labourlist--2020-05-13--PMQs: How does the PM explain 10,000 additional Covid deaths? He won’t

Today is back-to-work day for many across the country .
Keir Starmer used his time in this Prime Minister ’ s Questions to present Boris Johnson with one of the key problems facing many workers : what to do about childcare ?
He also asked the government to publish the advice from SAGE used to make its decisions .
But the pivotal moments came as he returned to quiz the PM on points he has now raised in successive sessions : the situation in care homes , the reporting of deaths , and comparisons of the UK ’ s coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer asked : was the government ’ s advice on coronavirus in care homes in place until March 12th wrong ?
He quoted from it : “ It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected.
” This opening salvo from the Labour leader saw Johnson contradict his own government ’ s advice , declaring that “ it wasn ’ t true the advice said that ” .
People can see the guidance for themselves on the government ’ s own website .
The Labour leader then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional deaths in care homes in April , yet only 8,000 are recorded by the government as Covid-19 deaths .
“ That leaves 10,000 additional and unexplained care home deaths.
” How does the government explain these ?
Refusing to do so , the PM said that the “ ONS is responsible for producing the data that they have ” , but that the government has also produced data that shows an “ appreciable and substantial reduction ” in the number of deaths .
This led Starmer to ask how can the PM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which his government has repeatedly pledged to do , if “ the numbers are not understood ” .
Starmer turned to the comparison with other countries .
Why did yesterday ’ s coronavirus press conference not feature the usual slide showing the UK ’ s progress against that of other countries ?
Could it be because we have now taken the “ unenviable ” position of having the most deaths in Europe ?
This led the Prime Minister to paradoxically suggest that it is “ premature ” for the leader of the opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m baffled , ” Starmer answered .
“ It ’ s not me seeking to draw the comparisons – these are the government ’ s slides that have been used for seven weeks to reassure the public.
” The question and answer session between the two party leaders showed the clearly diverging narrative being constructed by the government , as compared with those outside of it .
The ease and frankness with which Johnson contradicted what his own government ’ s advice had said reveals much about his approach as Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of 10,000 unexplained deaths , or the disappearance of the slides showing the international comparison , says more .
The picture painted is far from a government ‘ led by the science ’ , but instead represents one determined to bury its head in the sand and label this episode a success – whatever the data , whatever the evidence .

Today is back-to-work day for many across the country. Keir Starmer used his time in this Prime Minister’s Questions to present Boris Johnson with one of the key problems facing many workers: what to do about childcare? He also asked the government to publish the advice from SAGE used to make its decisions. But the pivotal moments came as he returned to quiz the PM on points he has now raised in successive sessions: the situation in care homes, the reporting of deaths, and comparisons of the UK’s coronavirus experience with that of other countries.
Starmer asked: was the government’s advice on coronavirus in care homes in place until March 12th wrong? He quoted from it: “It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected.” This opening salvo from the Labour leader saw Johnson contradict his own government’s advice, declaring that “it wasn’t true the advice said that”. People can see the guidance for themselves on the government’s own website.
The Labour leader then explained that the ONS had reported 18,000 additional deaths in care homes in April, yet only 8,000 are recorded by the government as Covid-19 deaths. “That leaves 10,000 additional and unexplained care home deaths.” How does the government explain these? Refusing to do so, the PM said that the “ONS is responsible for producing the data that they have”, but that the government has also produced data that shows an “appreciable and substantial reduction” in the number of deaths. This led Starmer to ask how can the PM fix the problem in care homes, which his government has repeatedly pledged to do, if “the numbers are not understood”.
Starmer turned to the comparison with other countries. Why did yesterday’s coronavirus press conference not feature the usual slide showing the UK’s progress against that of other countries? Could it be because we have now taken the “unenviable” position of having the most deaths in Europe? This led the Prime Minister to paradoxically suggest that it is “premature” for the leader of the opposition to draw international comparisons. “I’m baffled,” Starmer answered. “It’s not me seeking to draw the comparisons – these are the government’s slides that have been used for seven weeks to reassure the public.”
The question and answer session between the two party leaders showed the clearly diverging narrative being constructed by the government, as compared with those outside of it. The ease and frankness with which Johnson contradicted what his own government’s advice had said reveals much about his approach as Prime Minister. His flat refusal to engage with the question of 10,000 unexplained deaths, or the disappearance of the slides showing the international comparison, says more. The picture painted is far from a government ‘led by the science’, but instead represents one determined to bury its head in the sand and label this episode a success – whatever the data, whatever the evidence.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Labour calls for plan to deal with non-Covid clinical need backlog

Jonathan Ashworth has called on the government to provide a plan to deal with a “ growing and alarming backlog ” of non-coronavirus clinical demand , and to ensure that “ every patient receives the care they need ” .
Responding to the publication of NHS statistics today , the Shadow Health Secretary warned that the “ far reaching consequences for wider health outcomes must not be ignored ” by the government during the pandemic .
The data revealed that A & E attendance in England was down 57 % in April compared with the same month last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the fewest since this figures was first collected in 2017 .
Ashworth said : “ Today ’ s figures suggest a growing and alarming backlog of clinical need with patients waiting longer for operations or diagnostic tests .
GP referrals are down and patients are avoiding A & E and calling out ambulances .
“ We support the lockdown to suppress this horrific virus but the far reaching consequences for wider health outcomes must not be ignored .
“ Resetting the NHS to continue treating Covid and non-Covid patients is a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers to urgently come forward with a resourced plan to ensure every patient receives the care they need.
” The figures published by the NHS today have added to concerns that many people with serious and immediate health problems are not seeking the medical attention that they need .
The number of coronavirus-associated deaths in the UK currently stands at 33,186 according to Public Health England .
There are 229,705 confirmed cases – but with low levels of testing the figure is thought to be much higher .

Jonathan Ashworth has called on the government to provide a plan to deal with a “growing and alarming backlog” of non-coronavirus clinical demand, and to ensure that “every patient receives the care they need”.
Responding to the publication of NHS statistics today, the Shadow Health Secretary warned that the “far reaching consequences for wider health outcomes must not be ignored” by the government during the pandemic.
The data revealed that A&E attendance in England was down 57% in April compared with the same month last year, while just 20,900 999 calls were answered – the fewest since this figures was first collected in 2017.
Ashworth said: “Today’s figures suggest a growing and alarming backlog of clinical need with patients waiting longer for operations or diagnostic tests. GP referrals are down and patients are avoiding A&E and calling out ambulances.
“We support the lockdown to suppress this horrific virus but the far reaching consequences for wider health outcomes must not be ignored.
“Resetting the NHS to continue treating Covid and non-Covid patients is a huge priority. We’re calling on ministers to urgently come forward with a resourced plan to ensure every patient receives the care they need.”
The figures published by the NHS today have added to concerns that many people with serious and immediate health problems are not seeking the medical attention that they need.
The number of coronavirus-associated deaths in the UK currently stands at 33,186 according to Public Health England. There are 229,705 confirmed cases – but with low levels of testing the figure is thought to be much higher.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Tory MPs share doctored video of Starmer promoted by far right

Conservative MPs have shared a video of Keir Starmer that was edited to be misleading and promoted by far-right accounts on social media to discredit the Labour leader .
Health minister Nadine Dorries , government whip Maria Caulfield and Lucy Allan this morning quote-tweeted a video post that claimed to show Starmer explaining his record as head of the Crown Prosecution Service .
It was claimed that Starmer was accounting for “ why he didn ’ t prosecute grooming gangs ” , when in fact he was explaining why he implemented reforms as the Director of Public Prosecutions .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader was saying new guidelines were “ based on a recognition that the approach being taken in the past was the wrong approach ” .
Starmer was offering examples of how the past approach was flawed , but the edited video shared by Tory MPs made it look as if he was endorsing the previous approach .
A Labour source said : “ This is a doctored video tweeted by far-right social media account .
As a government minister , we hope Nadine Dorries acknowledges this and takes it down.
” Dorries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Caulfield appears to have had her Twitter account suspended .
The original anonymous Twitter user – whose account is now deleted – had previously shared racist content .
After deleting her quote tweet , however , Allan tweeted : “ There was a total failure by the authorities to understand # cse # grooming , a dismissive attitude towards victims , and a belief that victims brought it on themselves.
” The new post by the Conservative MP for Telford does not acknowledge that these arguments align with the point that Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Allan is parliamentary private secretary to the House of Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg , while Dorries is a government minister and Caulfield is a former Tory vice-chair and currently assistant whip .
In response to the events , Labour frontbencher and former Women ’ s Aid manager Jess Phillips tweeted a link to the full video and said : “ Full video , these changes secured prosecutions .
“ I know because I was there fighting for it & supporting victims .
We ’ re no where near tackling this for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the truth matters .
@ Keir_Starmer was part of the solution ” .
Labour ’ s deputy leader Angela Rayner commented on the story , tweeting : “ Absolutely disgusting stuff , we are trying to work constructively cross-party in parliament given the # COVID19 pandemic , this really is out of order ” .

