labourlist--2020-09-08--Over 500,000 jobs at risk in new Tory seats if furlough not extended, warns Dodds

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds has urged newly elected Tory MPs to “ do the right thing ” by voting to extend the furlough scheme after it was revealed that over 500,000 jobs are at risk in their constituencies .
According to new analysis by the Labour Party , 650,000 employees were still on the job retention scheme in mid-August across the 107 seats won by the Conservatives at the last general election .
The research also shows that nearly 400,000 people in these constituencies were still being assisted through the government ’ s self-employed income support scheme ( SEISS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many sectors being unable to operate at full capacity due to coronavirus restrictions , the government will be completely withdrawing all wage support when the furlough scheme ends in October .
Labour has suggested that the impact of this decision , which it has already described as a “ historic mistake ” , could be avoided if new Conservative MPs were willing to force the Chancellor into a U-turn .
The party will bring forward a parliamentary motion on Wednesday that calls for a targeted extension of furlough to cover sectors hit hardest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tourism , and to help workers in local lockdown areas .
Anneliese Dodds said : “ For months , the Chancellor has ignored calls from businesses , trade unions , and the devolved governments to abandon his disastrous one-size-fits-all withdrawal of wage support across the entire economy .
“ Unless he changes course now , over half a million jobs could go in constituencies represented by those Conservative MPs who entered parliament for the first time less than a year ago .
“ It ’ s clear the Chancellor is too stubborn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
The 2019 Tory intake has the power to force a U-turn on the furlough cliff-edge before it ’ s too late for the people they represent .
“ They should do the right thing and vote to extend income support for jobs and businesses in the hardest-hit sectors and areas under local restrictions .
If they don ’ t , sectors vital to the UK ’ s economic recovery such as highly-skilled manufacturing and the creative industries will suffer.
” The data , taken from HMRC , shows that 44 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began in March were still receiving government support in mid-August .
The JRS is set to be withdrawn amid fears of a second Covid spike .
The TUC has previously urged the government not to “ throw away ” the good work of the furlough scheme , as research warned that pulling it could lead to “ Great Depression ” levels of unemployment .

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds has urged newly elected Tory MPs to “do the right thing” by voting to extend the furlough scheme after it was revealed that over 500,000 jobs are at risk in their constituencies.
According to new analysis by the Labour Party, 650,000 employees were still on the job retention scheme in mid-August across the 107 seats won by the Conservatives at the last general election.
The research also shows that nearly 400,000 people in these constituencies were still being assisted through the government’s self-employed income support scheme (SEISS) by the end of July.
Despite many sectors being unable to operate at full capacity due to coronavirus restrictions, the government will be completely withdrawing all wage support when the furlough scheme ends in October.
Labour has suggested that the impact of this decision, which it has already described as a “historic mistake”, could be avoided if new Conservative MPs were willing to force the Chancellor into a U-turn.
The party will bring forward a parliamentary motion on Wednesday that calls for a targeted extension of furlough to cover sectors hit hardest by the pandemic, such as manufacturing and tourism, and to help workers in local lockdown areas.
Anneliese Dodds said: “For months, the Chancellor has ignored calls from businesses, trade unions, and the devolved governments to abandon his disastrous one-size-fits-all withdrawal of wage support across the entire economy.
“Unless he changes course now, over half a million jobs could go in constituencies represented by those Conservative MPs who entered parliament for the first time less than a year ago.
“It’s clear the Chancellor is too stubborn to admit he’s got this wrong. The 2019 Tory intake has the power to force a U-turn on the furlough cliff-edge before it’s too late for the people they represent.
“They should do the right thing and vote to extend income support for jobs and businesses in the hardest-hit sectors and areas under local restrictions. If they don’t, sectors vital to the UK’s economic recovery such as highly-skilled manufacturing and the creative industries will suffer.”
The data, taken from HMRC, shows that 44% of all workers furloughed when the scheme began in March were still receiving government support in mid-August. The JRS is set to be withdrawn amid fears of a second Covid spike.
The TUC has previously urged the government not to “throw away” the good work of the furlough scheme, as research warned that pulling it could lead to “Great Depression” levels of unemployment.


labourlist--2020-09-08--We should be trialling a four-day week with pilot schemes, says Andy McDonald

Labour ’ s Andy McDonald has declared that a four-day working week should be “ increasingly trialled with the introduction of more pilot schemes ” and cited benefits to wellbeing , the climate and the wider economy .
The Shadow Employment Rights Secretary discussed reducing working hours at an online Zoom event held by the 4 Day Week Campaign this evening , alongside economist Grace Blakeley , the TUC ’ s Kate Bell and Labour MP Clive Lewis .
McDonald emphasised the importance of non-work time for workers ’ mental and physical wellbeing , as well as discussing the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working week could improve levels of productivity .
The shadow cabinet member said that the large-scale pilots of four-day week schemes could show measurable benefits to the climate , such as improvements in air quality and a reduction in people ’ s carbon footprint , and the wider economy .
He said : “ The potential benefits of a four-day week… regarding the importance of non-work time for our mental and physical health , our sense of wellbeing generally and how this would increase productivity , should in my view be increasingly trialled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ And if piloted on a larger scale , it would also enable us to measure other potential reductions in air pollution and overall carbon footprint – obviously vitally important as we seek to address the existential challenges of climate change .
Labour ’ s employment rights spokesperson went on to describe the positive impact a four-day week could have on what he called “ beleaguered ” sectors of the economy , such as arts and hospitality .
He added : “ I ’ m thinking obviously right now about leisure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If working people have the opportunity of time and the resources to engage in those sectors , the benefits are far-reaching and obvious.
” McDonald said that he hoped more workplaces would look at trialling a four-day working week policy with the shift in working practices that has been brought about by the pandemic .
Labour MP Lewis stressed the opportunity presented by Covid to attendees at the event tonight and argued that “ people have seen literally overnight , the government has been funding people to stay away from work ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s quite clear that there has been substantive change and now the four-day week is something that fits very neatly into that.
” Lewis also emphasised the policy ’ s benefit to the climate : “ There is no amount of productivity gain that is going to allow seven billion people to be able to consume what we ’ re consuming in this country… “ The four-day week can play a critical part in that narrative about how we can practically begin to disconnect our economy from ever-growing consumption.
” Labour committed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a 32-hour week over ten years .
Think tank Autonomy produced a report on the pledge , calculating that the policy would create over 500,000 new jobs with a net cost of £3.55bn .
Polling carried out earlier this year showed that two thirds of the UK population support the government exploring the introduction of a four-day week – including 57 % of Conservative voters .
Proponents of the policy have argued that it would enable a better work/life balance and consequently improve wellbeing , as well as being beneficial for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
Another poll last month , on what people would do with more free time , showed that 53 % of people would spend it with family ; 39 % said they would rest ; 38 % said they would socialise with friends ; and 36 % would use the time for exercise .

