidate C Mhairi Threlfall had the same number of nominations overall , we believe , as candidate B Helen Godwin , yet was not shortlisted .
Mhairi was the PPC for Kingswood in 2017 and for Filton and Bradley Stoke in 2019 , both in South Gloucestershire and in the WECA area .
These are the crucial areas we need to win to tip the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2021 .
Mhairi is also a councillor in Bristol and was a cabinet member ; Helen is a current cabinet member .
Why would a current councillor and PPC at the last two elections not be shortlisted ?
Is it appropriate to shortlist only one woman ?
Candidate D Mike Davies had more nominations overall , we believe , than candidate E Dan Norris , yet was not shortlisted .
Mike was the PPC in Bath in 2019 , also in the WECA area .
A strong showing in Bath could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contest in 2021 .
Mike is also a councillor in Bristol .
Why would a current councillor and PPC at the last election not be shortlisted ?
In addition , the two shortlisted candidates are both white , with the only BAME applicant , candidate G Mubashar Chaudhry , not being shortlisted .
By shortlisting just two candidates , rather than more candidates to represent the breadth of party opinion , the panel has left itself open to accusations of factionalism .
Three candidates have been removed at shortlisting despite them having previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s 2017 Metro Mayor candidate ( Lesley Mansell ) or 2019 Parliamentary Candidates ( Mhairi Threlfall and Mike Davies ) .
We find it unacceptable for a panel to overrule a clear intention of the members by removing the most nominated candidate without clear and legitimate explanation as to why .
The members must be given a REAL choice when it comes to selecting our representatives .
We wish the relevant NEC officers to consider the following points : 1 .
There appears to have been a blatant disregard for members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The candidate with the highest nominations from CLPs and overall was not shortlisted ; we need to know whether the panelists saw the list of nominations or not .
b ) CLP EC members , all unpaid volunteers , spent huge amounts of time and energy organising the nomination meetings , including in-depth preparation for the new system of online meetings and ballots ; this now appears fairly pointless .
c ) Members who participated in this process so far – reading candidate statements , nominating , seconding , or speaking in support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why they bother to participate at a local level if their preferences are ignored .
2 .
Two candidates is not really much of a choice : a ) We need a diversity of opinion to choose between .
b ) Keir Starmer has pledged to : “ Recruit a truly representative set of candidates for future elections ” ; that hasn ’ t happened here : the only BAME candidate , the LGBTQ candidates – one of whom is disabled – and another woman candidate were eliminated to leave a straight white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ c ) STV has been raised as a potential voting system because some consider it promotes unity and allows for a plurality of voices ; having only two candidates nullifies this system .
3 .
It is not transparent how candidates were selected nor which trade unions or affiliates nominated them : a ) Keir Starmer has pledged to : “ Make the selections for Labour candidates more democratic and end NEC impositions of candidates.
” b ) It is important for members to know which organisations nominated each candidate as being suitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is helpful if members understand and have faith in the process that candidates have gone through and criteria used for selection so they feel the candidate finally selected was properly chosen .
d ) Candidates who were eliminated at this shortlisting stage have been selected for public office quite recently .
Why have they now been deemed unsuitable ?
e ) We note the failure to send out the candidate applications to CLP Secretaries in accordance with procedure 6b of the guidance : “ At the close of applications , a copy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall be sent to each Constituency Labour Party and each affiliated organisation eligible to nominate.
” This is a question of professionalism and trust ; we are aware that last time the applications of some candidates were poor .
It is important that we see these applications .
We also need to know whether the panelists saw the applications .
We have written to the regional director , copying in the shortlisting panel with queries and concerns – please see the email forwarded below .
• The regional director responds sufficiently and promptly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him ; and • The NEC commit to : • Enacting Keir Starmer ’ s pledge to : “ Recruit a truly representative set of candidates for future elections.
” • Enacting Keir Starmer ’ s pledge to : “ Make the selections for Labour candidates more democratic and end NEC impositions of candidates.
” • Ensuring a more transparent process for all selections .
• Investigating whether the shortlisting for this position was conducted properly and impartially as should be expected .
• If this is found not to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation , including shortlisting additional candidates if they were unfairly eliminated .
We are receiving a high level of communications from our members about the candidate shortlisting and would appreciate a prompt resolution of this issue .