Conservative MPs have shared a video of Keir Starmer that was edited to be misleading and promoted by far-right accounts on social media to discredit the Labour leader.
Health minister Nadine Dorries, government whip Maria Caulfield and Lucy Allan quote-tweeted a video post that claimed to show Starmer explaining his record as head of the Crown Prosecution Service.
The original tweet alleged that Starmer was accounting for “why he didn’t prosecute grooming gangs”, when in fact he was explaining why he implemented reforms as the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The full video shows that the now Labour leader was saying new guidelines were “based on a recognition that the approach being taken in the past was the wrong approach”.
Starmer was offering examples of how the past approach was flawed, but the edited video shared by Tory MPs made it look as if he was endorsing the previous approach.
A Labour source said: “This is a doctored video tweeted by far-right social media account. As a government minister, we hope Nadine Dorries acknowledges this and takes it down.”
Dorries and Allan have now deleted their posts, while Caulfield appears to have had her Twitter account suspended. The original anonymous Twitter user – whose account is now deleted – had previously shared racist content.
After deleting her quote tweet, however, Allan tweeted: “There was a total failure by the authorities to understand #cse #grooming, a dismissive attitude towards victims, and a belief that victims brought it on themselves.”
The new post by the Conservative MP for Telford does not acknowledge that these arguments align with the point that Starmer was putting across in the unedited video.
Allan is parliamentary private secretary to the House of Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, while Dorries is a government minister and Caulfield is a former Tory vice-chair and currently assistant whip.
In response to the events, Labour frontbencher and former Women’s Aid manager Jess Phillips tweeted a link to the full video and said: “Full video, these changes secured prosecutions.
“I know because I was there fighting for it & supporting victims. We’re no where near tackling this for good, there were & still are failings but the truth matters. @Keir_Starmer was part of the solution”.
Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner commented on the story, tweeting: “Absolutely disgusting stuff, we are trying to work constructively cross-party in parliament given the #COVID19 pandemic, this really is out of order”.
Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether No 10 condemned the actions of the Tory MPs or had asked them to delete the tweets.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Labour lengthens timetable for general secretary appointment

Keir Starmer went on the attack at this week ’ s PMQs , and his interrogation of Boris Johnson made headlines .
The Prime Minister was left squirming when confronted with evidence that the government had said the infection of care home residents was “ unlikely ” , in advice that was issued up until mid-March .
His first instinct was to deny that the advice was issued , although of course it was .
And his second reaction was to remind Starmer of his commitment to “ work constructively with the government ” .
This was the somewhat petulant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to Starmer ’ s demand that he “ correct the record ” in the Commons .
The Labour leader has successfully identified his own strengths ( incisive probing ) and the weaknesses of his opponent ( a total lack of interest in detail ) to produce an effective PMQs strategy .
The Labour leadership has not wanted to talk about a future public inquiry into the government ’ s handling of coronavirus , other than to say one is “ inevitable ” .
Starmer has been “ trying to resist calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use his own words .
But he is now using the opposition leader role , and particularly PMQs , to shape that inevitable inquiry .
Many are wondering whether Johnson will do better at these weekly sessions once parliament is no longer virtual and feels less like a courtroom .
A braying crowd of Tory MPs doing their best to distract and heckle the Labour leader will surely make his job tougher .
But the real problem is that Johnson ’ s ‘ broad brushstrokes ’ style of leadership is ill-suited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mismatch will not have disappeared .
While Starmer ensures that Labour puts its criticisms of the crisis response on the record , he must still work on his other main task – internal party reform .
The deadline for applications to the post of Labour general secretary was supposed to be today , as determined by the original super speedy timetable .
But it has been lengthened : candidates will now have until May 18th to apply , longlisting is now on 19th , shortlisting on 21st , and the final vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week longer , which is crucial if the leader ’ s office wants to find a couple of unexpected candidates of its own liking .
And new BAME rep Carol Sewell has been added to the panel responsible for long- and shortlisting .
These changes represent a clear win for the leadership .
If you ’ re interested in the process and the politics of picking a Labour general secretary , Luke Akehurst ’ s latest LabourList piece is a must-read .
It explains what a GS does , who has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed and why .
There is also some juicy detail about how events unfolded when Luke was a member of the national executive committee and Iain McNicol was chosen in 2011 – against the wishes of the incumbent leadership .
The alliances formed within such a tiny selectorate , influenced as they are by personal relationships , are often less predictable than one might assume .
And there is plenty more news to come from the ruling body .
I hear that the switch to a single transferable vote ( STV ) system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the next meeting on Tuesday .
This would be a huge victory for the soft left .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Keir Starmer went on the attack at this week’s PMQs, and his interrogation of Boris Johnson made headlines. The Prime Minister was left squirming when confronted with evidence that the government had said the infection of care home residents was “unlikely”, in advice that was issued up until mid-March. His first instinct was to deny that the advice was issued, although of course it was. And his second reaction was to remind Starmer of his commitment to “work constructively with the government”. This was the somewhat petulant letter sent by the Prime Minister in response to Starmer’s demand that he “correct the record” in the Commons. The Labour leader has successfully identified his own strengths (incisive probing) and the weaknesses of his opponent (a total lack of interest in detail) to produce an effective PMQs strategy.
The Labour leadership has not wanted to talk about a future public inquiry into the government’s handling of coronavirus, other than to say one is “inevitable”. Starmer has been “trying to resist calls for apologies or criticising past decisions”, to use his own words. But he is now using the opposition leader role, and particularly PMQs, to shape that inevitable inquiry. Many are wondering whether Johnson will do better at these weekly sessions once parliament is no longer virtual and feels less like a courtroom. A braying crowd of Tory MPs doing their best to distract and heckle the Labour leader will surely make his job tougher. But the real problem is that Johnson’s ‘broad brushstrokes’ style of leadership is ill-suited to such a complex crisis – and this mismatch will not have disappeared.
While Starmer ensures that Labour puts its criticisms of the crisis response on the record, he must still work on his other main task – internal party reform. The deadline for applications to the post of Labour general secretary was supposed to be today, as determined by the original super speedy timetable. But it has been lengthened: candidates will now have until May 18th to apply, longlisting is now on 19th, shortlisting on 21st, and the final vote on 26th. The whole process will take a week longer, which is crucial if the leader’s office wants to find a couple of unexpected candidates of its own liking. And new BAME rep Carol Sewell has been added to the panel responsible for long- and shortlisting. These changes represent a clear win for the leadership.
If you’re interested in the process and the politics of picking a Labour general secretary, Luke Akehurst’s latest LabourList piece is a must-read. It explains what a GS does, who has done the job before, how they were appointed and why. There is also some juicy detail about how events unfolded when Luke was a member of the national executive committee and Iain McNicol was chosen in 2011 – against the wishes of the incumbent leadership. The alliances formed within such a tiny selectorate, influenced as they are by personal relationships, are often less predictable than one might assume. And there is plenty more news to come from the ruling body. I hear that the switch to a single transferable vote (STV) system for NEC elections is on the agenda of the next meeting on Tuesday. This would be a huge victory for the soft left. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-14--225,000 care places lost if government U-turns on council funding, says Labour