Labour’s Andy McDonald has declared that a four-day working week should be “increasingly trialled with the introduction of more pilot schemes” and cited benefits to wellbeing, the climate and the wider economy.
The Shadow Employment Rights Secretary discussed reducing working hours at an online Zoom event held by the 4 Day Week Campaign this evening, alongside economist Grace Blakeley, the TUC’s Kate Bell and Labour MP Clive Lewis.
McDonald emphasised the importance of non-work time for workers’ mental and physical wellbeing, as well as discussing the possibility that moving the UK towards a four-day working week could improve levels of productivity.
The shadow cabinet member said the large-scale pilots of four-day week schemes could show measurable benefits to the climate, such as improvements in air quality and a reduction in people’s carbon footprint, and the wider economy.
He said: “The potential benefits of a four-day week… regarding the importance of non-work time for our mental and physical health, our sense of wellbeing generally and how this would increase productivity, should in my view be increasingly trialled with the introduction of more pilot schemes.
“And if piloted on a larger scale, it would also enable us to measure other potential reductions in air pollution and overall carbon footprint – obviously vitally important as we seek to address the existential challenges of climate change.”
Labour’s employment rights spokesperson went on to describe the positive impact a four-day week could have on what he called “beleaguered” sectors of the economy, such as arts and hospitality.
He added: “I’m thinking obviously right now about leisure, sports, hospitality, arts and entertainment. If working people have the opportunity of time and the resources to engage in those sectors, the benefits are far-reaching and obvious.”
McDonald said that he hoped more workplaces would look at trialling a four-day working week policy with the shift in working practices that has been brought about by the pandemic.
Labour MP Lewis stressed the opportunity presented by Covid to attendees at the event tonight and argued that “people have seen literally overnight, the government has been funding people to stay away from work”.
He added: “It’s quite clear that there has been substantive change and now the four-day week is something that fits very neatly into that.”
Lewis also emphasised the policy’s benefit to the climate: “There is no amount of productivity gain that is going to allow seven billion people to be able to consume what we’re consuming in this country…
“The four-day week can play a critical part in that narrative about how we can practically begin to disconnect our economy from ever-growing consumption.”
Labour committed at the 2019 election to shifting the UK to a 32-hour week over ten years. Think tank Autonomy produced a report on the pledge, calculating that the policy would create over 500,000 new jobs with a net cost of £3.55bn.
Polling carried out earlier this year showed that two thirds of the UK population support the government exploring the introduction of a four-day week – including 57% of Conservative voters.
Proponents of the policy have argued that it would enable a better work/life balance and consequently improve wellbeing, as well as being beneficial for the wider economy and instrumental in addressing climate change.
Another poll last month, on what people would do with more free time, showed that 53% of people would spend it with family; 39% said they would rest; 38% said they would socialise with friends; and 36% would use the time for exercise.
Update, Wednesday at 1.30pm: Asked about McDonald’s comments, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said: “As I understand it, Andy was talking in the context of companies voluntarily choosing to reduce hours in the context of coronavirus. Our manifesto will be written closer to the election.”


labourlist--2020-09-08--WATCH: Government “wrong” to break law on Brexit deal, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has declared that the government is “ wrong ” to propose breaking international law on its arrangements for Brexit and said that a “ good deal is there to be had and the Prime Minister needs to get on and negotiate it ” .
In an interview with Sky News this afternoon , the Labour leader was asked about the controversial comment made by Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis that the government intends to breach its legal obligations .
Asked whether it is Labour ’ s position to support rejoining the EU , Starmer said : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case for reopening the issue of membership of the EU .
We have left… We need to get the deal and we need to move on.
” Commenting on Lewis ’ remarks in parliament today , Starmer said : “ What the government ’ s proposing is wrong .
I think that ’ s plain for everybody to see .
But we need to take a step back here and focus on getting a deal .
He added : “ Getting a deal is in the national interest .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what they were promised .
The outstanding issues are not difficult , they can be resolved .
“ Let ’ s get the deal , let ’ s move on and focus on the job at hand , which is dealing with this pandemic.
” The Labour leader also added that the proposal to break the international law from the government could be a tactic to gain leverage in the negotiations .
The former director of public prosecutions added : “ That ’ s wrong in principle.
” Responding to an urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louise Haigh this afternoon , government minister Lewis defended reports of plans to give British ministers unilateral powers in the region .
Following a question from a backbench Tory colleague , the Secretary of State admitted that the clauses providing ministers with certain powers under the new legislation would breach international obligations .
He said : “ Yes , this does break international law in a specific and very limited way .
We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article four in certain very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports , aspects of legislation being introduced into parliament in the coming days and weeks would “ eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement ” – including state aid and Northern Ireland customs .
Under the withdrawal agreement , Northern Ireland is set to remain in the single market regardless of whether the wider UK has a deal on trade and security with the EU by the end of the year .
If the UK does not reach an agreement on trade with the European bloc , the EU ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland will still be required , necessitating checks at the border .
The internal markets bill seeks to narrowly define the obligation to notify Brussels of subsidy decisions for it to approve and could dispense with the requirement for local businesses to file customs paperwork when exporting to the rest of the UK .