A letter has been sent to Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) after just two people made it to the shortlist in the process to select the party’s candidate for the West of England mayoral race.
Concerns were raised by members following the outcome of the shortlisting process undertaken by the selection committee, in which Helen Godwin and Dan Norris were shortlisted but others who received more nominations were dropped.
Bristol Momentum tweeted that “it seems they’ve removed all candidates who could be seen as on the left”, and pointed out that three of those who did not make it onto the shortlist have stood as Labour candidates before.
Lesley Mansell, one of the applicants not shortlisted, came within 3.2% of winning the West of England metro mayor election for Labour in 2017. She also received the most overall nominations in the current selection process.
Members have highlighted that Mhairi Threlfall and Mike Davies – contenders also not shortlisted – represented the Labour Party as parliamentary candidates in the 2019 general election.
Threlfall and Davies are also current party representatives, as councillors for Eastville and Ashley wards respectively in Bristol. Threlfall held a cabinet member position previously. Threlfall received three nominations while Davies received two.
After our CLP committees spent hours guiding members through an arcane and unreliable online voting system, a regional committee has now decided to cut all but two of the people nominated by members to be our next Labour Candidate for the West of England Metro Mayor. pic.twitter.com/o2vlHW0hVJ — Momentum Bristol (@MomentumBristol) July 18, 2020
Bristol Momentum organising group member Isaac Kneebone-Hopkins told LabourList: “The decision should be overturned and unless there is very specific reasons why those candidates are unsuitable, I think the members should be able to vote on a shortlist of all of those who got two CLP nominations or more.”
He added: “Because it’s not really a choice if all the political difference has been removed from the shortlist.”
The letter, signed by 25 CLP officers from the constituencies in the area, states that “somewhat inexplicably, only two candidates were shortlisted” despite five receiving enough nominations.
The group added: “It is extremely concerning that Lesley Mansell, with the most CLP nominations and, we understand, by far the most nominations overall, was not shortlisted – yet the candidate with the fewest nominations to be eligible, Dan Norris, was shortlisted.”
The procedures issued by Labour state that all candidates who receive “at least two nominations: either from CLPs wholly or partly within the combined area, or affiliates, or a combination of both” will be considered by the selection committee.
The members wrote: “By shortlisting just two candidates, rather than more candidates to represent the breadth of party opinion, the panel has left itself open to accusations of factionalism.”
The West of England metro mayoral election is due to take place next year. Mansell stood for Labour last time against Tory candidate, and current mayor, Tim Bowles and the Lib Dems’ Stephen Williams.
The Labour Party has been contacted for comment.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the NEC this weekend.
Andi Fox, Chair of NEC
Andy Kerr, Chair of Organisational Committee
Jayne Taylor, NEC member (Unite), Chair of the West of England combined authority mayoral (WECA) shortlisting panel
We are writing to you as lead members of all nine CLP teams that conducted nomination meetings for the West of England combined authority mayoral candidate. Each of us put in a large number of hours to ensure the process was conducted according to the new rules for online nomination meetings and using the new online balloting system, while ensuring that as many of our members as possible were able to participate.
After the nomination process by CLPs, trade unions and other affiliated organisations, five candidates out of 13 had received sufficient nominations to be considered for shortlisting. An additional candidate was the only BAME applicant, so was automatically considered for shortlisting.
Thus six candidates were interviewed and considered for shortlisting. Somewhat inexplicably, only two candidates were shortlisted, with four rejected. We have compiled the number of CLP nominations but have struggled to obtain the numbers of nominations from trade unions and other affiliates, although we believe them to be as follows:
Nominations for Metro Mayor: CLP/ Trade unions and other affiliates/ Total
A. Lesley Mansell: 6/ 4/ 10
B. Helen Godwin: 4/ 1/ 5
C. Mhairi Threlfall: 3/ 2/ 5
D. Mike Davies: 2/ 1/ 3
E. Dan Norris: 2/ 0/ 2
F. Grant Johnson: 1/ 0/ 1 (not sufficient)
G. Mubashar Chaudhry: BAME candidate automatically considered
The candidates who were shortlisted were candidate B Helen Godwin, with (we believe) five nominations in total, four from CLPs and one from a trade union, and candidate E Dan Norris, with (we believe) two nominations in total, two from CLPs and none from trade unions or other affiliates.
It is extremely concerning that candidate A Lesley Mansell, with the most CLP nominations and, we understand, by far the most nominations overall, was not shortlisted, yet the candidate with the fewest nominations to be eligible, candidate E Dan Norris, was shortlisted.
Lesley was the previous WECA Mayor candidate in 2017. This was deemed unwinnable by Labour but, without financial or officer support from the Party, Lesley was able to come just 4,377 votes out of 136,000 behind the Tory, a margin of 3.2%, pushing the LibDems to a distant third. Why would the previous WECA Mayor candidate not even be shortlisted this time?
Candidate C Mhairi Threlfall had the same number of nominations overall, we believe, as candidate B Helen Godwin, yet was not shortlisted. Mhairi was the PPC for Kingswood in 2017 and for Filton and Bradley Stoke in 2019, both in South Gloucestershire and in the WECA area. These are the crucial areas we need to win to tip the balance and win the WECA mayoral contest in 2021. Mhairi is also a councillor in Bristol and was a cabinet member; Helen is a current cabinet member. Why would a current councillor and PPC at the last two elections not be shortlisted? Is it appropriate to shortlist only one woman?
Candidate D Mike Davies had more nominations overall, we believe, than candidate E Dan Norris, yet was not shortlisted. Mike was the PPC in Bath in 2019, also in the WECA area. A strong showing in Bath could make the difference to win the WECA Mayoral contest in 2021. Mike is also a councillor in Bristol. Why would a current councillor and PPC at the last election not be shortlisted?
In addition, the two shortlisted candidates are both white, with the only BAME applicant, candidate G Mubashar Chaudhry, not being shortlisted.
By shortlisting just two candidates, rather than more candidates to represent the breadth of party opinion, the panel has left itself open to accusations of factionalism. Three candidates have been removed at shortlisting despite them having previously been deemed suitable to be selected as Labour’s 2017 Metro Mayor candidate (Lesley Mansell) or 2019 Parliamentary Candidates (Mhairi Threlfall and Mike Davies).
We find it unacceptable for a panel to overrule a clear intention of the members by removing the most nominated candidate without clear and legitimate explanation as to why. The members must be given a REAL choice when it comes to selecting our representatives.
We wish the relevant NEC officers to consider the following points:
1. There appears to have been a blatant disregard for members’ opinion and efforts:
a) The candidate with the highest nominations from CLPs and overall was not shortlisted; we need to know whether the panelists saw the list of nominations or not.
b) CLP EC members, all unpaid volunteers, spent huge amounts of time and energy organising the nomination meetings, including in-depth preparation for the new system of online meetings and ballots; this now appears fairly pointless.
c) Members who participated in this process so far – reading candidate statements, nominating, seconding, or speaking in support of candidates and voting – will question why they bother to participate at a local level if their preferences are ignored.
2. Two candidates is not really much of a choice:
a) We need a diversity of opinion to choose between.
b) Keir Starmer has pledged to: “Recruit a truly representative set of candidates for future elections”; that hasn’t happened here: the only BAME candidate, the LGBTQ candidates – one of whom is disabled – and another woman candidate were eliminated to leave a straight white man and a straight white woman.
c) STV has been raised as a potential voting system because some consider it promotes unity and allows for a plurality of voices; having only two candidates nullifies this system.
3. It is not transparent how candidates were selected nor which trade unions or affiliates nominated them:
a) Keir Starmer has pledged to: “Make the selections for Labour candidates more democratic and end NEC impositions of candidates.”
b) It is important for members to know which organisations nominated each candidate as being suitable for this Mayoral position.
c) It is helpful if members understand and have faith in the process that candidates have gone through and criteria used for selection so they feel the candidate finally selected was properly chosen.
d) Candidates who were eliminated at this shortlisting stage have been selected for public office quite recently. Why have they now been deemed unsuitable?
e) We note the failure to send out the candidate applications to CLP Secretaries in accordance with procedure 6b of the guidance: “At the close of applications, a copy of each application together with the statement shall be sent to each Constituency Labour Party and each affiliated organisation eligible to nominate.” This is a question of professionalism and trust; we are aware that last time the applications of some candidates were poor. It is important that we see these applications. We also need to know whether the panelists saw the applications.
We have written to the regional director, copying in the shortlisting panel with queries and concerns – please see the email forwarded below.
In conclusion, we demand:


labourlist--2020-07-20--Labour warns of “serious holes” in visa offer for Hongkongers

Lisa Nandy has warned that there are “ serious holes ” in the offer of a visa for Hongkongers , saying that under current plans the UK “ will essentially be offering safe harbour only to the rich and highly skilled ” .
Responding to an update from Dominic Raab on the escalating dispute between China and the UK in parliament this afternoon , the Shadow Foreign Secretary raised concerns about the scheme .
She also welcomed the measures announced by Raab in his statement today , including the imposition of an arms embargo and suspension of the UK ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Shadow Foreign Secretary said : “ There are serious holes in this offer… British national overseas ( BNO ) passport holders and their families will not receive home status for tuition fees , that they will not have access to most benefits , that they will have to pay the NHS surcharge .
“ This seems to me to be wrong .
We are welcoming BNO passport holders to the UK for similar reasons to refugees , but these measures are completely out of step… We will essentially be offering safe harbour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She added : “ He will also know that many young pro-democracy activists are too young to be eligible for BNO passports .
The Home Secretary said last week that she was considering a specific scheme for 18-21 year olds .
Will those details also be published before summer ?
” The Foreign Secretary responded to the comments made by the Labour shadow cabinet member only to say that the visa scheme would be outlined “ shortly ” .
He urged her “ to wait for the detail before critiquing it ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ He is right to ensure that Britain doesn ’ t allow our exports to be used against the people of Hong Kong .
And can I thank him warmly for taking this step.
” She went on to ask that the minister to “ go further and also review the training of the Hong Kong police by the Royal College of Policing and other UK police forces ” .
The Shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated her call for the government to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials involved in human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in relation to the treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province .
She said : “ He was a little irritated by my suggestion yesterday that the UK ought to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinsese officials involved in persecuting the Uighur people and undermining basic freedoms in Hong Kong.
” The Foreign Secretary had responded to the proposal made by Nandy on Sunday , rejecting the idea and saying that the UK could not impose sanctions “ willy nilly ” .
Nandy reminded Raab that “ we have known that the Uighur have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 ” , and asked what work had been done with the US – who have already imposed such sanctions .
She added : “ He may not have done the groundwork that would enable him to impose Magnitsky sanctions now , but the government does have the power right now to take action .
He could , for example , bar Chinese Communist Party officials from the UK.
” Nandy also challenged Raab on Chinese investment in the UK : “ He made a commitment today that the UK will not accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She asked whether this would extend to Chinese involvement in Bradwell nuclear power project and Sizewell nuclear plant .
Labour has recently criticised the government for having “ no clear strategy ” on China , with the Shadow Foreign Secretary declaring that “ national security has been an afterthought over the last decade ” .
She last week described the government approach as a “ nonsense ” , highlighting involvement of China in infrastructure projects across the UK including in the nuclear power project in Bradwell .
Raab announced this afternoon that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms embargo put in place for mainland China since 1999 , and that it will be suspending the extradition treaty with Hong Kong ” indefinitely ” .
He insisted that “ we want a positive relationship with China ” , but said that the UK “ will protect our vital interests , we will stand up for our values and we will hold China to its international obligations ” .