Labour has said that the equivalent of 225,000 adult social care places will be severely reduced or lost altogether if the government breaks its coronavirus funding promise to councils .
Following new analysis , Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed warned that a government U-turn on funding for Covid-19 support to local authorities would be a “ catastrophe for social care ” .
The party explained that councils face a £10bn “ coronavirus black hole ” that , if not plugged by central government , would result in “ 21 % cuts across the board ” – including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reed highlighted that the government had said it would “ do whatever it takes ” and support councils ’ responses to the pandemic , but said that “ now ministers are breaking that promise ” .
Labour cited research based on 2019/20 budget that estimates local authorities ’ coronavirus-related income losses , and data from the Kings Fund and Department for Health and Social Care that shows : • A £10bn funding hole for local authorities would mean £3.5bn cut to social care .
On 2020/21 budgets , 21 % cuts across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social care as well £2bn to children ’ s social care and £700m to public health .
• Equivalent of 225,000 adult social care places severely reduced or gone altogether .
A £3.5bn cut in council adult social care spending is equal to 178,000 long-term adult social care places for over 65s , and 47,000 short-term places .
• 40,000 places would go in the Midlands alone and more than 30,000 in each of the North West , South East and London .
• Other key services are at risk of cuts if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap , including libraries , children ’ s centres , leisure centres , public parks , road safety , road gritting and street lighting .
Commenting on the figures , Reed said : “ Carers and our loved ones they care for are on the frontline of the fight against coronavirus .
Local authorities are the biggest funders of social care in England – so when the government promised to stand behind councils through this crisis Labour supported them .
“ But now ministers are breaking that promise , leaving councils with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the board .
Unless the government drops those plans the frontline heroes we ’ re cheering today will lose their jobs tomorrow and the equivalent of 225,000 frail and frightened older people and vulnerable adults will lose the support they rely on .
“ That would be a catastrophe for social care , disastrous for those who lose support as providers are forced out of business , and would once again fail the very people putting their lives on the line to get us through this crisis .
“ This government promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our loved ones see care taken away in their hour of need it will be devastating and unacceptable .
The government should change course , now.
” Local authorities are much more restricted in what they can do with their budgets than central government .
Councils are not able to borrow to cover revenue spending , or to run deficits by carrying overspends into subsequent years .
If a council fails to balance the budget , a section 114 notice is issued under the Local Government Act 1998 , which prevents any new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make an alternative budget that fits the criteria .
A budget made after the issue of a section 114 notice would involve making cuts to existing services .
Across the country , several local authorities have said that they are weeks away from issuing a section 114 notice .
Councils in England have seen government funding cut by £16bn since 2010 – this has resulted in an almost 80 % reductions for some .
Labour said that this £10bn Covid-19 hole for councils would amount to a £3,525m reduction in adult social @ @

Labour has said that the equivalent of 225,000 adult social care places will be severely reduced or lost altogether if the government breaks its coronavirus funding promise to councils.
Following new analysis, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed warned that a government U-turn on funding for Covid-19 support to local authorities would be a “catastrophe for social care”.
The party explained that councils face a £10bn “coronavirus black hole” that, if not plugged by central government, would result in “21% cuts across the board” – including a £3.5bn reduction in social care budgets.
Reed highlighted that the government had said it would “do whatever it takes” and support councils’ responses to the pandemic, but said that “now ministers are breaking that promise”.
Labour cited research based on 2019/20 budget that estimates local authorities’ coronavirus-related income losses, and data from the Kings Fund and Department for Health and Social Care that shows:
A £10bn funding hole for local authorities would mean £3.5bn cut to social care. On 2020/21 budgets, 21% cuts across council budgets would mean £3.5bn to adult social care as well £2bn to children’s social care and £700m to public health.
Equivalent of 225,000 adult social care places severely reduced or gone altogether. A £3.5bn cut in council adult social care spending is equal to 178,000 long-term adult social care places for over 65s, and 47,000 short-term places.
40,000 places would go in the Midlands alone and more than 30,000 in each of the North West, South East and London.
Other key services are at risk of cuts if the government fails to plug the funding gap, including libraries, children’s centres, leisure centres, public parks, road safety, road gritting and street lighting.
Commenting on the figures, Reed said: “Carers and our loved ones they care for are on the frontline of the fight against coronavirus. Local authorities are the biggest funders of social care in England – so when the government promised to stand behind councils through this crisis Labour supported them.
“But now ministers are breaking that promise, leaving councils with a £10bn black hole forcing 21% cuts across the board. Unless the government drops those plans the frontline heroes we’re cheering today will lose their jobs tomorrow and the equivalent of 225,000 frail and frightened older people and vulnerable adults will lose the support they rely on.
“That would be a catastrophe for social care, disastrous for those who lose support as providers are forced out of business, and would once again fail the very people putting their lives on the line to get us through this crisis.
“This government promised to do whatever it takes – if our loved ones see care taken away in their hour of need it will be devastating and unacceptable. The government should change course, now.”
Local authorities are much more restricted in what they can do with their budgets than central government. Councils are not able to borrow to cover revenue spending, or to run deficits by carrying overspends into subsequent years.
If a council fails to balance the budget, a section 114 notice is issued under the Local Government Act 1998, which prevents any new expenditure and gives a council 21 days to make an alternative budget that fits the criteria.
A budget made after the issue of a section 114 notice would involve making cuts to existing services. Across the country, several local authorities have said that they are weeks away from issuing a section 114 notice.
Councils in England have seen government funding cut by £16bn since 2010 – this has resulted in an almost 80% reductions for some. Labour said that this £10bn Covid-19 hole for councils would amount to a £3,525m reduction in adult social care.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Health unions publish blueprint for safe opening up of NHS as lockdown eases

16 health unions have published a blueprint for the safe opening up of the NHS as lockdown measures ease , calling for full access to testing , “ plentiful ” protective equipment supplies and proper staff pay .
The organisations – including UNISON , Unite , GMB , the Royal College of Nursing , and the Royal College of Midwives – have set out a nine-point plan ahead of an expected uptake in service use .
The group of trade unions have argued that after clapping for NHS workers every Thursday evening , the public will “ expect the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later in the year ” .
The blueprint focuses on restarting services that have been “ stepped down ” during the peak of the coronavirus pandemic , while keeping patients and staff safe .
It says that the government must : • • “ Guarantee that there is enough suitable PPE to give staff the equipment they need to protect them when being in contact with the coronavirus is unavoidable – and that all communal staff areas are safe to use ; • “ Ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to help avoid contact with Covid-19 wherever possible and to manage that contact safely when there is no alternative .
This must include access to all information on every risk factor , including on ethnicity , and proper training for the managers who will conduct them ; • “ Give staff and patients/clients unlimited access to testing and rapid results , so that resumed services can stay virus free for staff and patients ; • “ Extend the current Covid-19 pay arrangements so that staff get paid properly for all the hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hours over 37.5 a week ; • “ Make sure that staff get a proper work/ life balance by recording and controlling excess hours , reviewing long and rotating shifts , enforcing working time regulations and encouraging staff to take rest breaks and annual leave ; • “ Use additional capacity from the Bring Back Staff initiative to support rapid establishment of safe staffing levels ; • “ Make sure that staff know about the support that is available to those most affected by the impact of the virus and encourage them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ; • “ Facilitate and support access to childcare , particularly for staff with pre-school children ; and • “ Make a clear statement of intent that the contribution of all NHS staff , whatever their jobs , in dealing with this pandemic will be reflected in future conversations about pay.
” Commenting on the proposed plan , UNISON head of health Sara Gorton said : “ Health employees across the NHS have continued to work while most of us have been safe at home .
“ As hospitals get busier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen , the safety of staff and patients is paramount .
But this can ’ t happen without plentiful and constant PPE supplies .
“ Tackling Covid has been a huge challenge , but this next phase will be a crucial test too .
This nine-point plan will enable senior NHS managers to work with staff and unions to restart safely many of the services that had to shut up shop when the pandemic hit .
Acting on the plan could prevent a second wave of infection .
“ The priority for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives and keeping everyone safe .
The government can show its appreciation for all NHS employees now by approving moves that guarantee staff are paid properly for every hour they ’ re at work .
“ Every Thursday we applaud NHS staff from our doorsteps and show how much we value them .
The public will expect the government to reflect this when pay talks open later in the year .
People will understandably be horrified at talk of pay freezes for those at the forefront of the fight against the virus.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a million NHS workers , including porters , nurses , radiographers , physiotherapists , midwives , 999-call handlers , cleaners , healthcare assistants , dieticians and paramedics .
They have called for a “ safety-first ” approach – meaning sticking to the two-metre rule , allowing certain staff to continue working from home and regularly redeploying those in high-risk areas to ones under less pressure .
The RCN ’ s Hannah Reed added : “ Any discussions about a return to business as usual need to take account of the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services like outpatient clinics safely again .
All staff need adequate supplies of PPE that is fit for purpose .
“ Staff must be paid in full for the extra hours worked during the crisis .
Any talk of future pay freezes to pay the bill for the pandemic will outrage nursing , health care staff and the public alike.
” Also involved in drawing up the plans were the British Association of Occupational Therapists , British Dental Association , British Dietetic Association , British Orthoptists Society , College of Podiatry , Federation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Prison Officers Association , Society of Radiographers and HCSA .
The release of the proposals come amid concerns about a backlog of non-coronavirus clinical need , with record-low levels of health service use .
Labour has called for the government to publish its own plan to manage this need .
The number of coronavirus-associated deaths in the UK currently stands at 33,614 according to Public Health England .
There are 233,151 confirmed cases – but with low levels of testing the figure is thought to be much higher .
The full text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