Keir Starmer has declared that the government is “wrong” to propose breaking international law on Brexit and that a “good deal is there to be had and the Prime Minister needs to get on and negotiate it”.
In an interview with Sky News this afternoon, the Labour leader was asked about the controversial comment made by Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis that the government intends to breach its legal obligations.
Asked whether it is Labour’s position to support rejoining the EU, Starmer said: “I don’t think there’s a case for reopening the issue of membership of the EU. We have left… We need to get the deal and we need to move on.”
Commenting on Lewis’ remarks in parliament today, the leader said: “What the government’s proposing is wrong. I think that’s plain for everybody to see. But we need to take a step back here and focus on getting a deal.
He added: “Getting a deal is in the national interest. That’s what the public want – that’s what they were promised. The outstanding issues are not difficult, they can be resolved.
“Let’s get the deal, let’s move on and focus on the job at hand, which is dealing with this pandemic.”
The Labour leader also added that the proposal to break the international law from the government could be a tactic to gain leverage in the negotiations. The former director of public prosecutions added: “That’s wrong in principle.”
"He promised the British people he'd get a good deal, he needs to deliver on that promise." Labour leader @Keir_Starmer has told @BethRigby the government is "wrong" to plan to break the law on the #Brexit deal. More on this story: https://t.co/cIODkeVe52 pic.twitter.com/ei8lJYMWzu — SkyNews (@SkyNews) September 8, 2020
Responding to an urgent question tabled by Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh this afternoon, government minister Lewis defended reports of plans to give British ministers unilateral powers in the region.
Following a question from a backbench Tory colleague, the Secretary of State admitted that the clauses providing ministers with certain powers under the new legislation would breach international obligations.
He said: “Yes, this does break international law in a specific and very limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article four in certain very tightly defined circumstances.”
According to leaked reports, aspects of legislation being introduced into parliament in the coming days and weeks would “eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement” – including state aid and Northern Ireland customs.
Under the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland is set to remain in the single market regardless of whether the wider UK has a deal on trade and security with the EU by the end of the year.
If the UK does not reach an agreement on trade with the European bloc, the EU’s codes on goods coming into Northern Ireland will still be required, necessitating checks at the border.
The internal markets bill seeks to narrowly define the obligation to notify Brussels of subsidy decisions for it to approve and could dispense with the requirement for local businesses to file customs paperwork when exporting to the rest of the UK.


labourlist--2020-09-08--“Urban snobbery”: The Countryside Alliance on Labour’s “rural problem”

The Countryside Alliance has published a report on Labour ’ s “ rural problem ” .
The document tracks how the party has experienced successively worse election results among countryside voters , describing it as the “ elephant loose in the countryside ” .
The paper accuses Labour , particularly under Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership , of conflating ‘ rural issues ’ with animal welfare .
It also argues that Labour is perceived by rural voters as viewing them with “ urban snobbery ” .
The organisation calls for Labour to “ engage with the rural electorate and focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not simply manipulate rural issues to appeal further to its increasingly urban base ” .
In the foreword , Labour peer and Countryside Alliance president Ann Mallalieu QC writes : “ Most worrying is the refusal of the party to address its rural failure… Post-election analysis from all parts of the party has completely ignored Labour ’ s rejection in the countryside.
” The report starts with a 2015 report by Maria Eagle after Ed Miliband ’ s failed attempt to win power away from Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron .
The Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with rural communities as a “ disconnect and mischaracterisation of the countryside ” .
After 2015 , Labour was left with just 30 rural constituencies out of a possible 199 .
But the Countryside Alliance says this “ small number of rural seats does not tell the full story of the significance of Labour ’ s problem ” .
Of the 17 rural seats that the Lib Dems lost , the Tories won 16 and Labour only one .
The Countryside Alliance states that Labour strategy in 2015 “ conflated animal rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees with Eagle that Labour misunderstood rural voters as being concerned only with issues of sporting or farming , adding that “ rather than seeking to appeal to the rural electorate Labour instead focused on animal rights ” .
“ In 2017 Labour ’ s electoral strategy worked in urban seats , maximising its support , however Labour failed to make significant gains in rural constituencies .
If Labour had won just two more rural seats , it would have made a Conservative confidence and supply agreement with the DUP impossible , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than expected in 2017 and , following the election , needed 64 seats to form a majority government .
This meant securing a 3.6 % swing across the UK , or a 5.9 % swing in England and Wales .
Of those 64 constituencies , 17 were rural .
But the Countryside Alliance says a “ final push ” narrative after the election “ masked the rural problem ” .
The review emphasises that Labour held just 16 % of rural constituencies after the election , adding : “ The better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour in its heartlands that would later turn Conservative later in 2019.
” The organisation highlights that the Tories led Labour by 54 % to 31 % in rural communities , while Labour won in urban areas by 46 % to 37 % .
The group also writes that a perception among rural voters had built up over several Labour administrations that the party “ viewed them with ‘ urban snobbery ’ and thought of them as ‘ a bit stupid or thick ’ , ‘ backward ’ or ‘ country bumpkins ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour had damaged its chances by conflating ‘ rural issues ’ with that of animal welfare .
Labour now holds just 17 out of the 199 rural seats in England and Wales .
The party lost all the rural seats gained in 2017 , and the Countryside Alliance explains that Labour would need a 12 % swing across England and Wales to overturn the government .
For countryside seats , this figure is 18.4 % .
The analysis criticises Labour ’ s 2019 ten-point rural policy platform .
In particular , for placing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second priority and for including commitments such as “ creating an international crime of ecocide , introducing an animal welfare commissioner and banning the badger cull ” .
The organisation complains that not until point nine of its plan did Labour commit to a “ specific policy aimed at doing something for rural people ” with the pledge to boost funding to tackle rural and wildlife crime .
The report says : “ Instead of working to pursue policy for the countryside , it doubled down on animal welfare that often crossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging rural voters and rural stakeholders , it went further than perhaps it ever had before in attempting to appeal to its urban voters at the expense of rural ones.
” The group also accuses Corbyn of having “ continued to demonise the rural electorate and pursue an animal rights agenda ” after the election .
It cites written questions on bovine tuberculosis and attempts to amend the agriculture bill on shooting and hunting .
The group argues Labour could “ develop and make a flagship policy ” out of the commitment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to tackle wildlife and rural crime .
The paper highlights the importance of Brexit , and in particular the need to replace the common agricultural policy .
It also emphasises the impact of a “ lack of broadband infrastructure serving small firms ” in rural communities .
At the election , Labour pledged to deliver Fibre to the Premises to everyone by 2030 and offer it free of charge .
Labour would have nationalised the infrastructure arm of BT , Openreach .
The Countryside Alliance declares that “ hunting is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to polling that found less than 1 % of the electorate mentioned hunting as a priority .
Asked about the potential for Labour ’ s position on animal welfare and shooting to lose the party support , shadow minister Daniel Zeichner told the recent Labour Coast and Country conference : “ I ’ ve never been of that view in rural areas .
We ’ ve got a principled position as a party .
It ’ s something that many of us feel passionate about – and many , many people in rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message from the 30-page review of Labour ’ s problem with the countryside is clear .
It urges a “ reset ” of the party ’ s relationship with countryside voters and organisations , including the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers ’ Union .
It suggests that these groups are best placed to identify and understand the priorities of the countryside , and in the best position to help Labour place rural voters on par with its urban supporters .