Lisa Nandy has warned that there are “serious holes” in the offer of a visa for Hongkongers, saying that under current plans the UK “will essentially be offering safe harbour only to the rich and highly skilled”.
Responding to an update from Dominic Raab on the escalating dispute between China and the UK in parliament this afternoon, the Shadow Foreign Secretary raised concerns about the scheme.
She also welcomed the measures announced by Raab in his statement today, including the imposition of an arms embargo and suspension of the UK’s extradition treaty with Hong Kong.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary said: “There are serious holes in this offer… British national overseas (BNO) passport holders and their families will not receive home status for tuition fees, that they will not have access to most benefits, that they will have to pay the NHS surcharge.
“This seems to me to be wrong. We are welcoming BNO passport holders to the UK for similar reasons to refugees, but these measures are completely out of step… We will essentially be offering safe harbour only to the rich and highly skilled.”
She added: “He will also know that many young pro-democracy activists are too young to be eligible for BNO passports. The Home Secretary said last week that she was considering a specific scheme for 18-21 year olds. Will those details also be published before summer?”
The Foreign Secretary responded to the comments made by the Labour shadow cabinet member only to say that the visa scheme would be outlined “shortly”. He urged her “to wait for the detail before critiquing it”.
On the arms embargo, Nandy said: “He is right to ensure that Britain doesn’t allow our exports to be used against the people of Hong Kong. And can I thank him warmly for taking this step.”
Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy welcomes the government's suspension of extradition treaty with Hong Kong, saying it affords protection to the diaspora, "particularly to the brave, young, pro-democracy activists"https://t.co/ufvbC7OelU pic.twitter.com/vzJYACMwmS — BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 20, 2020
She went on to ask that the minister to “go further and also review the training of the Hong Kong police by the Royal College of Policing and other UK police forces”.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated her call for the government to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses – both in Hong Kong and in relation to the treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province.
She said: “He was a little irritated by my suggestion yesterday that the UK ought to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinsese officials involved in persecuting the Uighur people and undermining basic freedoms in Hong Kong.”
The Foreign Secretary had responded to the proposal made by Nandy on Sunday, rejecting the idea and saying that the UK could not impose sanctions “willy nilly”.
Nandy reminded Raab that “we have known that the Uighur have been detained in camps since at least 2017”, and asked what work had been done with the US – who have already imposed such sanctions.
She added: “He may not have done the groundwork that would enable him to impose Magnitsky sanctions now, but the government does have the power right now to take action. He could, for example, bar Chinese Communist Party officials from the UK.”
Nandy also challenged Raab on Chinese investment in the UK: “He made a commitment today that the UK will not accept investment that compromises our national security.” She asked whether this would extend to Chinese involvement in Bradwell nuclear power project and Sizewell nuclear plant.
Labour has recently criticised the government for having “no clear strategy” on China, with the Shadow Foreign Secretary declaring that “national security has been an afterthought over the last decade”.
She last week described the government approach as a “nonsense”, highlighting involvement of China in infrastructure projects across the UK including in the nuclear power project in Bradwell.
Raab announced this afternoon that the government will extend to Hong Kong the arms embargo put in place for mainland China since 1999, and that it will be suspending the extradition treaty with Hong Kong ” indefinitely”.
He insisted that “we want a positive relationship with China”, but said that the UK “will protect our vital interests, we will stand up for our values and we will hold China to its international obligations”.


labourlist--2020-07-20--WATCH: Changes to Hong Kong extradition arrangements a “step in the right direction”, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has said that changes to extradition arrangements between the UK and Hong Kong is a “ step in the right direction ” , but has urged the government to “ go further ” and impose sanctions .
In an interview with BBC News today , the Labour leader discussed the reports of human rights abuses coming out of China and said that the UK “ can ’ t turn a blind eye ” on the issue .
The Labour leader said : “ What ’ s happening in China is deeply disturbing and we can ’ t turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions of the government are deeply concerning – and we can ’ t turn a blind eye and we shouldn ’ t turn a blind eye.
” He added : “ We ’ ll look at what they ’ ll say about extradition but it looks like it will be a step in the right direction and therefore we would support that .
But we would say go further .
“ You can impose sanctions , and you should impose sanctions here in the UK .
So we say to the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extradition – but that ’ s a step in the right direction – but go further as well.
” The comments come as Dominic Raab is due to make an announcement to parliament this afternoon on the dispute between the UK and China .
He is expected to announce a suspension of the UK ’ s extradition agreement with Hong Kong .
On Sunday , Lisa Nandy called on the government to impose sanctions on Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses , in a similar way in which the UK has targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Keir Starmer has said that changes to extradition arrangements between the UK and Hong Kong is a “step in the right direction”, but has urged the government to “go further” and impose sanctions.
In an interview with BBC News today, the Labour leader discussed the reports of human rights abuses coming out of China and said that the UK “can’t turn a blind eye” on the issue.
The Labour leader said: “What’s happening in China is deeply disturbing and we can’t turn a blind eye to it… Some of the actions of the government are deeply concerning – and we can’t turn a blind eye and we shouldn’t turn a blind eye.”
He added: “We’ll look at what they’ll say about extradition but it looks like it will be a step in the right direction and therefore we would support that. But we would say go further.
“You can impose sanctions, and you should impose sanctions here in the UK. So we say to the government we’ll wait to see on extradition – but that’s a step in the right direction – but go further as well.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says changes to extradition arrangements with Hong Kong look to be a "step in the right direction" But he urges further action on China: "You can impose sanctions and you should impose sanctions here in the United Kingdom"https://t.co/HouFY1YVXD pic.twitter.com/7S0U1LfJGa — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 20, 2020
The comments come as Dominic Raab is due to make an announcement to parliament this afternoon on the dispute between the UK and China. He is expected to announce a suspension of the UK’s extradition agreement with Hong Kong.
On Sunday, Lisa Nandy called on the government to impose sanctions on Chinese officials involved in human rights abuses, in a similar way in which the UK has targeted high-ranking Russian individuals in the Putin administration.


labourlist--2020-07-21--Government “actively avoided” looking into Russian Brexit interference

Members of the security and intelligence committee have said that the government “ actively avoided ” looking into whether Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum in 2016 .
In a press conference this morning , MPs Julian Lewis , Stewart Hosie and Kevan Jones discussed the findings of the committee ’ s long-awaited report into the nature of Russian interference in the UK .
Members said that “ the report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the [ Brexit ] referendum because they did not want to know ” .
Shadow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government to “ study the conclusions of the report carefully and take the necessary steps to keep our country safe ” .
Commenting on the release of the report , she said : “ It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister , Boris Johnson , took the political decision last October ahead of the general election to block the publication of this important report that systematically goes through the threat Russia poses to the UK ’ s national security .
“ The report is very clear that the government has underestimated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made.
” Committee members also explained that reasons given by the government for the delay to the publication of the report , completed over nine months ago , are “ categorically not true ” .
Jones said that the government had “ spent the last week trying to discredit it saying that there ’ s nothing in it or it ’ s out of date ” , and that “ motivations for that are obviously for government and the Prime Minister to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ there is credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum ” .
Committee members declared that the government “ clearly let us down ” in failing to investigate Russian interference afterwards , and concluded that “ serious questions need to be asked ” .
The paper published today revealed that in response to a request for evidence on Russian interference into the Brexit referendum , MI5 “ provided just six lines of text ” to the committee .
The document described “ extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the thought that they might have any role in relation to the UK ’ s democratic processes , and particularly one as contentious as the EU referendum ” .
The report added : “ This attitude is illogical ; this is about the protection of the process and mechanism from hostile state interference.
” It reported that the committee has “ not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference ” , and drew a “ stark contrast ” with the US response to reported interference in the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The UK intelligence community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published.
” The 48-page document also reported that “ a number of members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia , or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state ” .
It suggested that “ these relationships should be carefully scrutinised , given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them ” .
The report highlighted that the MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual payments they receive of more than £100 for any employment outside of parliament – but that this does not apply to the House of Lords .