16 health unions have published a blueprint for the safe opening up of the NHS as lockdown measures ease, calling for full access to testing, “plentiful” protective equipment supplies and proper staff pay.
The organisations – including UNISON, Unite, GMB, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Royal College of Midwives – have set out a nine-point plan ahead of an expected uptake in service use.
The group of trade unions have argued that after clapping for NHS workers every Thursday evening, the public will “expect the government to reflect this when pay talks open later in the year”.
The blueprint focuses on restarting services that have been “stepped down” during the peak of the coronavirus pandemic, while keeping patients and staff safe. It says that the government must:
“Guarantee that there is enough suitable PPE to give staff the equipment they need to protect them when being in contact with the coronavirus is unavoidable – and that all communal staff areas are safe to use; “Ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out for all staff – to apply social distancing, to help avoid contact with Covid-19 wherever possible and to manage that contact safely when there is no alternative. This must include access to all information on every risk factor, including on ethnicity, and proper training for the managers who will conduct them; “Give staff and patients/clients unlimited access to testing and rapid results, so that resumed services can stay virus free for staff and patients; “Extend the current Covid-19 pay arrangements so that staff get paid properly for all the hours they work – including applying overtime rates to hours over 37.5 a week; “Make sure that staff get a proper work/ life balance by recording and controlling excess hours, reviewing long and rotating shifts, enforcing working time regulations and encouraging staff to take rest breaks and annual leave; “Use additional capacity from the Bring Back Staff initiative to support rapid establishment of safe staffing levels; “Make sure that staff know about the support that is available to those most affected by the impact of the virus and encourage them to ask for help if they need it; “Facilitate and support access to childcare, particularly for staff with pre-school children; and “Make a clear statement of intent that the contribution of all NHS staff, whatever their jobs, in dealing with this pandemic will be reflected in future conversations about pay.”
Commenting on the proposed plan, UNISON head of health Sara Gorton said: “Health employees across the NHS have continued to work while most of us have been safe at home.
“As hospitals get busier, and clinics and other services begin to reopen, the safety of staff and patients is paramount. But this can’t happen without plentiful and constant PPE supplies.
“Tackling Covid has been a huge challenge, but this next phase will be a crucial test too. This nine-point plan will enable senior NHS managers to work with staff and unions to restart safely many of the services that had to shut up shop when the pandemic hit. Acting on the plan could prevent a second wave of infection.
“The priority for the NHS remains beating the virus, saving lives and keeping everyone safe. The government can show its appreciation for all NHS employees now by approving moves that guarantee staff are paid properly for every hour they’re at work.
“Every Thursday we applaud NHS staff from our doorsteps and show how much we value them. The public will expect the government to reflect this when pay talks open later in the year. People will understandably be horrified at talk of pay freezes for those at the forefront of the fight against the virus.”
The organisations putting forward the plan represent more than a million NHS workers, including porters, nurses, radiographers, physiotherapists, midwives, 999-call handlers, cleaners, healthcare assistants, dieticians and paramedics.
They have called for a “safety-first” approach – meaning sticking to the two-metre rule, allowing certain staff to continue working from home and regularly redeploying those in high-risk areas to ones under less pressure.
The RCN’s Hannah Reed added: “Any discussions about a return to business as usual need to take account of the need for more capacity and tools to restart services like outpatient clinics safely again. All staff need adequate supplies of PPE that is fit for purpose.
“Staff must be paid in full for the extra hours worked during the crisis. Any talk of future pay freezes to pay the bill for the pandemic will outrage nursing, health care staff and the public alike.”
Also involved in drawing up the plans were the British Association of Occupational Therapists, British Dental Association, British Dietetic Association, British Orthoptists Society, College of Podiatry, Federation of Clinical Scientists, Managers in Partnership, Prison Officers Association, Society of Radiographers and HCSA.
The release of the proposals come amid concerns about a backlog of non-coronavirus clinical need, with record-low levels of health service use. Labour has called for the government to publish its own plan to manage this need.
The number of coronavirus-associated deaths in the UK currently stands at 33,614 according to Public Health England. There are 233,151 confirmed cases – but with low levels of testing the figure is thought to be much higher.
The full text of the blueprint can be found here.


labourlist--2020-05-14--‘Cancel the rent’ policy would be “un-Labour”, says Debbonaire

A ‘ cancel the rent ’ policy would be “ un-Labour ” and “ really regressive ” , Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire has said in response to criticism of her party ’ s position on rent arrears .
During an event on Thursday , Debbonaire was asked about the backlash that followed Labour ’ s announcement last weekend when the party said it would give renters two years to pay back coronavirus-related arrears .
Labour set out a five-point plan , which included extending the Covid-19 ban on evictions , outlawing evictions due to coronavirus-related arrears , improving Universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the plan also said Labour would “ grant renters at least two years to pay back any arrears accrued during this period ” , which proved controversial among some party activists and backbench MPs .
An open letter calling on Keir Starmer to “ cancel the rent ” was signed by over 4,000 members within 48 hours and backed by soft left group Open Labour as well as Momentum .
It accused Labour of “ failing renters ” , and said its proposed “ solutions simply are not good enough ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new policy would see renters shoulder the cost of the crisis ” .
Asked for a response to such critics , Debbonaire told the Young Fabians online event on Thursday evening : “ The policy called ‘ cancel the rent ’ is surprisingly un-Labour .
It ’ s a really regressive policy .
“ Because , for instance , there are people who are still in work , still able to pay their rent .
And if you just cancelled rent , they would also benefit and they don ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London , which all MPs who don ’ t live in London [ have ] – it would cancel my rent .
That would be completely unnecessary , really regressive , and not targeted at the people who need it the most .
“ Whether we like it or not , whether we think it ’ s either moral or not , there is a legal structure underneath this .
Which is a tenant has signed a contract with a landlord .
“ Even if it ’ s a rubbish contract , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much , it ’ s still legally binding .
And just cancelling it has consequences .
In fact , there isn ’ t such a thing as cancelling it.
” The new Shadow Housing Secretary added : “ Let ’ s say you did decide that there would be a general waiver .
Nobody needed to pay rent .
Everyone was exempt until the end of the crisis .
“ The landlords , whether we like it or not , would have a legal case against either the government or their tenants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think about who are you going to target it on and how would you compensate landlords for that .
“ And if you take the entire private rented sector and you cancelled its rent , we ’ re talking about £7.2bn a month… So we ’ re talking about an enormous amount of money .
“ As a Labour politician , I can ’ t call for the government to do something unless I genuinely believe that it ’ s a policy we would take if we were in government .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would .
“ Because at the moment we actually don ’ t know what ’ s ahead of us… I would rather give the money upfront so they weren ’ t in arrears.
” On social housing , Debbonaire said : “ If you also cancelled the rent and you didn ’ t compensate the landlords , social landlords – like councils and housing associations – some of them would go bust.
” She argued : “ At the moment , most social landlords are in any case coming to really good and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into difficulties .
It ’ s the private rented sector where we ’ ve got a problem.
” The Labour MP stressed that her preference would be to “ deal with it upfront ” by removing the benefit cap and increasing Local Housing Allowance – moves included in Labour ’ s five-point plan .
On the ‘ cancel the rent ’ proposal , she continued : “ If we had that policy and a lot of private landlords went bust , I know there are lots of people including lots of Labour members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s fine , they ’ re evil , exploitative people ’ .
“ Which may well be true .
But if they go bust , their tenants would be homeless .
We have to think about what would happen after that .
The housing that they own would probably be bought up by even greedier landlords.
” Debbonaire added : “ We also have to think about that sometimes people who ’ ve been on low pay… are topping up a very medium , mediocre income with rent on a property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has maybe moved in with them and they ’ re renting out their mum ’ s house .
“ And that is actually topping up their income .
Now , you might say that ’ s wrong , you might say that ’ s not OK , but we do have to think about those consequences as well.
” She concluded : “ It would be deeply regressive to have a general rent waiver .
And to come up with a specific rent waiver , if you ’ re gon na do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well pay upfront by removing the benefit cap and increased Local Housing Allowance .
”