The Countryside Alliance has published a report on Labour’s “rural problem”. The document tracks how the party has experienced successively worse election results among countryside voters, describing it as the “elephant loose in the countryside”.
The paper accuses Labour, particularly under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, of conflating ‘rural issues’ with animal welfare. It also argues that Labour is perceived by rural voters as viewing them with “urban snobbery”. The organisation calls for Labour to “engage with the rural electorate and focus on what matters to them, and not simply manipulate rural issues to appeal further to its increasingly urban base”.
In the foreword, Labour peer and Countryside Alliance president Ann Mallalieu QC writes: “Most worrying is the refusal of the party to address its rural failure… Post-election analysis from all parts of the party has completely ignored Labour’s rejection in the countryside.”
From 2015…
The report starts with a 2015 report by Maria Eagle after Ed Miliband’s failed attempt to win power away from Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. The Labour MP described the party’s main problem with rural communities as a “disconnect and mischaracterisation of the countryside”.
After 2015, Labour was left with just 30 rural constituencies out of a possible 199. But the Countryside Alliance says this “small number of rural seats does not tell the full story of the significance of Labour’s problem”. Of the 17 rural seats that the Lib Dems lost, the Tories won 16 and Labour only one.
The Countryside Alliance states that Labour strategy in 2015 “conflated animal rights with rural policy”. The report agrees with Eagle that Labour misunderstood rural voters as being concerned only with issues of sporting or farming, adding that “rather than seeking to appeal to the rural electorate Labour instead focused on animal rights”.
On to 2017…
“In 2017 Labour’s electoral strategy worked in urban seats, maximising its support, however Labour failed to make significant gains in rural constituencies. If Labour had won just two more rural seats, it would have made a Conservative confidence and supply agreement with the DUP impossible,” the Countryside Alliance concludes.
Labour performed better than expected in 2017 and, following the election, needed 64 seats to form a majority government. This meant securing a 3.6% swing across the UK, or a 5.9% swing in England and Wales. Of those 64 constituencies, 17 were rural. But the Countryside Alliance says a “final push” narrative after the election “masked the rural problem”.
The review emphasises that Labour held just 16% of rural constituencies after the election, adding: “The better than expected result masked the shift away from Labour in its heartlands that would later turn Conservative later in 2019.” The organisation highlights that the Tories led Labour by 54% to 31% in rural communities, while Labour won in urban areas by 46% to 37%.
The group also writes that a perception among rural voters had built up over several Labour administrations that the party “viewed them with ‘urban snobbery’ and thought of them as ‘a bit stupid or thick’, ‘backward’ or ‘country bumpkins’”. Again, it argues that Labour had damaged its chances by conflating ‘rural issues’ with that of animal welfare.
2019 and beyond…
Labour now holds just 17 out of the 199 rural seats in England and Wales. The party lost all the rural seats gained in 2017, and the Countryside Alliance explains that Labour would need a 12% swing across England and Wales to overturn the government. For countryside seats, this figure is 18.4%.
The analysis criticises Labour’s 2019 ten-point rural policy platform. In particular, for placing “strengthening the Hunting Act” as the second priority and for including commitments such as “creating an international crime of ecocide, introducing an animal welfare commissioner and banning the badger cull”.
The organisation complains that not until point nine of its plan did Labour commit to a “specific policy aimed at doing something for rural people” with the pledge to boost funding to tackle rural and wildlife crime.
The report says: “Instead of working to pursue policy for the countryside, it doubled down on animal welfare that often crossed the line into animal rights… Instead of engaging rural voters and rural stakeholders, it went further than perhaps it ever had before in attempting to appeal to its urban voters at the expense of rural ones.”
The group also accuses Corbyn of having “continued to demonise the rural electorate and pursue an animal rights agenda” after the election. It cites written questions on bovine tuberculosis and attempts to amend the agriculture bill on shooting and hunting.
The opportunity…
The group argues Labour could “develop and make a flagship policy” out of the commitment in the 2019 manifesto to invest more in resources to tackle wildlife and rural crime. The paper highlights the importance of Brexit, and in particular the need to replace the common agricultural policy.
It also emphasises the impact of a “lack of broadband infrastructure serving small firms” in rural communities. At the election, Labour pledged to deliver Fibre to the Premises to everyone by 2030 and offer it free of charge. Labour would have nationalised the infrastructure arm of BT, Openreach.
The Countryside Alliance declares that “hunting is not a priority with the electorate”, referring to polling that found less than 1% of the electorate mentioned hunting as a priority. Asked about the potential for Labour’s position on animal welfare and shooting to lose the party support, shadow minister Daniel Zeichner told the recent Labour Coast and Country conference: “I’ve never been of that view in rural areas. We’ve got a principled position as a party. It’s something that many of us feel passionate about – and many, many people in rural areas share that view.”
The central message from the 30-page review of Labour’s problem with the countryside is clear. It urges a “reset” of the party’s relationship with countryside voters and organisations, including the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers’ Union. It suggests that these groups are best placed to identify and understand the priorities of the countryside, and in the best position to help Labour place rural voters on par with its urban supporters.


labourlist--2020-09-08--Government failing to stop outbreaks in poorer areas, says Labour

Jonathan Ashworth has argued that the government needs to “ go further ” to help the poorest self-isolate as areas that have experienced Covid outbreaks are “ defined by low pay , child poverty and overcrowded housing ” .
Commenting this afternoon on the announcement that Bolton will face a local lockdown , the Shadow Health Secretary said Covid spikes in less developed areas were inseparably linked to the government ’ s failure to support residents .
Responding to Matt Hancock ’ s coronavirus statement to the Commons , Ashworth said : “ I warned the Secretary of State earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be fatigue but personal finance.
” He added : “ The government needs to go much further in helping people who need financial or housing support to self-isolate , or he will never get to terms with outbreaks in areas defined by low pay , child poverty and overcrowded housing.
” The Shadow Health Secretary went on to say that failures to properly test and trace in these ‘ left-behind ’ regions were another major factor in the rise of these local outbreaks .
Ashworth said : “ In Bolton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached .
In Oldham , only 50 % of non-complex cases were reached .
Blackburn , only 47 % .
Bradford , only 43 % .
And nationally only 69.4 % of contacts are now reached and told to self-isolate .
What is world-beating about that ?
” The latest lockdown announcement comes as Blackburn , Bradford and Oldham have all having seen lockdowns of their own in recent weeks .
The Office of National Statistics classes these areas as some of the poorest towns in Britain .
Ashworth also asked the Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explain why many people requesting tests on the government website were told to report to centres far away from where they actually lived .
He said : “ Last night , it was reported that there were no tests in London .
People in Kent were asked to travel to Cardiff .
In Denton , they were advised to visit Llandudno .
In Leicester , someone was advised to head north to Edinburgh .
“ In Devon , helpfully , they only needed to travel 20 miles .
Unfortunately , that involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the Secretary of State thinks he can walk on water , but many of our constituents can ’ t. ” Commenting on the reported failures of privatised test and trace contracts .
The Shadow Health Secretary added : “ Isn ’ t the core of the problem this : he [ Matt Hancock ] didn ’ t listen to the experts .
“ They all advised him to invest in public health teams and NHS labs .
Instead , he gave contracts to outsourcing firms like Deloitte , Serco , and G4S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trace.
” The comments from Labour ’ s health spokesperson comes after one of the private contractors that the government hired , Serco , admitted it was only managing to reach around 60 % of people who had been in contact with someone with coronavirus .
Private companies Serco and Sitel , two firms contracted to handle the national test and trace programme , are due to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme .
The Shadow Health Secretary also criticised the government on reports that there have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they restarted last week , including at a school in Castle Rock visited by the Prime Minister just two weeks ago .
Ashworth finished by telling the House : “ We must do everything reasonable to suppress this virus .
Instead we have muddled messages , failed testing and ineffective contact tracing .
Winter is coming , he [ Hancock ] needs to get a grip .
”