Members of the security and intelligence committee have said that the government “actively avoided” looking into whether Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum in 2016.
In a press conference this morning, MPs Julian Lewis, Stewart Hosie and Kevan Jones discussed the findings of the committee’s long-awaited report into the nature of Russian interference in the UK.
Members said that “the report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the [Brexit] referendum because they did not want to know”.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy has called on the government to “study the conclusions of the report carefully and take the necessary steps to keep our country safe”.
Commenting on the release of the report, she said: “It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, took the political decision last October ahead of the general election to block the publication of this important report that systematically goes through the threat Russia poses to the UK’s national security.
“The report is very clear that the government has underestimated the response required to Russia and it is imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made.”
"The report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the [Brexit] referendum because they did not want to know" Stewart Hosie MP says government "actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered"https://t.co/XqUf6IhKR0 pic.twitter.com/Y6nNw64bG3 — BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 21, 2020
Committee members also explained that reasons given by the government for the delay to the publication of the report, completed over nine months ago, are “categorically not true”.
Jones said that the government had “spent the last week trying to discredit it saying that there’s nothing in it or it’s out of date”, and that “motivations for that are obviously for government and the Prime Minister to answer for”.
The report found that “there is credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum”.
Committee members declared that the government “clearly let us down” in failing to investigate Russian interference afterwards, and concluded that “serious questions need to be asked”.
The paper published today revealed that in response to a request for evidence on Russian interference into the Brexit referendum, MI5 “provided just six lines of text” to the committee.
The document described “extreme caution amongst the intelligence and security agencies at the thought that they might have any role in relation to the UK’s democratic processes, and particularly one as contentious as the EU referendum”.
The report added: “This attitude is illogical; this is about the protection of the process and mechanism from hostile state interference.”
It reported that the committee has “not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference”, and drew a “stark contrast” with the US response to reported interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It concluded: “The UK intelligence community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published.”
The 48-page document also reported that “a number of members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state”.
It suggested that “these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them”.
The report highlighted that the MPs code of conduct requires them to register individual payments they receive of more than £100 for any employment outside of parliament – but that this does not apply to the House of Lords.


labourlist--2020-07-21--WATCH: Care workers are “heroes” and deserve recognition, says Labour

Lisa Nandy has described care workers as “ heroes ” who “ deserve every bit of support and recognition like anybody else ” , after the government released plans which exclude them from a pay rise .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , the Shadow Foreign Secretary explained that because the Chancellor has not given councils a new funding settlement , “ care workers are unlikely to get a pay rise ” .
The comments come in response an announcement that certain public sector workers will receive a boost to their pay to recognise their “ vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers such as nurses and care workers are not included .
Commenting on the plans , Nandy said : “ Very much welcome it .
There ’ s a real problem though , which is that local authorities haven ’ t been given a new funding settlement .
“ Councils have obviously been on the forefront of dealing with Covid-19 – and that means care workers are unlikely to get a pay rise .
“ They are people who have been dealing with an absolute crisis in care homes and supporting families through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re heroes and I think they deserve every bit of support and recognition like anybody else .
So we ’ d like to see the government set that right.
” Labour ’ s Anneliese Dodds has welcomed the announcement of the increase in public sector pay as “ good news ” but said that it “ won ’ t make up for a decade of real-term pay cuts ” .
Economists have calculated that once inflation is accounted for , public sector wages will remain below 2010 levels and the British Medical Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members feel “ disappointed and let down ” .
David Wrigley explained that “ these are the sort of rises we ’ d expect to see in normal times , not in a time when many of us have not had a day off in six months and have been putting our lives on the line ” .

Lisa Nandy has described care workers as “heroes” who “deserve every bit of support and recognition like anybody else”, after the government released plans which exclude them from a pay rise.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, the Shadow Foreign Secretary explained that because the Chancellor has not given councils a new funding settlement, “care workers are unlikely to get a pay rise”.
The comments come in response an announcement that certain public sector workers will receive a boost to their pay to recognise their “vital contribution” in the pandemic – but workers such as nurses and care workers are not included.
Commenting on the plans, Nandy said: “Very much welcome it. There’s a real problem though, which is that local authorities haven’t been given a new funding settlement.
“Councils have obviously been on the forefront of dealing with Covid-19 – and that means care workers are unlikely to get a pay rise.
“They are people who have been dealing with an absolute crisis in care homes and supporting families through the hardest time.
“They’re heroes and I think they deserve every bit of support and recognition like anybody else. So we’d like to see the government set that right.”
Lisa Nandy says care workers are "heroes" that deserve "every bit of support and recognition as much as everyone else" after social care employees have been left out of the government's plan to give those in the public sector a pay rise.#KayBurleyhttps://t.co/lAHE8AObYa pic.twitter.com/U24RJFUUDy — SkyNews (@SkyNews) July 21, 2020
Labour’s Anneliese Dodds has welcomed the announcement of the increase in public sector pay as “good news” but said that it “won’t make up for a decade of real-term pay cuts”.
Economists have calculated that once inflation is accounted for, public sector wages will remain below 2010 levels and the British Medical Association vice chairman told BBC Breakfast that its members feel “disappointed and let down”.
David Wrigley explained that “these are the sort of rises we’d expect to see in normal times, not in a time when many of us have not had a day off in six months and have been putting our lives on the line”.


labourlist--2020-07-21--Sunak sells short the workers he is so keen to clap

It ’ s the report we ’ ve all been waiting for .
The intelligence and security committee will be publishing its paper on Russian interference in UK politics this morning , well over a year after it was written .
Boris Johnson has been keen to suppress its publication , with No 10 refusing to allow its release ahead of the last general election .
And as you probably saw , today ’ s big reveal comes after the committee rejected the PM ’ s choice of chairman last week and opted instead for Julian Lewis – who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Daily Telegraph , the dossier is expected to show that Russia tried to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum , but will conclude that there is no evidence that it did so in the 2016 Brexit referendum .
It should also give details on the influence of Russian money in the UK , and in particular could show the extent of political donations to the Tory Party .
Keep your eyes peeled for its release at 10.30 today .
Meanwhile , Chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced a pay rise for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ vital contribution ” during the pandemic… but seems to have missed a few from his list .
Those to get a pay rise include teachers , doctors and police officers – but others such as social care workers and nurses , for example , have been left out .
Labour ’ s welcomed the pay rise as “ good news ” but Anneliese Dodds has said that it “ won ’ t make up for a decade of real-term pay cuts ” – economists have calculated that once inflation is accounted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below 2010 levels .
British Medical Association vice chairman David Wrigley told BBC Breakfast this morning that its members feel “ disappointed and let down ” by the announcement .
He explained that “ these are the sort of rises we ’ d expect to see in normal times , not in a time when many of us have not had a day off in six months and have been putting our lives on the line ” .
After a decade characterised by pay freezes and austerity , capped with a pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insulting offer to our health workers .
In other worrying news , MPs voted down an amendment to the trade bill in parliament last night that would have protected the NHS and publicly funded health and care services in future trade deals .
Specifically , the amendment sought to protect the NHS from control from outside the UK , and to make sure that any deal did not compromise the ability to provide a “ comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery ” .
Put forward by Green MP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs voted 340 to 251 to reject the amendment .
The government has argued that existing UK law provides enough protection , but Labour ’ s Bill Esterson said that the lack of scrutiny leaves the NHS “ wide open to pharmaceutical giants ” .
As Labour protested loudly at the last general election , this Tory administration is very much willing to put our health service on the table in trade talks – and this is the legislative manifestation of that .
The bill has now passed to the House of Lords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