A ‘cancel the rent’ policy would be “un-Labour” and “really regressive”, Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire has said in response to criticism of her party’s position on rent arrears.
During an event on Thursday, Debbonaire was asked about the backlash that followed Labour’s announcement last weekend when the party said it would give renters two years to pay back coronavirus-related arrears.
Labour set out a five-point plan, which included extending the Covid-19 ban on evictions, outlawing evictions due to coronavirus-related arrears, improving Universal Credit and temporarily increasing Local Housing Allowance.
But the plan also said Labour would “grant renters at least two years to pay back any arrears accrued during this period”, which proved controversial among some party activists and backbench MPs.
An open letter calling on Keir Starmer to “cancel the rent” was signed by over 4,000 members within 48 hours and backed by soft left group Open Labour as well as Momentum.
It accused Labour of “failing renters”, and said its proposed “solutions simply are not good enough”. Momentum said “Labour’s new policy would see renters shoulder the cost of the crisis”.
Asked for a response to such critics, Debbonaire told the Young Fabians online event on Thursday evening: “The policy called ‘cancel the rent’ is surprisingly un-Labour. It’s a really regressive policy.
“Because, for instance, there are people who are still in work, still able to pay their rent. And if you just cancelled rent, they would also benefit and they don’t need to.
“I have a flat in London, which all MPs who don’t live in London [have] – it would cancel my rent. That would be completely unnecessary, really regressive, and not targeted at the people who need it the most.
“Whether we like it or not, whether we think it’s either moral or not, there is a legal structure underneath this. Which is a tenant has signed a contract with a landlord.
“Even if it’s a rubbish contract, with a rubbish landlord who is charging far too much, it’s still legally binding. And just cancelling it has consequences. In fact, there isn’t such a thing as cancelling it.”
The new Shadow Housing Secretary added: “Let’s say you did decide that there would be a general waiver. Nobody needed to pay rent. Everyone was exempt until the end of the crisis.
“The landlords, whether we like it or not, would have a legal case against either the government or their tenants or quite possibly both… So you have to think about who are you going to target it on and how would you compensate landlords for that.
“And if you take the entire private rented sector and you cancelled its rent, we’re talking about £7.2bn a month… So we’re talking about an enormous amount of money.
“As a Labour politician, I can’t call for the government to do something unless I genuinely believe that it’s a policy we would take if we were in government. And I’m not sure that we would.
“Because at the moment we actually don’t know what’s ahead of us… I would rather give the money upfront so they weren’t in arrears.”
On social housing, Debbonaire said: “If you also cancelled the rent and you didn’t compensate the landlords, social landlords – like councils and housing associations – some of them would go bust.”
She argued: “At the moment, most social landlords are in any case coming to really good and generous arrangements with tenants who are getting into difficulties. It’s the private rented sector where we’ve got a problem.”
The Labour MP stressed that her preference would be to “deal with it upfront” by removing the benefit cap and increasing Local Housing Allowance – moves included in Labour’s five-point plan.
On the ‘cancel the rent’ proposal, she continued: “If we had that policy and a lot of private landlords went bust, I know there are lots of people including lots of Labour members who’d go ‘yippee, that’s fine, they’re evil, exploitative people’.
“Which may well be true. But if they go bust, their tenants would be homeless. We have to think about what would happen after that. The housing that they own would probably be bought up by even greedier landlords.”
Debbonaire added: “We also have to think about that sometimes people who’ve been on low pay… are topping up a very medium, mediocre income with rent on a property that used to belong to their mother who has maybe moved in with them and they’re renting out their mum’s house.
“And that is actually topping up their income. Now, you might say that’s wrong, you might say that’s not OK, but we do have to think about those consequences as well.”
She concluded: “It would be deeply regressive to have a general rent waiver. And to come up with a specific rent waiver, if you’re gonna do that and target, you might as well pay upfront by removing the benefit cap and increased Local Housing Allowance.”


labourlist--2020-05-14--How local government has responded to Covid-19: government guidance

I had planned to spend this week looking at different policy areas and outlining some of the ways in which local government has had to respond to the Covid-19 crisis .
Having written earlier this week about adult social care , children ’ s services , and community support , I had intended to spend time in this piece setting out my initial thoughts on recovery and what we will need to do to ensure councils emerge from this crisis as robustly as possible so that we can continue moving our communities forward .
Then Sunday happened .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many others – I wanted to be constructive , I really did .
With the exception of a couple of gripes caused by the shambles that has been the national protective equipment situation , I largely kept my powder dry .
In the last couple of weeks , however , my position has shifted significantly .
It is increasingly clear that mistakes have been made : slow to test , slow to lockdown , slow on PPE , slow on responding to the crisis in care homes .
Sunday ’ s fiasco was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has serious ramifications for councils in terms of enforcement and message management .
There are a number of issues with the revised guidance : sending non-essential workers back to work before childcare provision can be assured is one example that has attracted attention , but it is one of many .
The suggestion that schools will be ready to return on June 1st appears far-fetched , not least given the government expects five-year-olds to socially distance .
But what made me most angry was the inequality that this revised guidance has further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outset , crisis response has been underpinned by the incredible work of key workers , many of them low-paid .
They have been required to put themselves at risk in a range of different roles : care staff , bin operatives , supermarket workers .
Whilst it was deeply uncomfortable to see so many low-paid workers putting themselves at risk whilst those of us in more traditionally middle-class roles could work safely from home , it was understandable .
They were needed .
Yet the hasty return of manufacturing and construction workers – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforced my view of a growing inequality in Covid-19-related policy .
Those in manual or low-paid professions are not receiving the same protection as the rest of society .
It ’ s no wonder that deprivation is showing as a factor in Covid-19 related deaths , and it is increasingly unacceptable .
The return to work guidance wasn ’ t the only example of unfairness and inequality in the revised policy .
The new exercise rules favour those in a financially stronger position .
If you ’ re able to run a car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( in England ) .
If you don ’ t have a car , you ’ re restricted by the advice that says you should avoid use of public transport .
There is a deepening sense now that wealth dictates not only the extent to which you are kept safe by policy , but also the extent to which you can return to something like normal life .
For councils , this inequity – and the mixed and confusing guidance that Keir so ably ripped apart at PMQs yesterday – is a nightmare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from residents asking me to act on alleged breaches of social distancing .
The lack of clarity we now have to contend with is already making this more challenging .
As ever , it falls to local authorities to unpick and interpret the shift in tone : it ’ s for council enforcement teams to remind people of their responsibilities and to advise businesses on how to ensure compliance , and the latest changes have caused chaos .
A muddled picture not only increases workload but makes the task at hand more difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce isn ’ t credible – and residents know it .
It is becoming a thankless task .
This , at a time when the specialist expertise in our enforcement and regulatory services teams could be redeployed to support key projects , such as the track and trace efforts being pulled together across Greater Manchester .
The overwhelming majority of residents still want to do what ’ s right where they can , but they know that this latest shift in policy makes no sense .
Sunday ’ s mixed messages have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ’ s not surprising .
Publicly stating that members of a family of 10 people could all individually meet with another 10 people , who all return to their families , seems to me a recipe for disaster – not least when several of those people may just have returned to busy workplaces .
All of this has meant my inbox has been overflowing with people who are scared and angry at what is rightly considered a premature move .
The North West has consistently tracked a couple of weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , and for us this is a move that has come too soon .
As always seems to be the case with this government , the position in London has clearly dominated .
Andy Burnham has consistently flagged this fact as the Mayor of Greater Manchester , and he has been right to do so .
It ’ s incredibly hard for councils to reassure residents , take enforcement action where needed , advise businesses on compliance , and take all other necessary steps when the advice has been so fluid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is poorly thought-out : ‘ stay home ’ was a clear instruction , whereas ‘ stay aware ’ is a vague suggestion that I really fear could contribute to a second spike .
At times of crisis , leaders must speak slowly , speak clearly , and offer reassurance .
At present , the PM is failing to do that .
Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are right to stick with the original stay home message .
Council comms are critical at present to ensure residents get the best guidance possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear messaging that constitutes a simple and sensible instruction the message in Trafford will remain as it was before : Stay Home , Save Lives .