Jonathan Ashworth has argued that the government needs to “go further” to help the poorest self-isolate as areas that have experienced Covid outbreaks are “defined by low pay, child poverty and overcrowded housing”.
Commenting this afternoon on the announcement that Bolton will face a local lockdown, the Shadow Health Secretary said Covid spikes in less developed areas were inseparably linked to the government’s failure to support residents.
Responding to Matt Hancock’s coronavirus statement to the Commons, Ashworth said: “I warned the Secretary of State earlier that the biggest barrier to quarantine won’t be fatigue but personal finance.”
He added: “The government needs to go much further in helping people who need financial or housing support to self-isolate, or he will never get to terms with outbreaks in areas defined by low pay, child poverty and overcrowded housing.”
The Shadow Health Secretary went on to say that failures to properly test and trace in these ‘left-behind’ regions were another major factor in the rise of these local outbreaks.
Ashworth said: “In Bolton, just 57% of non-complex cases were reached. In Oldham, only 50% of non-complex cases were reached. Blackburn, only 47%. Bradford, only 43%. And nationally only 69.4% of contacts are now reached and told to self-isolate. What is world-beating about that?”
The latest lockdown announcement comes as Blackburn, Bradford and Oldham have all having seen lockdowns of their own in recent weeks. The Office of National Statistics classes these areas as some of the poorest towns in Britain.
Ashworth also asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to explain why many people requesting tests on the government website were told to report to centres far away from where they actually lived.
He said: “Last night, it was reported that there were no tests in London. People in Kent were asked to travel to Cardiff. In Denton, they were advised to visit Llandudno. In Leicester, someone was advised to head north to Edinburgh.
“In Devon, helpfully, they only needed to travel 20 miles. Unfortunately, that involved crossing the sea to Swansea. I know the Secretary of State thinks he can walk on water, but many of our constituents can’t.”
Commenting on the reported failures of privatised test and trace contracts. The Shadow Health Secretary added: “Isn’t the core of the problem this: he [Matt Hancock] didn’t listen to the experts.
“They all advised him to invest in public health teams and NHS labs. Instead, he gave contracts to outsourcing firms like Deloitte, Serco, and G4S – firms with no experience in test and trace.”
The comments from Labour’s health spokesperson comes after one of the private contractors that the government hired, Serco, admitted it was only managing to reach around 60% of people who had been in contact with someone with coronavirus.
Private companies Serco and Sitel, two firms contracted to handle the national test and trace programme, are due to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme.
The Shadow Health Secretary also criticised the government on reports that there have been a number of Covid outbreaks in schools since they restarted last week, including at a school in Castle Rock visited by the Prime Minister just two weeks ago.
Ashworth finished by telling the House: “We must do everything reasonable to suppress this virus. Instead we have muddled messages, failed testing and ineffective contact tracing. Winter is coming, he [Hancock] needs to get a grip.”


labourlist--2020-09-08--WATCH: Minister confirms government wants to break international law

A government minister has confirmed that Boris Johnson ’ s administration wants to introduce new legislation that “ does break international law ” – though said it would do so “ in a very specific and limited way ” .
On the new bill being proposed to amend the Brexit divorce deal with the EU , Brandon Lewis told the House of Commons : “ Yes , this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.
” The Northern Ireland Secretary added : “ We ’ re taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain , very tightly defined circumstance.
” Referring to the Finance Act 2013 , Lewis told MPs : “ There are clear precedents for the UK and indeed other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change.
” Boris Johnson ’ s predecessor Theresa May warned that the government proposal could damage “ trust ” in the UK at a time when it is seeking trade deals with other states .
Shadow Attorney General Lord Charlie Falconer said the government had “ an obligation to comply with the law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Throughout the Brexit process , the government purported to act within the law .
This is new .
And very bad.
” Labour ’ s Louise Haigh tweeted : “ Absolutely astonishing that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has confirmed the government WILL be in breach of international law by undermining the Northern Ireland Protocol .
This seriously undermines our authority on the international stage.
” She later added : “ It should never have come to this .
With trust progress could have been made .
The government must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility , and secure the deal that was promised to the people of this country .
”

A government minister has confirmed that Boris Johnson’s administration wants to introduce new legislation that “does break international law” – though said it would do so “in a very specific and limited way”.
On the new bill being proposed to amend the Brexit divorce deal with the EU, Brandon Lewis told the House of Commons: “Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
The Northern Ireland Secretary added: “We’re taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by Article 4 in a certain, very tightly defined circumstance.”
Referring to the Finance Act 2013, Lewis told MPs: “There are clear precedents for the UK and indeed other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change.”
Boris Johnson’s predecessor Theresa May warned that the government proposal could damage “trust” in the UK at a time when it is seeking trade deals with other states.
Shadow Attorney General Lord Charlie Falconer said the government had “an obligation to comply with the law, domestic and international”, adding: “Throughout the Brexit process, the government purported to act within the law. This is new. And very bad.”
Labour’s Louise Haigh tweeted: “Absolutely astonishing that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has confirmed the government WILL be in breach of international law by undermining the Northern Ireland Protocol. This seriously undermines our authority on the international stage.”
She later added: “It should never have come to this. With trust progress could have been made. The government must rethink this reckless approach, discover their responsibility, and secure the deal that was promised to the people of this country.”