It’s the report we’ve all been waiting for. The intelligence and security committee will be publishing its paper on Russian interference in UK politics this morning, well over a year after it was written. Boris Johnson has been keen to suppress its publication, with No 10 refusing to allow its release ahead of the last general election. And as you probably saw, today’s big reveal comes after the committee rejected the PM’s choice of chairman last week and opted instead for Julian Lewis – who was promptly stripped of the party whip. According to the Daily Telegraph, the dossier is expected to show that Russia tried to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, but will conclude that there is no evidence that it did so in the 2016 Brexit referendum. It should also give details on the influence of Russian money in the UK, and in particular could show the extent of political donations to the Tory Party. Keep your eyes peeled for its release at 10.30 today.
Meanwhile, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced a pay rise for certain public sector workers to recognise their “vital contribution” during the pandemic… but seems to have missed a few from his list. Those to get a pay rise include teachers, doctors and police officers – but others such as social care workers and nurses, for example, have been left out. Labour’s welcomed the pay rise as “good news” but Anneliese Dodds has said that it “won’t make up for a decade of real-term pay cuts” – economists have calculated that once inflation is accounted for, public sector wages will still remain below 2010 levels. British Medical Association vice chairman David Wrigley told BBC Breakfast this morning that its members feel “disappointed and let down” by the announcement. He explained that “these are the sort of rises we’d expect to see in normal times, not in a time when many of us have not had a day off in six months and have been putting our lives on the line”. After a decade characterised by pay freezes and austerity, capped with a pandemic, many will rightly see this as an insulting offer to our health workers.
In other worrying news, MPs voted down an amendment to the trade bill in parliament last night that would have protected the NHS and publicly funded health and care services in future trade deals. Specifically, the amendment sought to protect the NHS from control from outside the UK, and to make sure that any deal did not compromise the ability to provide a “comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery”. Put forward by Green MP Caroline Lucas and supported by Labour, MPs voted 340 to 251 to reject the amendment. The government has argued that existing UK law provides enough protection, but Labour’s Bill Esterson said that the lack of scrutiny leaves the NHS “wide open to pharmaceutical giants”. As Labour protested loudly at the last general election, this Tory administration is very much willing to put our health service on the table in trade talks – and this is the legislative manifestation of that. The bill has now passed to the House of Lords. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-21--Party democracy must not become just a buzzword to annoy moderates

Since the announcement of the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance ( CLGA ) slate for the national executive committee ( NEC ) elections , the Labour left has been locked in an argument over unity , accountability and political red lines .
The source of disagreement is over the inclusion of Laura Pidcock and Ann Henderson , both of whom have been questioned on their commitment to trans rights .
The new Momentum national coordinating group ( NCG ) in particular has been called out for their support of the slate without further membership consultation .
Promises of more open , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands of many of those now elected .
But Momentum isn ’ t the only body that faces criticisms .
The Socialist Campaign Group ( SCG ) of Labour MPs also published a statement expressing their support for a “ united left slate ” .
The origins of the SCG and the CLGA both represent a politics of defence against the institutional power of the right in Labour – the SCG split from the Tribune group of MPs in 1982 after its soft-left elements , led by Neil Kinnock , refused to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The CLGA was conceived in 1998 just after the Labour landslide , which tightened the grip of Blairism on the party .
In those contexts , it made sense for the left to create these alliances .
But do they still serve us in the current political moment ?
The SCG represents the left in the Parliamentary Labour Party and therefore plays an important role in carrying the politics of the movement into the parliamentary realm .
But the SCG ’ s organisation and decision making is not transparent and removed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current form , it can hardly fulfil this purpose .
It is not clear what political principles form the basis of SCG membership , or to what extent MPs are expected to follow through practically on any of these principles in their work .
The CLGA negotiations have shown that abstract commitments to principles alone are clearly not sufficient .
The majority of current NCG members signed the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledges during the NCG campaign .
Momentum is nevertheless backing the ‘ unity ’ slate .
A ‘ united left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear on what grounds we unite .
Pledges become a hollow performance of virtue-signalling if upholding their principles can be negotiated away at a whim .
Any alliance or broad coalition will lead to negotiations and compromise but it is at the moment impossible to tell on what basis these compromises are reached .
Who determines that a ‘ united ’ slate trumps the defence of trans rights ?
What political principles are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of unity next ?
Rather than arbitrary unity , the left should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions .
Transparency and accountability in decision making is not just a procedural fetish .
Democracy in the party should not just become a buzzword to annoy moderates .
The true democratisation of the movement means rejecting the oppressive structures of thought that bind us to political solutions that only serve to reinforce the dominant cultural and economic settlement .
If the movement is to become truly democratic we must push the boundaries of discourse in our own institutions .
By defining our political lines , we can cohere what socialism means for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge ourselves and our own perceptions of ‘ what matters ’ – and why .
This , in particular in the context of liberation struggles , might lead to discomfort .
But this discomfort is welcome and needed .
Confronting our own discomfort is realising that we have been conditioned to reproduce oppression .
The left must take this discomfort and turn it into a commitment to liberation – both by working to understand the existing structures in theory and then conveying this understanding in our political praxis .
And this means uncompromisingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Socialists within Labour should not put factional alliance building and unity for internal elections before prospects of building a social movement coalition beyond it .
The task of socialists is to organise and work towards building an alternative society that serves the people , not capital .
This coalition has to unite left party activists with those currently on the ‘ political outside ’ – the working class and minorities who are not catered for by the existing parties .
There is no point to winning positions in Labour if this means alienating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work together with , and that also means rejecting patriarchal gender and family systems that uphold capitalism .
What was special about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell was that they viewed themselves as accountable not just to the Labour Party or their constituencies .
They were representatives of a wider social movement .
The left now has to find ways to make our elected representatives accountable to the wider movement beyond the party as well .
This could include mechanisms for those organising for liberation struggles outside Labour to be included in decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish Momentum as an organisation that bridges between the organised left within Labour and social movements outside it .
This could extend to the SCG too – it should not be a remote group of left MPs in parliament , deciding amongst themselves what their political strategy is .
Through involvement in Momentum ’ s democratic processes , this could make the SCG directly accountable to the Labour left and social movements .
Socialists must remember that our goal is abolishing capitalism , and with it the political , economic and societal structures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our strategic choices must be guided by this realisation .
Focusing on winning internal positions in ways that risk alienating the coalitions we need to mobilise – those most oppressed by these structures , and with the most to gain from their abolition – are counterproductive and must be rejected .