I had planned to spend this week looking at different policy areas and outlining some of the ways in which local government has had to respond to the Covid-19 crisis. Having written earlier this week about adult social care, children’s services, and community support, I had intended to spend time in this piece setting out my initial thoughts on recovery and what we will need to do to ensure councils emerge from this crisis as robustly as possible so that we can continue moving our communities forward. Then Sunday happened.
At the start of the outbreak – like so many others – I wanted to be constructive, I really did. With the exception of a couple of gripes caused by the shambles that has been the national protective equipment situation, I largely kept my powder dry. In the last couple of weeks, however, my position has shifted significantly. It is increasingly clear that mistakes have been made: slow to test, slow to lockdown, slow on PPE, slow on responding to the crisis in care homes. Sunday’s fiasco was the icing on the cake, and it has serious ramifications for councils in terms of enforcement and message management.
There are a number of issues with the revised guidance: sending non-essential workers back to work before childcare provision can be assured is one example that has attracted attention, but it is one of many. The suggestion that schools will be ready to return on June 1st appears far-fetched, not least given the government expects five-year-olds to socially distance. But what made me most angry was the inequality that this revised guidance has further entrenched in government policy.
From the outset, crisis response has been underpinned by the incredible work of key workers, many of them low-paid. They have been required to put themselves at risk in a range of different roles: care staff, bin operatives, supermarket workers. Whilst it was deeply uncomfortable to see so many low-paid workers putting themselves at risk whilst those of us in more traditionally middle-class roles could work safely from home, it was understandable. They were needed. Yet the hasty return of manufacturing and construction workers – traditionally more working class professions – has reinforced my view of a growing inequality in Covid-19-related policy. Those in manual or low-paid professions are not receiving the same protection as the rest of society. It’s no wonder that deprivation is showing as a factor in Covid-19 related deaths, and it is increasingly unacceptable.
The return to work guidance wasn’t the only example of unfairness and inequality in the revised policy. The new exercise rules favour those in a financially stronger position. If you’re able to run a car, you can travel anywhere you like (in England). If you don’t have a car, you’re restricted by the advice that says you should avoid use of public transport. There is a deepening sense now that wealth dictates not only the extent to which you are kept safe by policy, but also the extent to which you can return to something like normal life.
For councils, this inequity – and the mixed and confusing guidance that Keir so ably ripped apart at PMQs yesterday – is a nightmare. Every day, I receive emails from residents asking me to act on alleged breaches of social distancing. The lack of clarity we now have to contend with is already making this more challenging. As ever, it falls to local authorities to unpick and interpret the shift in tone: it’s for council enforcement teams to remind people of their responsibilities and to advise businesses on how to ensure compliance, and the latest changes have caused chaos.
A muddled picture not only increases workload but makes the task at hand more difficult. The guidance our officers are asked to enforce isn’t credible – and residents know it. It is becoming a thankless task. This, at a time when the specialist expertise in our enforcement and regulatory services teams could be redeployed to support key projects, such as the track and trace efforts being pulled together across Greater Manchester.
The overwhelming majority of residents still want to do what’s right where they can, but they know that this latest shift in policy makes no sense. Sunday’s mixed messages have shaken public faith in the advice given, and that’s not surprising. Publicly stating that members of a family of 10 people could all individually meet with another 10 people, who all return to their families, seems to me a recipe for disaster – not least when several of those people may just have returned to busy workplaces.
All of this has meant my inbox has been overflowing with people who are scared and angry at what is rightly considered a premature move. The North West has consistently tracked a couple of weeks behind London and other parts of the country, and for us this is a move that has come too soon. As always seems to be the case with this government, the position in London has clearly dominated. Andy Burnham has consistently flagged this fact as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, and he has been right to do so.
It’s incredibly hard for councils to reassure residents, take enforcement action where needed, advise businesses on compliance, and take all other necessary steps when the advice has been so fluid and now so unclear. The message itself is poorly thought-out: ‘stay home’ was a clear instruction, whereas ‘stay aware’ is a vague suggestion that I really fear could contribute to a second spike.
At times of crisis, leaders must speak slowly, speak clearly, and offer reassurance. At present, the PM is failing to do that. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are right to stick with the original stay home message. Council comms are critical at present to ensure residents get the best guidance possible. That’s why until we receive clear messaging that constitutes a simple and sensible instruction the message in Trafford will remain as it was before: Stay Home, Save Lives.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Full list: Labour’s new parliamentary private secretaries

Keir Starmer has appointed his shadow cabinet and junior shadow ministers , completing the new opposition frontbench , and a number of backbenchers have now been appointed as parliamentary private secretaries ( PPSs ) .
Labour PPSs act as secretaries to shadow cabinet members .
They are selected from the backbenches to be the ‘ eyes and ears ’ of their bosses , acting as a liaison with Labour MPs and relaying the mood of parliamentary colleagues .
The role is unpaid , but can be useful to gain experience .
A PPS can be assigned to more than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective responsibility , risking their job if they go against party policy .
It ’ s often difficult to know who all the Labour PPSs are at any one time , which is why we have compiled our own list here .
The newly appointed are drawn overwhelmingly from the 2019 intake of Labour MPs .
• Fleur Anderson , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for International Development Preet Gill .
• Tonia Antoniazzi , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Jonathan Reynolds .
• Olivia Blake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media and Sport Secretary Jo Stevens and Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray .
• Feryal Clarke , PPS to Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire and to Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed .
• Alex Davies-Jones , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for Transport Jim McMahon and to Shadow Secretary of State for Wales Nia Griffith .
• Chris Evans , PPS to John Healey as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence .
• Mary Foy , PPS to Andy McDonald as Shadow Secretary of State for Employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities Marsha De Cordova .
• Ruth Jones , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs Luke Pollard and PPS to Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh .
• Charlotte Nichols , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade Emily Thornberry .
• Abena Oppong-Asare , PPS to Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Anneliese Dodds and Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Bridget Phillipson .
• Nadia Whittome , PPS to Shadow Secretary of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Beth Winter , PPS to Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Rachel Reeves .

Keir Starmer has appointed his shadow cabinet and junior shadow ministers, completing the new opposition frontbench, and a number of backbenchers have now been appointed as parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs).
Labour PPSs act as secretaries to shadow cabinet members. They are selected from the backbenches to be the ‘eyes and ears’ of their bosses, acting as a liaison with Labour MPs and relaying the mood of parliamentary colleagues.
The role is unpaid, but can be useful to gain experience. A PPS can be assigned to more than one shadow secretary and they are bound by collective responsibility, risking their job if they go against party policy.
It’s often difficult to know who all the Labour PPSs are at any one time, which is why we have compiled our own list here. The newly appointed are drawn overwhelmingly from the 2019 intake of Labour MPs.


labourlist--2020-05-14--Why the UK needs a strategy for food self-sufficiency

Everyone is interested in eating , which makes it funny how rarely food crops up as a subject for discussion on the left .
This is dangerous : the last couple of months have exposed the fragility of our over-extended supply chains .
The panic-buying , which ran like wildfire around the developed world in March , reflected a rational fear about the vulnerability of global supply chains as the virus swept through food production regions .
The sobering truth is that , without factory food and massive food imports , the shelves would be bare .
According to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown four in five adults have now stopped eating out-of-home totally , even for a takeaway .
With a corresponding rise in home cooking , supermarkets struggle to cope with a massive rise in trade .
Despite recruiting 16,000 more workers , Tesco is failing to meet the demand for home deliveries .
Food shopping has become a crisis in its own right even if , for the moment , the shelves are well-stacked .
Meanwhile , perhaps partly as a by-product of panic-buying , local councils have reported a big rise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help from food banks .
The Trussell Trust , which supports 1,200 food banks , anticipates supplying 360,000 food parcels over the coming three months .
How do we get beyond our critical dependence on food imports and a handful of supermarkets chains ?
We have been lucky this time , but things could be very different if there is another pandemic .
That was Labour ’ s rather modest 2019 manifesto commitment towards the nation ’ s central preoccupation – food and eating .
It would have helped to rid the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of farmers ’ markets .
The trouble is that farmers ’ markets and box schemes still account for only a tiny proportion of the UK ’ s annual grocery spend of £160bn .
The first step is to recognise that food is as much a matter of public concern as health and social care .
That means investing in new systems of local production , distribution and marketing , and tackling the monopoly power of the supermarkets and wholesalers .
Currently , we import half of our food , yet of the six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only 168,000 hectares are used for fruit and vegetables .
At a time when we need more people to make a living from the land , as dairy farmers or horticulturalists , our small producers are a dwindling band .
This means step two is to boost their livelihoods and bargaining power .
That is exactly what has been happening in the US and Italy , as I saw first-hand recently on a trip funded by the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust .
Dr L.C .
Dorsey was very well-known in the civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She helped found the Bolivar County Vegetable Co-op , which pooled the resources of small farmers to buy farm equipment and to rent a warehouse to store and process vegetables in large quantities – in other words , a food hub .
It took another 40 years before the government adopted this model and funded it .
The classic food hub consists of a warehouse for aggregation and distribution linked to a digital platform focused on wholesale plus some retail , and run by a producer-consumer consortium .
The US Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of over 200 food hubs in the last 15 years .
Long-established hubs are achieving viability .
Philadelphia ’ s Common Market , for example , has expanded down the Atlantic coast to Atlanta , and more recently to Texas .
The Redd , in Portland ( OR ) , is a purpose built , state of the art facility , initiated by a trust with federal funding .
With more than 20,000 square feet of warehouse space , it provides cold storage , aggregation , packaging , and distribution services in partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also provides space for incubation .
Through the Redd , rural producers can make one efficient drop rather than dozens all over town .
Entrepreneurs can access scale-appropriate services and office space , and direct-to-consumer farmers , ranchers , and fishermen can pack and distribute their community-supported agriculture orders with ease .
Currently , 170 food businesses use the services provided by this dynamic facility .
In Italy , the focus of the new food developments is an old model – the co-operative .
The country stands out in the EU for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weight , in terms of production and employment .
Typical of these is Apo Conerpo , a large scale national co-operative based just outside Bologna in central Italy .
It brings together 6,000 small producers of fruit and vegetables across the country who belong to 40 co-operatives , which themselves form the membership of Apo Conerpo .
Strong links with processors and retailers , also co-operative owned and run , help to ensure that producers receive more of the value of what they grow than if they operated alone .
We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
Amongst the notable food initiatives is Bridport-based Local Food Links .
Founded in 2007 , this community interest company uses four kitchens to cook and supply school meals using local produce – “ whenever we can ” – to more than 50 schools , primarily in Dorset .
Box schemes have been a godsend for many small producers .
Perhaps the largest box scheme in the UK is Abel and Cole , a private limited company with a turnover of £65m and employing 567 people .
It ’ s closely followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which delivers 47,000 boxes a week across the UK with a turnover of £52m .
Riverford is now 76 % owned by an employee trust , the rest by the founder : Guy Watson-Singh .
The problem is that all of these schemes add up to a small percentage of the nation ’ s total grocery shop .
My report for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust on food hubs in the US and producer co-ops in Italy showed how consumer-producer co-operation , public procurement and the disruptive power of the internet can challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of small farmers .
During World War Two , the UK moved from being a major food importer to being largely self-sufficient .
We must do that again .
But it requires a strategy for transforming British agriculture , reducing our dependence on long supply chains – as the food and farming commission recommended – and funding the creation of a national network of producer-consumer food hubs in every town and city .