labourlist--2020-09-08--Holyrood “culture of secrecy” must come to an end, says Scottish Labour

Scottish Labour has condemned the “ culture of secrecy ” in Holyrood after former First Minister Alex Salmond threatened to take the SNP government to court over its refusal to publish key documents from his court case .
Responding to a letter sent by Salmond ’ s lawyer to the committee on the Scottish government ’ s handling of harassment complaints , Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said it highlighted a “ failure to be fully transparent ” .
Although the committee has been specially convened to investigate potential government wrongdoing , the SNP administration has been using legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case from being released .
Commenting on the case , Baillie suggested that the SNP needs to “ come clean ” about the situation .
She said : “ This explosive letter reveals the extent of the Scottish government ’ s failure to be fully transparent with the committee and the public .
“ The invoking of legal privilege by powerful figures has become a regular fixture in this investigation , and too many vital documents have been withheld from committee members.
” The letter to the committee said there was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not provide the documents and suggested that Salmond could “ return to court ” to have the information passed to the committee .
Salmond ’ s lawyer offered to take the Holyrood government to court “ on behalf of the committee ” – but only with the proviso that the committee itself be prepared to cover the legal costs .
Baillie added : “ We simply can not have the endemic culture of secrecy that permeates the Scottish government and civil service inhibiting the progress of this committee any further .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information to come clean with the committee so that we can get to the bottom of this affair together .
The continued evasion is undignified , undemocratic , and simply unacceptable .
The secrecy must end .
The truth must out.
” It emerged in 2018 that the SNP had investigated complaints of sexual misconduct against Alex Salmond when he served as the First Minister of Scotland between 2007 and 2014 .
In a court defeat of the Holyrood government last year , the SNP ’ s investigation into Salmond was judged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and biased .
The investigation cost taxpayers £500,000 .
There have been several allegations of malpractice regarding the case that has led to the establishment of an investigatory committee of MSPs , of which Baillie is a member .

Scottish Labour has condemned the “culture of secrecy” in Holyrood after former First Minister Alex Salmond threatened to take the SNP government to court over its refusal to publish key documents from his court case.
Responding to a letter sent by Salmond’s lawyer to the committee on the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints, Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said it highlighted a “failure to be fully transparent”.
Although the committee has been specially convened to investigate potential government wrongdoing, the SNP administration has been using legal privilege to stop key documents relating to the case from being released.
Commenting on the case, Baillie suggested that the SNP needs to “come clean” about the situation. She said: “This explosive letter reveals the extent of the Scottish government’s failure to be fully transparent with the committee and the public.
“The invoking of legal privilege by powerful figures has become a regular fixture in this investigation, and too many vital documents have been withheld from committee members.”
The letter to the committee said there was “no reason” the Scottish administration could not provide the documents and suggested that Salmond could “return to court” to have the information passed to the committee.
Salmond’s lawyer offered to take the Holyrood government to court “on behalf of the committee” – but only with the proviso that the committee itself be prepared to cover the legal costs.
Baillie added: “We simply cannot have the endemic culture of secrecy that permeates the Scottish government and civil service inhibiting the progress of this committee any further.
“It is time for those who hold vital information to come clean with the committee so that we can get to the bottom of this affair together. The continued evasion is undignified, undemocratic, and simply unacceptable. The secrecy must end. The truth must out.”
It emerged in 2018 that the SNP had investigated complaints of sexual misconduct against Alex Salmond when he served as the First Minister of Scotland between 2007 and 2014.
In a court defeat of the Holyrood government last year, the SNP’s investigation into Salmond was judged by a legal review to be both unlawful and biased. The investigation cost taxpayers £500,000.
There have been several allegations of malpractice regarding the case that has led to the establishment of an investigatory committee of MSPs, of which Baillie is a member.


labourlist--2020-09-08--“This is about trust”: Labour slams Tories over Northern Ireland Brexit plans

Labour has slammed the government over its leaked Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland and said that the people of the UK and the country ’ s international partners will be unable to trust the government if it reneges on its obligations .
Responding to an urgent question tabled by Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh this afternoon , Brandon Lewis defended reports of plans to give British ministers unilateral powers in the region .
Following widespread concerns that the proposals would violate the Northern Ireland protocol , Haigh today accused the Prime Minister of : “ Once again using Northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wider political means.
” Commenting on the agreement reached last October to prevent a hard border , Haigh said : “ The protocol was not foisted on the Prime Minister… [ He ] personally renegotiated it , campaigned on it , legislated for it , ratified it in an international treaty.
” She added : “ This is about trust .
How can the people of Northern Ireland trust this government with the careful progress made over the last two decades when they tell them the protocol is necessary to protect it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ How can the British people trust the government who swore they have an ‘ oven-ready ’ deal only ten months ago and now tell them that deal was ambiguous and contradictory ?
“ And how can our partners and allies now trust us to enter trade negotiations and multilateral arrangements.
” In response to the urgent question , Lewis told the House that the government is committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and has taken “ many practical steps to do so ” .
He argued that “ this government has repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market… the approach that we will take in this legislation builds on that commitment ” .
The new powers for ministers to make unilateral decisions in Northern Ireland will be set out in the internal market bill and the finance bill .
The internal market bill is due to be published on Wednesday .
Lewis added : “ We are working had to resolve any outstanding issues through the joint committee and will continue to approach those discussions in good faith .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a safety net.
” Responding to a follow-up question from backbench Tory Bob Neill , the Secretary of State admitted that the clauses providing ministers with certain powers under the new legislation would breach international obligations .
The minister said : “ Yes , this does break international law in a specific and very limited way .
We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article four in certain very tightly defined circumstances.
” Referring to the Finance Act 2013 , he added : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK and indeed other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change.
” Reacting to this comment by the government representative , Labour ’ s Andrew Gwynne said : “ I ’ m astounded the minister has just conceded that he ’ s proposing to break international law .
“ This is a question of trust when it comes to signing international treaties .
We can ’ t condemn others for seemingly breaking the international rules-based order if you ’ re prepared to do the same .
“ It is incredibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acquire trade treaties.
” According to reports this week , aspects of the legislation being introduced in parliament this week would “ eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement ” – including state aid and Northern Ireland customs .
Under the withdrawal agreement , Northern Ireland is set to remain in the single market regardless of whether the wider UK has a deal on trade and security with the EU by the end of the year .
If the UK does not reach an agreement on trade with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codes on goods coming into Northern Ireland will still be required , necessitating checks at the border .
The internal markets bill seeks to narrowly define the obligation to notify Brussels of subsidy decisions for it to approve and could dispense with the requirement for local businesses to file customs paperwork when exporting to the rest of the UK .
A No 10 spokesperson has said that the measures being introduced by the government are “ limited and reasonable ” and insisted that the UK would remain compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol @

Labour has slammed the government over its leaked Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland and said that the people of the UK and the country’s international partners will be unable to trust the government if it reneges on its obligations.
Responding to an urgent question tabled by Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh this afternoon, Brandon Lewis defended reports of plans to give British ministers unilateral powers in the region.
Following widespread concerns that the proposals would violate the Northern Ireland protocol, Haigh today accused the Prime Minister of: “Once again using Northern Ireland as a political football to suit his wider political means.”
Commenting on the agreement reached last October to prevent a hard border, Haigh said: “The protocol was not foisted on the Prime Minister… [He] personally renegotiated it, campaigned on it, legislated for it, ratified it in an international treaty.”
She added: “This is about trust. How can the people of Northern Ireland trust this government with the careful progress made over the last two decades when they tell them the protocol is necessary to protect it and then suggest it undermines it?
“How can the British people trust the government who swore they have an ‘oven-ready’ deal only ten months ago and now tell them that deal was ambiguous and contradictory?
“And how can our partners and allies now trust us to enter trade negotiations and multilateral arrangements.”
In response to the urgent question, Lewis told the House that the government is committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and has taken “many practical steps to do so”.
He argued that “this government has repeatedly said that people in Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market… the approach that we will take in this legislation builds on that commitment”.
The new powers for ministers to make unilateral decisions in Northern Ireland will be set out in the internal market bill and the finance bill. The internal market bill is due to be published on Wednesday.
Lewis added: “We are working had to resolve any outstanding issues through the joint committee and will continue to approach those discussions in good faith. But we are taking limited and reasonable steps to create a safety net.”
Responding to a follow-up question from backbench Tory Bob Neill, the Secretary of State admitted that the clauses providing ministers with certain powers under the new legislation would breach international obligations.
The minister said: “Yes, this does break international law in a specific and very limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article four in certain very tightly defined circumstances.”
Referring to the Finance Act 2013, he added: “There are clear precedents for the UK and indeed other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change.”
Reacting to this comment by the government representative, Labour’s Andrew Gwynne said: “I’m astounded the minister has just conceded that he’s proposing to break international law.
“This is a question of trust when it comes to signing international treaties. We can’t condemn others for seemingly breaking the international rules-based order if you’re prepared to do the same.
“It is incredibly damaging to our reputation as we seek to acquire trade treaties.”
According to reports this week, aspects of the legislation being introduced in parliament this week would “eliminate the legal force of parts of the withdrawal agreement” – including state aid and Northern Ireland customs.
Under the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland is set to remain in the single market regardless of whether the wider UK has a deal on trade and security with the EU by the end of the year.
If the UK does not reach an agreement on trade with the European bloc, the EU’s codes on goods coming into Northern Ireland will still be required, necessitating checks at the border.
The internal markets bill seeks to narrowly define the obligation to notify Brussels of subsidy decisions for it to approve and could dispense with the requirement for local businesses to file customs paperwork when exporting to the rest of the UK.
A No 10 spokesperson has said that the measures being introduced by the government are “limited and reasonable” and insisted that the UK would remain compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol.


labourlist--2020-09-09--PMQs: Test and trace – whose fault is it?

Silence on Brexit .
That was the accusation thrown by Boris Johnson at Keir Starmer in today ’ s Prime Minister ’ s Questions .
Johnson told the public earlier this week that he will walk away from negotiations with Brussels if no deal is reached by October 15th , and the government yesterday said it would break international law – something the Prime Minister was happy to point out .
But the Labour leader wasn ’ t drawn and chose to go with a different tack this afternoon .
Reverting to an almost Jeremy Corbyn-esque anecdotal style , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly obvious problems with the government ’ s test and trace programme .
The Labour leader asked : whose fault are the reported problems with test and trace ?
Is it , as the director of the programme said last night , a problem with capacity at laboratories or as Matt Hancock argued the fault of the public requesting tests when they don ’ t need them ?
The usual sharp focus on the detail surfaced as Starmer brought out the latest government figures , which “ show that on average 75,000 tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He spoke of a woman in London trying to get a test for her four-year-old child – she was told to go to centres in Brighton , Telford , Inverness and finally Swansea .
Why are people being told to go “ hundreds of miles for a test ” and “ why yesterday were people being told there ’ s no capacity ?
” All good questions .
And one notable answer from the PM as he sided with the Health Secretary to say it ’ s a problem of demand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or less bad ? )
sessions today , but maybe that ’ s only in comparison with his dire performance last week .
The PM shrugged off the jabs at his technical competence , accusing Starmer of ‘ talking down ’ the work of NHS staff : “ It ’ s hard work .
It ’ s a big job ” – the Labour leader is simply trying to “ undermine confidence in test and trace ” and he should just keep shtum .
And the absence of a mention of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns cited by the Welsh and Scottish leaders about the government ’ s plans to seize devolved powers , was not lost on the PM : “ When it comes to sticking up for our UK internal market… he is totally silent on this bill that obsesses the rest of his backbenchers.
” Now , this is admittedly tricky for the Labour leader .
Go too hard on the government ’ s shenanigans around Brexit , and risk being tarred with the brush of frustrating the ‘ will of the people ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is symptomatic of the careful line he is treading .
When asked , he will continue to tell the PM to “ get on and negotiate ” the deal he promised , rather than be painted as a barrier to leaving the EU .
For now at least , he doesn ’ t want to weigh in on the debate unprompted and there will certainly be plenty of opportunity to raise the issue as we go forward – not least when it comes to the crunch point the PM has himself set in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a missed opportunity , but Starmer is maintaining the strategy of letting the government fail on its own terms .