Since the announcement of the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA) slate for the national executive committee (NEC) elections, the Labour left has been locked in an argument over unity, accountability and political red lines. The source of disagreement is over the inclusion of Laura Pidcock and Ann Henderson, both of whom have been questioned on their commitment to trans rights. The new Momentum national coordinating group (NCG) in particular has been called out for their support of the slate without further membership consultation. Promises of more open, democratic processes for internal decision-making were key demands of many of those now elected.
But Momentum isn’t the only body that faces criticisms. The Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) of Labour MPs also published a statement expressing their support for a “united left slate”. The origins of the SCG and the CLGA both represent a politics of defence against the institutional power of the right in Labour – the SCG split from the Tribune group of MPs in 1982 after its soft-left elements, led by Neil Kinnock, refused to back Tony Benn’s deputy leadership campaign. The CLGA was conceived in 1998 just after the Labour landslide, which tightened the grip of Blairism on the party. In those contexts, it made sense for the left to create these alliances. But do they still serve us in the current political moment?
The SCG represents the left in the Parliamentary Labour Party and therefore plays an important role in carrying the politics of the movement into the parliamentary realm. But the SCG’s organisation and decision making is not transparent and removed from accountability to the membership. In its current form, it can hardly fulfil this purpose. It is not clear what political principles form the basis of SCG membership, or to what extent MPs are expected to follow through practically on any of these principles in their work.
The CLGA negotiations have shown that abstract commitments to principles alone are clearly not sufficient. The majority of current NCG members signed the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledges during the NCG campaign. Momentum is nevertheless backing the ‘unity’ slate. A ‘united left’ is meaningless if we are not clear on what grounds we unite. Pledges become a hollow performance of virtue-signalling if upholding their principles can be negotiated away at a whim. Any alliance or broad coalition will lead to negotiations and compromise but it is at the moment impossible to tell on what basis these compromises are reached. Who determines that a ‘united’ slate trumps the defence of trans rights? What political principles are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of unity next?
Rather than arbitrary unity, the left should be willing and comfortable to agitate in these discussions. Transparency and accountability in decision making is not just a procedural fetish. Democracy in the party should not just become a buzzword to annoy moderates. The true democratisation of the movement means rejecting the oppressive structures of thought that bind us to political solutions that only serve to reinforce the dominant cultural and economic settlement.
If the movement is to become truly democratic we must push the boundaries of discourse in our own institutions. By defining our political lines, we can cohere what socialism means for us. It is an opportunity to challenge ourselves and our own perceptions of ‘what matters’ – and why. This, in particular in the context of liberation struggles, might lead to discomfort. But this discomfort is welcome and needed. Confronting our own discomfort is realising that we have been conditioned to reproduce oppression. The left must take this discomfort and turn it into a commitment to liberation – both by working to understand the existing structures in theory and then conveying this understanding in our political praxis. And this means uncompromisingly backing the struggles of oppressed minorities.
Socialists within Labour should not put factional alliance building and unity for internal elections before prospects of building a social movement coalition beyond it. The task of socialists is to organise and work towards building an alternative society that serves the people, not capital. This coalition has to unite left party activists with those currently on the ‘political outside’ – the working class and minorities who are not catered for by the existing parties. There is no point to winning positions in Labour if this means alienating the very groups of people we must work together with, and that also means rejecting patriarchal gender and family systems that uphold capitalism.
What was special about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell was that they viewed themselves as accountable not just to the Labour Party or their constituencies. They were representatives of a wider social movement. The left now has to find ways to make our elected representatives accountable to the wider movement beyond the party as well. This could include mechanisms for those organising for liberation struggles outside Labour to be included in decision making in Momentum. This could help establish Momentum as an organisation that bridges between the organised left within Labour and social movements outside it. This could extend to the SCG too – it should not be a remote group of left MPs in parliament, deciding amongst themselves what their political strategy is. Through involvement in Momentum’s democratic processes, this could make the SCG directly accountable to the Labour left and social movements.
Socialists must remember that our goal is abolishing capitalism, and with it the political, economic and societal structures it produces and is reproduced by. Our strategic choices must be guided by this realisation. Focusing on winning internal positions in ways that risk alienating the coalitions we need to mobilise – those most oppressed by these structures, and with the most to gain from their abolition – are counterproductive and must be rejected.


labourlist--2020-07-21--Russia report shows “systemic failings” in approach to security, says Labour

Nick Thomas-Symonds has said that the information released in the Russia report “ exposes deep systemic failings in the government ’ s approach to security ” .
Commenting on the report released by the intelligence and security committee on Tuesday morning , the Shadow Home Secretary said it was “ little wonder ” that the government had wanted to delay its publication .
Thomas-Symonds warned that the long-awaited dossier showed “ no overall strategic response ” to the challenge presented by Russia , and called on the government to “ address these systematic failings ” .
Ahead of an urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said : “ The intelligence and security committee ’ s report on Russia exposes deep systemic failings in the government ’ s approach to security .
“ This report outlines the scale of the shortcomings of the government ’ s response to maintaining our national security in the face of what is clearly a growing and significant threat from Russia .
“ The report outlines a litany of hostile state activity , from cyber warfare , interfering in democratic processes , acts of violence on UK soil and illicit finance .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not appear to be equal to the threat .
While on key issues it is clear that there is no overall strategic response to this challenge – little wonder the government has been so keen to delay the publication .
“ The UK has world leading security services , yet this report makes clear they have not received the strategic support , the legislative tools or the resources necessary to defend our interests .
The government needs to urgently outline how they will address these systemic failings .
“ The report should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries that wish the UK harm are undertaking similar activities and are not facing a sufficiently robust response.
” The report confirmed that Russia had tried to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum , and committee members accused the government of having “ actively avoided ” looking into interference in the 2016 Brexit vote .
Dominic Raab has rejected the claim and insisted that the UK is “ not complacent ” about the threat posed by Russia .
He said that the government had long recognised the “ significant threat ” represented by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the UK actively avoided investigating Russia , ” he said .
“ I think , in fairness , you ’ ll find that wasn ’ t in the intelligence and security committee report – it was the comment of one MP , Stuart Hosie.
” But the report did say : “ We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference .
This situation is in stark contrast to the US handling of allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
” It concluded : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the UK intelligence community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published .
“ Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference , this would nonetheless represent a helpful reassurance to the public that the UK ’ s democratic processes had remained relatively safe.
” Reacting to the release of the document , the Labour Party called on the government to “ study the conclusions of the report carefully and take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Commenting earlier today , Lisa Nandy said : “ It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister , Boris Johnson , took the political decision last October ahead of the general election to block the publication of this important report that systematically goes through the threat Russia poses to the UK ’ s national security .
“ The report is very clear that the government has underestimated the response required to Russia and it is imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made .
”

Labour’s Nick Thomas-Symonds has said that the information detailed in the now-published Russia report “exposes deep systemic failings in the government’s approach to security”.
Commenting on the report released by the intelligence and security committee on Tuesday morning, the Shadow Home Secretary said it was “little wonder” that the government had wanted to delay its publication.
Thomas-Symonds warned that the long-awaited dossier showed “no overall strategic response” to the challenge presented by Russia, and called on the government to “address these systematic failings”.
Ahead of an urgent question tabled in parliament on Wednesday, he said: “The intelligence and security committee’s report on Russia exposes deep systemic failings in the government’s approach to security.
“This report outlines the scale of the shortcomings of the government’s response to maintaining our national security in the face of what is clearly a growing and significant threat from Russia.
“The report outlines a litany of hostile state activity, from cyber warfare, interfering in democratic processes, acts of violence on UK soil and illicit finance.
“On every level the government’s response does not appear to be equal to the threat. While on key issues it is clear that there is no overall strategic response to this challenge – little wonder the government has been so keen to delay the publication.
“The UK has world leading security services, yet this report makes clear they have not received the strategic support, the legislative tools or the resources necessary to defend our interests. The government needs to urgently outline how they will address these systemic failings.
“The report should also sound alarm bells ringing that other countries that wish the UK harm are undertaking similar activities and are not facing a sufficiently robust response.”
The report confirmed that Russia had tried to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and committee members accused the government of having “actively avoided” looking into interference in the 2016 Brexit vote.
Dominic Raab has rejected the claim and insisted that the UK is “not complacent” about the threat posed by Russia. He said that the government had long recognised the “significant threat” represented by Moscow.
“You mentioned the suggestion that the UK actively avoided investigating Russia,” he said. “I think, in fairness, you’ll find that wasn’t in the intelligence and security committee report – it was the comment of one MP, Stuart Hosie.”
But the report did say: “We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference. This situation is in stark contrast to the US handling of allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.”
It concluded: “It is the committee’s view that the UK intelligence community should produce an analogous assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published.
“Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference, this would nonetheless represent a helpful reassurance to the public that the UK’s democratic processes had remained relatively safe.”
Reacting to the release of the document, the Labour Party called on the government to “study the conclusions of the report carefully and take the necessary steps to keep our country safe”.
Commenting earlier today, Lisa Nandy said: “It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, took the political decision last October ahead of the general election to block the publication of this important report that systematically goes through the threat Russia poses to the UK’s national security.
“The report is very clear that the government has underestimated the response required to Russia and it is imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made.”