Everyone is interested in eating, which makes it funny how rarely food crops up as a subject for discussion on the left. This is dangerous: the last couple of months have exposed the fragility of our over-extended supply chains. The panic-buying, which ran like wildfire around the developed world in March, reflected a rational fear about the vulnerability of global supply chains as the virus swept through food production regions. The sobering truth is that, without factory food and massive food imports, the shelves would be bare.
According to The Caterer, as a result of the lockdown four in five adults have now stopped eating out-of-home totally, even for a takeaway. With a corresponding rise in home cooking, supermarkets struggle to cope with a massive rise in trade. Despite recruiting 16,000 more workers, Tesco is failing to meet the demand for home deliveries. Food shopping has become a crisis in its own right even if, for the moment, the shelves are well-stacked.
Meanwhile, perhaps partly as a by-product of panic-buying, local councils have reported a big rise in food wastage alongside an unprecedented demand for help from food banks. The Trussell Trust, which supports 1,200 food banks, anticipates supplying 360,000 food parcels over the coming three months.
How do we get beyond our critical dependence on food imports and a handful of supermarkets chains? We have been lucky this time, but things could be very different if there is another pandemic.
“We will kick-start our efforts to build a secure, community-based local food system with a £6m ‘Access to Food Fund’, initially targeted at the areas of the country with the highest levels of food insecurity.”
That was Labour’s rather modest 2019 manifesto commitment towards the nation’s central preoccupation – food and eating. It would have helped to rid the country of food banks and boosted the fortunes of farmers’ markets. The trouble is that farmers’ markets and box schemes still account for only a tiny proportion of the UK’s annual grocery spend of £160bn.
The first step is to recognise that food is as much a matter of public concern as health and social care. That means investing in new systems of local production, distribution and marketing, and tackling the monopoly power of the supermarkets and wholesalers. Currently, we import half of our food, yet of the six million hectares of cultivatable land in Britain, only 168,000 hectares are used for fruit and vegetables. At a time when we need more people to make a living from the land, as dairy farmers or horticulturalists, our small producers are a dwindling band. This means step two is to boost their livelihoods and bargaining power.
That is exactly what has been happening in the US and Italy, as I saw first-hand recently on a trip funded by the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Dr L.C. Dorsey was very well-known in the civil rights movement in Mississippi in the 1960s. She helped found the Bolivar County Vegetable Co-op, which pooled the resources of small farmers to buy farm equipment and to rent a warehouse to store and process vegetables in large quantities – in other words, a food hub.
It took another 40 years before the government adopted this model and funded it. The classic food hub consists of a warehouse for aggregation and distribution linked to a digital platform focused on wholesale plus some retail, and run by a producer-consumer consortium. The US Department of Agriculture has funded and tracked the progress of over 200 food hubs in the last 15 years. Long-established hubs are achieving viability. Philadelphia’s Common Market, for example, has expanded down the Atlantic coast to Atlanta, and more recently to Texas.
The Redd, in Portland (OR), is a purpose built, state of the art facility, initiated by a trust with federal funding. With more than 20,000 square feet of warehouse space, it provides cold storage, aggregation, packaging, and distribution services in partnership with B-Line Sustainable Urban Delivery. It also provides space for incubation. Through the Redd, rural producers can make one efficient drop rather than dozens all over town. Entrepreneurs can access scale-appropriate services and office space, and direct-to-consumer farmers, ranchers, and fishermen can pack and distribute their community-supported agriculture orders with ease. Currently, 170 food businesses use the services provided by this dynamic facility.
In Italy, the focus of the new food developments is an old model – the co-operative. The country stands out in the EU for the number of producer co-ops and their economic weight, in terms of production and employment. Typical of these is Apo Conerpo, a large scale national co-operative based just outside Bologna in central Italy. It brings together 6,000 small producers of fruit and vegetables across the country who belong to 40 co-operatives, which themselves form the membership of Apo Conerpo. Strong links with processors and retailers, also co-operative owned and run, help to ensure that producers receive more of the value of what they grow than if they operated alone.
We do not start with a blank sheet in the UK. Amongst the notable food initiatives is Bridport-based Local Food Links. Founded in 2007, this community interest company uses four kitchens to cook and supply school meals using local produce – “whenever we can” – to more than 50 schools, primarily in Dorset. Box schemes have been a godsend for many small producers. Perhaps the largest box scheme in the UK is Abel and Cole, a private limited company with a turnover of £65m and employing 567 people. It’s closely followed by Riverford, based in Devon, which delivers 47,000 boxes a week across the UK with a turnover of £52m. Riverford is now 76% owned by an employee trust, the rest by the founder: Guy Watson-Singh.
The problem is that all of these schemes add up to a small percentage of the nation’s total grocery shop. My report for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust on food hubs in the US and producer co-ops in Italy showed how consumer-producer co-operation, public procurement and the disruptive power of the internet can challenge supermarket power and strengthen the bargaining power of small farmers. During World War Two, the UK moved from being a major food importer to being largely self-sufficient. We must do that again. But it requires a strategy for transforming British agriculture, reducing our dependence on long supply chains – as the food and farming commission recommended – and funding the creation of a national network of producer-consumer food hubs in every town and city.


labourlist--2020-05-15--Britain must not be a passive observer of Israel’s annexation plans

At a time when the world ’ s attention is focused on combating the spread of Covid-19 , there is a move of huge significance taking place in the Middle East .
Israel ’ s newly-formed coalition government is planning to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank – a move that has its origin in President Trump ’ s “ deal of the century ” published in January .
Israel ’ s government , led at present by Benjamin Netanyahu , appears determined to unilaterally annex 30 % of the occupied West Bank .
Although there is little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public , Netanyahu is pressing ahead with the plan at break-neck speed .
He has only 18 months remaining in office before handing power to his main coalition partner Benny Gantz , who seems less enthusiastic about annexation .
With an election looming in the US , Trump is pressing hard to see annexation achieved before voters go to the polls in November , and believes the move can strengthen support in an evangelical and right-wing electoral base .
It is likely to play less well with the American Jewish community , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Annexation is profoundly wrong for two reasons .
Firstly , it is clearly against international law and in violation of several UN Security Council Resolutions .
If Russia ’ s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was illegal , so too is the unilateral annexation of large parts of the West Bank .
International law is clear : territory seized by force can not be unilaterally annexed .
Secondly , annexation would fundamentally undermine the prospect of a viable two-state solution .
This is the only way to secure a lasting peace between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move would only serve to undermine Palestinian trust in any future peace negotiations .
There are also wider implications for regional peace and stability .
Annexation would threaten Israel ’ s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt , as well as undermining the prospect of future co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a time when it has never been more needed .
It should be of little surprise that the proposals have been met with opposition from many Israeli figures , including voices from the military .
On Monday , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State .
His answer was deeply worrying .
While the UK government says it opposes annexation , it is apparently unwilling to go beyond rhetorical criticism .
Frankly , that is not good enough .
France , Belgium and Ireland have already indicated that they are prepared to go further , and today EU foreign ministers will consider their collective response .
A letter signed by parliamentarians from across Europe , calling for “ equal rights of both Israelis and Palestinians ” in opposition to annexation , shows the breadth of support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a passive observer , and Labour will continue to push the government to meet our international and moral obligation .
In addition , the British government should ban goods from the illegal settlements in the West Bank .
The issue of labelling remains to be resolved , but this move would send out a clear message that such a blatant breach of international law is not without consequence .
At a time when the world should be pulling together to face the global threat of Covid-19 , it is more important than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multilateral cooperation and adherence to international law .
This is where we stand , and it is imperative that the government translates rhetoric into action .