labourlist--2020-07-21--EHRC draft report, the Panorama case and Covid – Alice Perry’s NEC report

Keir Starmer updated the national executive committee ( NEC ) about Labour ’ s work responding to the Covid-19 health and economic crisis .
He talked about the concerning levels of infection across the world , with recent local spikes in the UK .
He highlighted the risk of changing weather in the autumn , coupled with seasonal flu and NHS winter pressures , which bring new challenges and risk the virus becoming resurgent .
The Bank of England has predicted the worst recession for 300 years .
Labour is pushing for real job protections on a sectoral basis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic crisis exposes inequality .
The Labour leader talked of the need for more resources , support and powers for local government .
Keir told the NEC that the economy was not functioning well before the pandemic , and that Labour must argue for a different economic settlement .
People want to see a different country coming out of this and Labour needs to provide that vision and hope for the future .
Keir told the NEC that Labour has received a draft of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully with the EHRC .
The NEC will discuss the report when it is in the public domain .
Keir also updated the NEC about the settlement reached with former Labour Party staff interviewed in an episode of Panorama .
He reminded the NEC that all leadership candidates made a commitment to settle this , and that it is the right thing to do both morally and financially .
This settlement doesn ’ t interfere with the Forde inquiry or any disciplinary action .
The NEC asked questions on a range of issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aviation sector ; mass unemployment and the need to retain jobs and skills ; a post-Brexit trade deal ; food standards ; devolution ; Parliamentary Labour Party discipline ; pay for care workers ; human rights in China ; local government support ; the green recovery ; vaccine confidence and tackling the anti-vaccination movement ; and NEC governance and progressive taxation .
Angela Rayner talked about how the Covid-19 outbreak shows the importance of trade unions , and that the trade union movement is essential as we rebuild .
She has worked with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to join a trade union .
She noted that over 200,000 people recently joined a trade union .
Angela updated that election campaigning activity has resumed – local parties can now leaflet and new virtual phonebanks will be introduced .
Guidance will go out explaining how campaigning can be done safely .
Angela also updated the NEC that CLP and branch meetings can restart – guidance has been sent to CLP secretaries .
She talked about her recent EDI work , including a number of projects and surveys , with work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members to encourage everyone to complete the equalities survey .
She also gave another confidential update on the action taken as a result of the “ leaked report ” .
Labour membership continues to be stable at around 570,000 members .
Resignations and membership lapses has been balanced by new members joining .
David Evans committed to giving the NEC more detailed breakdowns of membership , including equality data and regional breakdowns .
Members of the NEC asked whether a summary of decisions made in NEC meetings could be published by the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agendas of NEC meetings could be published .
Members of the NEC expressed frustration about leaking from NEC meetings .
These leaks are often inaccurate and damaging .
News steps will be taken to tackle this , including a new NEC code of conduct .
Usually NPF documents are prepared ahead of annual conference .
Since conference has been cancelled , an interim report will be produced and next year ’ s conference will vote on the two years ’ worth of policy documents .
There will also be a virtual policy conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reference back the documents at the next Labour Party Conference .
NEC members asked for an update into the review of Labour ’ s policy-making process .
The NPF hasn ’ t met in full for some time and many NPF reps have had to retire or stand down .
NPF elections were rescheduled for next year , I asked if these were still scheduled to go ahead .
I also asked when the next NPF meeting was likely to take place .
Staff gave an update about plans for a virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure this event is accessible , including the provision for sign language .
The sessions will be interactive and engaging , with lots of opportunities for members to input views and discuss policy .
Measures will be taken to support members who don ’ t have internet access .
The NEC reiterated its support for all women shortlists .
They have been a blunt but effective tool to increase gender representation .
The NEC support extending the legislation to include the introduction of all BAME shortlists .
Obviously these measures are not enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support more women , BAME , disabled , LGBT and working class candidates to stand for election .
Election will take place this year for the Young Labour national committee .
This is the first time these elections have taken place since the democracy review and the procedures have changed slightly .
Information will be available on the Labour Party website .
The NEC agreed to the process for Labour ’ s general election review , which will consider internal data and the Labour Together review into the general election defeat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss this .
If you enjoy reading my NEC reports , you can ask your Labour group to nominate me in the NEC councillors section .
Information about why I am re-standing for the NEC is available on my blog .

Leader’s report
Keir Starmer updated the national executive committee (NEC) about Labour’s work responding to the Covid-19 health and economic crisis. He talked about the concerning levels of infection across the world, with recent local spikes in the UK. He highlighted the risk of changing weather in the autumn, coupled with seasonal flu and NHS winter pressures, which bring new challenges and risk the virus becoming resurgent.
The Bank of England has predicted the worst recession for 300 years. Labour is pushing for real job protections on a sectoral basis. Keir talked about how the health and economic crisis exposes inequality. The Labour leader talked of the need for more resources, support and powers for local government.
Keir told the NEC that the economy was not functioning well before the pandemic, and that Labour must argue for a different economic settlement. People want to see a different country coming out of this and Labour needs to provide that vision and hope for the future.
Keir told the NEC that Labour has received a draft of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report, and that Labour is cooperating fully with the EHRC. The NEC will discuss the report when it is in the public domain.
Keir also updated the NEC about the settlement reached with former Labour Party staff interviewed in an episode of Panorama. He reminded the NEC that all leadership candidates made a commitment to settle this, and that it is the right thing to do both morally and financially. This settlement doesn’t interfere with the Forde inquiry or any disciplinary action.
The NEC asked questions on a range of issues; including the steel industry; the aviation sector; mass unemployment and the need to retain jobs and skills; a post-Brexit trade deal; food standards; devolution; Parliamentary Labour Party discipline; pay for care workers; human rights in China; local government support; the green recovery; vaccine confidence and tackling the anti-vaccination movement; and NEC governance and progressive taxation.
Deputy leader’s report
Angela Rayner talked about how the Covid-19 outbreak shows the importance of trade unions, and that the trade union movement is essential as we rebuild. She has worked with the TUC on the campaign to encourage people to join a trade union. She noted that over 200,000 people recently joined a trade union.
Angela updated that election campaigning activity has resumed – local parties can now leaflet and new virtual phonebanks will be introduced. Guidance will go out explaining how campaigning can be done safely. Angela also updated the NEC that CLP and branch meetings can restart – guidance has been sent to CLP secretaries.
She talked about her recent EDI work, including a number of projects and surveys, with work to improve equality data. She asked NEC members to encourage everyone to complete the equalities survey. She also gave another confidential update on the action taken as a result of the “leaked report”.
Membership
Labour membership continues to be stable at around 570,000 members. Resignations and membership lapses has been balanced by new members joining. David Evans committed to giving the NEC more detailed breakdowns of membership, including equality data and regional breakdowns.
Transparency
Members of the NEC asked whether a summary of decisions made in NEC meetings could be published by the party. Previous NEC meetings also agreed that agendas of NEC meetings could be published.
Leaking
Members of the NEC expressed frustration about leaking from NEC meetings. These leaks are often inaccurate and damaging. News steps will be taken to tackle this, including a new NEC code of conduct.
National policy forum
Usually NPF documents are prepared ahead of annual conference. Since conference has been cancelled, an interim report will be produced and next year’s conference will vote on the two years’ worth of policy documents. There will also be a virtual policy conference this Autumn. Members will be able to reference back the documents at the next Labour Party Conference.
NEC members asked for an update into the review of Labour’s policy-making process. The NPF hasn’t met in full for some time and many NPF reps have had to retire or stand down. NPF elections were rescheduled for next year, I asked if these were still scheduled to go ahead. I also asked when the next NPF meeting was likely to take place.
Virtual conference
Staff gave an update about plans for a virtual conference. Steps will be taken to ensure this event is accessible, including the provision for sign language. The sessions will be interactive and engaging, with lots of opportunities for members to input views and discuss policy. Measures will be taken to support members who don’t have internet access.
All-women shortlists
The NEC reiterated its support for all women shortlists. They have been a blunt but effective tool to increase gender representation. The NEC support extending the legislation to include the introduction of all BAME shortlists. Obviously these measures are not enough and much more needs to be done to support more women, BAME, disabled, LGBT and working class candidates to stand for election.
Young Labour national committee elections
Election will take place this year for the Young Labour national committee. This is the first time these elections have taken place since the democracy review and the procedures have changed slightly. Information will be available on the Labour Party website.
General election review
The NEC agreed to the process for Labour’s general election review, which will consider internal data and the Labour Together review into the general election defeat. A special NEC meeting will be arranged to discuss this.
And finally…
If you enjoy reading my NEC reports, you can ask your Labour group to nominate me in the NEC councillors section. Information about why I am re-standing for the NEC is available on my blog.