At a time when the world’s attention is focused on combating the spread of Covid-19, there is a move of huge significance taking place in the Middle East. Israel’s newly-formed coalition government is planning to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank – a move that has its origin in President Trump’s “deal of the century” published in January.
Israel’s government, led at present by Benjamin Netanyahu, appears determined to unilaterally annex 30% of the occupied West Bank. Although there is little appetite for the annexation amongst the Israeli public, Netanyahu is pressing ahead with the plan at break-neck speed. He has only 18 months remaining in office before handing power to his main coalition partner Benny Gantz, who seems less enthusiastic about annexation.
With an election looming in the US, Trump is pressing hard to see annexation achieved before voters go to the polls in November, and believes the move can strengthen support in an evangelical and right-wing electoral base. It is likely to play less well with the American Jewish community, where there is significant opposition to the proposals.
Annexation is profoundly wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it is clearly against international law and in violation of several UN Security Council Resolutions. If Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was illegal, so too is the unilateral annexation of large parts of the West Bank. International law is clear: territory seized by force cannot be unilaterally annexed. Secondly, annexation would fundamentally undermine the prospect of a viable two-state solution. This is the only way to secure a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and such a move would only serve to undermine Palestinian trust in any future peace negotiations.
There are also wider implications for regional peace and stability. Annexation would threaten Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, as well as undermining the prospect of future co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at a time when it has never been more needed. It should be of little surprise that the proposals have been met with opposition from many Israeli figures, including voices from the military.
On Monday, I raised my concerns with the Minister of State. His answer was deeply worrying. While the UK government says it opposes annexation, it is apparently unwilling to go beyond rhetorical criticism. Frankly, that is not good enough.
France, Belgium and Ireland have already indicated that they are prepared to go further, and today EU foreign ministers will consider their collective response. A letter signed by parliamentarians from across Europe, calling for “equal rights of both Israelis and Palestinians” in opposition to annexation, shows the breadth of support for an international response. Britain must not be a passive observer, and Labour will continue to push the government to meet our international and moral obligation.
In addition, the British government should ban goods from the illegal settlements in the West Bank. The issue of labelling remains to be resolved, but this move would send out a clear message that such a blatant breach of international law is not without consequence.
At a time when the world should be pulling together to face the global threat of Covid-19, it is more important than ever that we build the case for multilateral cooperation and adherence to international law. This is where we stand, and it is imperative that the government translates rhetoric into action.


labourlist--2020-05-15--Another future is possible… but not inevitable

The row over Labour ’ s coronavirus housing policy for renters has blown up again .
In a Young Fabians event written up by LabourList last night , Thangam Debbonaire as the new Shadow Housing Secretary offered a defence of the five-point plan recently unveiled by the party .
But this only led to more controversy , after she described the alternative proposal – ’ cancel the rent ’ – as “ un-Labour ” and “ really regressive ” .
The opening argument that said those “ still able to pay their rent… would also benefit and they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Critics of Labour ’ s policy pointed out that their open letter specified cancellation would be “ at the tenant ’ s request ” .
They also accused Debbonaire of putting forward an argument that opposes universalism more broadly ; there are NHS users who have the means to go private , after all .
Why Labour doesn ’ t simply emphasise point five – improving Universal Credit and temporarily increasing Local Housing Allowance – and make the case from there , remains unclear .
There are hardly any backbench Labour MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPSs ) , but a small group have supported a ‘ cancel the rent ’ early day motion tabled by Richard Burgon .
The importance of housing policy is more apparent than ever in this crisis .
In London , some positive news has emerged : 17,256 affordable homes and 3,300 new council homes were started in the last year .
These “ record-breaking figures show that we are doing more than ever before to tackle the capital ’ s housing crisis ” , Sadiq Khan said , “ but we know there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the housing sector again as we ease out of lockdown ” .
And whatever Labour does at a local level , national decisions are still key .
It has been revealed by Manchester Evening News that the government has quietly pulled funding for the ‘ Everyone In ’ scheme , which saw homeless people put up in hotels .
At the same time , the Daily Mail has paired up with government ministers to play divide and rule with working people .
“ Let our teachers be heroes ” is splashed across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions , ignoring that these unions are made up of teachers .
All of this raises questions over whether Labour can simply assume that the country will naturally take a different attitude , post-Covid , to key workers and ‘ what really matters ’ in our society .
Tory MPs are perfectly capable of considering public sector pay freezes while clapping for the NHS every week .
Keir Starmer has the task of forging a new narrative , and this crisis makes that challenge more urgent but does not necessarily make it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The row over Labour’s coronavirus housing policy for renters has blown up again. In a Young Fabians event written up by LabourList last night, Thangam Debbonaire as the new Shadow Housing Secretary offered a defence of the five-point plan recently unveiled by the party. But this only led to more controversy, after she described the alternative proposal – ’cancel the rent’ – as “un-Labour” and “really regressive”. The opening argument that said those “still able to pay their rent… would also benefit and they don’t need to” particularly angered activists.
Critics of Labour’s policy pointed out that their open letter specified cancellation would be “at the tenant’s request”. They also accused Debbonaire of putting forward an argument that opposes universalism more broadly; there are NHS users who have the means to go private, after all. Why Labour doesn’t simply emphasise point five – improving Universal Credit and temporarily increasing Local Housing Allowance – and make the case from there, remains unclear. There are hardly any backbench Labour MPs (check out our list of new PPSs), but a small group have supported a ‘cancel the rent’ early day motion tabled by Richard Burgon.
The importance of housing policy is more apparent than ever in this crisis. In London, some positive news has emerged: 17,256 affordable homes and 3,300 new council homes were started in the last year. These “record-breaking figures show that we are doing more than ever before to tackle the capital’s housing crisis”, Sadiq Khan said, “but we know there is a mountain to climb to kick-start the housing sector again as we ease out of lockdown”. And whatever Labour does at a local level, national decisions are still key. It has been revealed by Manchester Evening News that the government has quietly pulled funding for the ‘Everyone In’ scheme, which saw homeless people put up in hotels.
At the same time, the Daily Mail has paired up with government ministers to play divide and rule with working people. “Let our teachers be heroes” is splashed across the front page attacking “militant” teaching unions, ignoring that these unions are made up of teachers. All of this raises questions over whether Labour can simply assume that the country will naturally take a different attitude, post-Covid, to key workers and ‘what really matters’ in our society. Tory MPs are perfectly capable of considering public sector pay freezes while clapping for the NHS every week. Keir Starmer has the task of forging a new narrative, and this crisis makes that challenge more urgent but does not necessarily make it easier. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-15--WATCH: 7,200 people could die in Wales if R rate rises to 1.1, says Drakeford

Mark Drakeford has said that “ with the R rate at 0.8 we think 800 people could die in Wales over the next three months ” , and warned that the number could increase to 7,200 if the R rate rises to 1.1 .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , the First Minister of Wales described how “ tiny margins genuinely are the difference between life and death for thousands of Welsh citizens ” .
He explained : “ That is why the Welsh government with all our partners here in Wales are determined to move cautiously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take and not to take any risks.
” Drakeford discussed the plans to ease the lockdown under the devolved administration , saying that the government would be publishing a strategy involving a “ traffic light ” system .
He said that dates to end certain measures would not be provided , because “ people get fixated with a date , rather than the process that you have to go through to make sure that it is safe ” .
The total number of coronavirus-related deaths in the UK stands at 33,614 according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 233,151 recorded cases , but with low levels of testing the true figure is thought to be much higher .

Mark Drakeford has said that “with the R rate at 0.8 we think 800 people could die in Wales over the next three months”, and warned that the number could increase to 7,200 if the R rate rises to 1.1.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, the First Minister of Wales described how “tiny margins genuinely are the difference between life and death for thousands of Welsh citizens”.
He explained: “That is why the Welsh government with all our partners here in Wales are determined to move cautiously, carefully, monitoring every step we take and not to take any risks.”
"Even with the R rate at 0.8 we think 800 people could die in Wales over the next three months because of #coronavirus. If that figure were to creep up to 1.1, that 800 figure would rise to 7,200" – Wales' First Minister Mark Drakeford.#Breakfast https://t.co/hRtUQqI5NH pic.twitter.com/Lc4DwjoAzv — SkyNews (@SkyNews) May 15, 2020
Drakeford discussed the plans to ease the lockdown under the devolved administration, saying that the government would be publishing a strategy involving a “traffic light” system.
He said that dates to end certain measures would not be provided, because “people get fixated with a date, rather than the process that you have to go through to make sure that it is safe”.
The total number of coronavirus-related deaths in the UK stands at 33,614 according to Public Health England. There have been 233,151 recorded cases, but with low levels of testing the true figure is thought to be much higher.