labourlist--2020-07-21--John McDonnell to launch ‘Claim the Future’ campaign group

John McDonnell has said that he will launch the ‘ Claim the Future ’ campaign group and will set out a socialist vision for a post-coronavirus economy on Wednesday .
The virtual meeting will also feature prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz , leading economist Jayati Ghosh , executive director of War on Want Asad Rehman , and environment and human rights campaigner Tina Ngata .
The stated aim of the new initiative being launched by the former Shadow Chancellor is to “ network our thinking and our campaigning actions to construct the economy and society we need ” after the Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting , McDonnell wrote : “ As we move from the Covid crisis to face the threat of the climate crisis , we mustn ’ t let our political leaders put us at risk by taking us back to business as usual.
” The Hayes and Harlington MP also released a short promotional video on Twitter for the new campaign group earlier this week , telling viewers that “ we need to use this time to think ” .
He said : “ We ’ re not going back .
But where are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our planet , our communities , our future ?
If we don ’ t answer this question , it will be answered for us .
And blame shifted from the powerful to the powerless .
“ We need each other now .
We need to reflect and reset , strategise , organise , assemble – collective power .
This is a network .
Join – claim the future.
” The meeting follows his first major interview since stepping down from the shadow cabinet , in which he called for the urgent nationalisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
You can register for the event here .

Labour’s John McDonnell has announced that he will launch a ‘Claim the Future’ campaign group and set out a socialist vision for a post-coronavirus economy on Wednesday.
The virtual meeting will also feature prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, leading economist Jayati Ghosh, executive director of War on Want Asad Rehman, and environment and human rights campaigner Tina Ngata.
The stated aim of the new initiative being launched by the former Shadow Chancellor is to “network our thinking and our campaigning actions to construct the economy and society we need” after the Covid-19 crisis.
Urging people to attend the meeting, McDonnell wrote: “As we move from the Covid crisis to face the threat of the climate crisis, we mustn’t let our political leaders put us at risk by taking us back to business as usual.”
The Hayes and Harlington MP also released a short promotional video on Twitter for the new campaign group earlier this week, telling viewers that “we need to use this time to think”.
He said: “We’re not going back. But where are we going? What do we want for our planet, our communities, our future? If we don’t answer this question, it will be answered for us. And blame shifted from the powerful to the powerless.
“We need each other now. We need to reflect and reset, strategise, organise, assemble – collective power. This is a network. Join – claim the future.”
The meeting follows his first major interview since stepping down from the shadow cabinet, in which he called for the urgent nationalisation of care services in response to the coronavirus pandemic. You can register for the event here.


labourlist--2020-07-21--Labour slams government for “falling woefully short” on action against racism

Nick Thomas-Symonds has said that the the Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the need “ not just to recognise ” discrimination but to act , and slammed the government for “ falling woefully short on that action ” .
Responding to the Priti Patel ’ s update to parliament on the Windrush lessons learned review today , the Shadow Home Secretary set out concerns on the functioning of the government compensation scheme .
He highlighted that the Home Office only managed to compensate 60 people in the programme ’ s first year of operation , and called for the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more proactive in supporting those affected .
The Shadow Home Secretary said : “ The BLM movement highlighted the need not just to recognise the discrimination and racism that black people continue to face , but to demand action .
“ Looking at the failure to act on so many previous reviews , the government is falling woefully short on that action .
That ’ s why we will be holding them to account for delivering the vital changes outlined in this report and to act with the urgency that is required.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The review is clear that the Home Office must be more proactive in identifying people affected , putting right any detriment detected , with a focus on identifying people from elsewhere in the Commonwealth who may have been affected .
He asked Patel how many people the Home Office estimates are eligible for the scheme , how many have applied and of those how many are from Commonwealth countries .
He added : “ Why it is the published number of applicants seems so low given the scale of the injustice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review said the Department should publish “ comprehensive improvement plan within six months of this report ” , and called on the Home Secretary to therefore publish that plan “ immediately ” .
The Home Secretary had used her statement in the Commons this afternoon to tell MPs that “ over £1.5m has now been offered by the Windrush compensation scheme ” .
She added that this is “ just the beginning ” .
The Home Office promised a comprehensive review of the systems and culture within the Department last month when Patel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Windrush lessons learned review .
Since the creation of the Windrush compensation scheme in April 2019 , Labour has repeatedly highlighted that the government-run programme is not properly delivering for people affected by the scandal .

Nick Thomas-Symonds has said that the the Black Lives Matter movement highlighted the need “not just to recognise” discrimination but to act, and slammed the government for “falling woefully short on that action”.
Responding to the Priti Patel’s update to parliament on the Windrush lessons learned review today, the Shadow Home Secretary set out concerns on the functioning of the government compensation scheme.
He highlighted that the Home Office only managed to compensate 60 people in the programme’s first year of operation, and called for the government to “get a grip” and be more proactive in supporting those affected.
The Shadow Home Secretary said: “The BLM movement highlighted the need not just to recognise the discrimination and racism that black people continue to face, but to demand action.
“Looking at the failure to act on so many previous reviews, the government is falling woefully short on that action. That’s why we will be holding them to account for delivering the vital changes outlined in this report and to act with the urgency that is required.”
On the scheme, he said: “The review is clear that the Home Office must be more proactive in identifying people affected, putting right any detriment detected, with a focus on identifying people from elsewhere in the Commonwealth who may have been affected.
He asked Patel how many people the Home Office estimates are eligible for the scheme, how many have applied and of those how many are from Commonwealth countries, adding: “Why it is the published number of applicants seems so low given the scale of the injustice?”
Thomas-Symonds also highlighted that the review said the Department should publish “comprehensive improvement plan within six months of this report”, and called on the Home Secretary to therefore publish that plan “immediately”.
The Home Secretary had used her statement in the Commons this afternoon to tell MPs that “over £1.5m has now been offered by the Windrush compensation scheme”. She added that this is “just the beginning”.
The Home Office promised a comprehensive review of the systems and culture within the Department last month when Patel agreed to implement all 30 recommendations outlined in the Windrush lessons learned review.
Since the creation of the Windrush compensation scheme in April 2019, Labour has repeatedly highlighted that the government-run programme is not properly delivering for people affected by the scandal.