Silence on Brexit. That was the accusation thrown by Boris Johnson at Keir Starmer in today’s Prime Minister’s Questions. Johnson has pledged to walk away from negotiations with Brussels if no deal is reached by October 15th, and the government yesterday said it would break international law – something the Prime Minister was happy to point out. But the Labour leader wasn’t drawn, and chose to go with a different tack this afternoon. Reverting to a Jeremy Corbyn-esque anecdotal style, he chose to focus on the abundant problems with the government’s test and trace programme.
The Labour leader asked: whose fault are the reported problems with test and trace? Is it, as the director of the programme said last night, a problem with capacity at laboratories? Or is it, as Matt Hancock argued, the fault of the public requesting tests when they don’t need them? The usual focus on detail surfaced as Starmer brought out the latest government figures, which “show that on average 75,000 tests are not being used every day”. He spoke of a woman in London trying to get a test for her four-year-old child. She was told to go to centres in Brighton, Telford, Inverness and finally Swansea. Why are people being told to go hundreds of miles for a test and why are people being told there’s no capacity?
All good questions. And we got one notable answer from the PM when he sided with the Health Secretary to say it’s a problem of demand. Johnson had one of his better (or less terrible?) sessions today, though maybe that is only compared to his dire performance last week. The PM shrugged off the jabs at his technical competence, accusing Starmer of ‘talking down’ the work of NHS staff: “It’s hard work. It’s a big job.” He said the Labour leader was simply trying to “undermine confidence in test and trace” and should keep shtum. Starmer’s decision not to mention the planned breach of international law, or concerns cited by the Welsh and Scottish leaders about the government’s plans to seize devolved powers, was not lost on the PM. “When it comes to sticking up for our UK internal market… he is totally silent on this bill that obsesses the rest of his backbenchers.”
This is a tricky area for the Labour leader. Go too hard on the government’s shenanigans around Brexit, and risk being accused of frustrating the ‘will of the people’. Starmer’s silence on the issue is symptomatic of the careful line he is treading. When asked, he will continue to tell the PM to “get on and negotiate” the deal he promised, rather than be seen as a barrier to leaving the EU. For now at least, he doesn’t want to weigh in on the debate unprompted. There will certainly be plenty of opportunity to raise the issue as we go forward – not least when it comes to the crunch point the PM has himself set in October. Some might see today as a missed opportunity, but Starmer is maintaining the strategy of letting the government fail on its own terms.


labourlist--2020-09-09--Think carefully before backing the climate and ecological emergency bill

Nadia Whittome MP recently wrote in LabourList to explain why she is supporting the climate and ecological emergency bill tabled by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas .
The bill is also supported by Labour MPs including Clive Lewis and Alex Sobel .
But there are strong reasons for which to be sceptical of this proposed legislation sponsored by the organisation Extinction Rebellion .
The urgency of addressing climate change is undisputed on the left .
Nevertheless , while it is clear that action must be taken , there must be a discussion about what those actions need to be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not move the debate towards the shared goals of lowering carbon emissions , protecting well-paid , skilled jobs , and protecting the interests of families and households , the issue could become another culture war divide , potentially damaging for the Labour Party .
For example , a major factor in the general election defeat of the Australian Labor Party in last year ’ s general election was its inability to bridge the gap between its greener , urban and often university-educated supporters in the big cities , and its traditional working-class voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal mining .
At the 2019 Labour Party conference , there were undignified scenes when energy workers in the GMB trade union were heckled by some constituency delegates .
The climate and ecological emergency bill proposes to dangerously bypass democracy and public scrutiny altogether .
It says the government should contract out the policy area to a “ reputable , independent body ” , which would convene a ‘ citizens ’ assembly ’ , which Extinction Rebellion have clarified will be selected from the population at random , like a jury .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts ” and if the assembly agrees on a measure with 80 % in favour , the “ Secretary of State must seek agreement with the assembly ” , and the “ Secretary of State must implement the strategy ” ( the only exceptions being where the measure would either spend public funds , or raise taxes ) .
The assembly would bypass normal parliamentary processes , though the measures they agree could have vast impact on communities , families and the economy .
This is a very problematic approach , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine confidence in the party ’ s policy of involving affected workers and trade unions in any just transition .
The climate and ecological emergency bill treats the general public as an obstacle to be overcome , and this is the approach most likely to alienate people who could be won over if they are respected and engaged with .
A good example of a sector that is difficult to decarbonise , where there is a need for the public to be engaged with in finding a solution , is domestic heating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very detailed survey on public attitudes to how the heating of our homes can be decarbonised .
Encouragingly , this shows high levels of support for measures to move to low-carbon heating , but equally the public has little awareness of the different technical options .
This is an area where there is a vital need to gain democratic legitimacy for any measures that will affect household bills .
Gas heating is substantially cheaper than electric heating ( about 4p per kWh , rather than 15p ) , but heating our homes is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s greenhouse gas emissions .
There will be a headwind against decarbonisation if it is be paid for by huge increases in bills for working people .
For many green campaigners , the answer is to shift all heating to electricity , with most homes being switched to a “ heat pump ” .
This seems to be the preferred route for many in the Civil Service and academia .
Heat pumps are not new technology , but most people in Britain have limited awareness of them , as evidenced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a very efficient form of electric heat , but a report by Element Energy for the Westminster government concluded that , even if the costs of heat pumps fell considerably , their lifetime costs would always be higher for consumers than gas .
There is also a question mark about the huge expansion of electricity capacity required and whether that would be sourced from renewables .
There is a viable alternative : to maintain the gas grid and its connections to 24 million homes , but to green the gas within it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and biomethane ( which is chemically the same as the natural gas we already use , yet made from renewable sources ) .
The viability of such a conversion is proven .
British households were converted to natural gas between 1967 and 1977 , but before that they used to use town gas , itself about 50 % hydrogen and made from coal .
However , hydrogen can also be made by splitting water , using electricity , into hydrogen and water , with no carbon emissions .
Regrettably , instead of encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecological emergency bill actually seeks to exclude one of the most promising technologies that can address climate change .
Extinction Rebellion opposes carbon capture and storage ( CCS ) , whereby it is possible to capture waste CO2 from industrial processes and electricity generation and store it permanently underground .
Instead , the bill states that the UK must only use “ natural climate solutions ” to achieve net zero , which they define as measures such as “ reforestation , sustainable land management , and the restoration of wetlands , peat bogs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the fact that wetlands actually produce natural methane , a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide , these measures simply don ’ t scale up to provide sufficient decarbonisation without an almost complete dismantling of our modern , urban way of life .
In contrast , the British government recently revealed that even at today ’ s levels of CO2 production , we could store 170 years ’ worth of CO2 in the UK – and when combined with other measures to reduce CO2 production , we have capacity for hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misplaced .
Norway has just approved a €2.1bn project to capture CO2 and store it under the North Sea , and a British company , Equinor , has just announced the first , at scale , production facility for hydrogen with carbon capture offshore in the Humber estuary .
Instead of doubting CCS , the Labour Party and environmental movements should be advocating more of it : especially when combined with renewable feedstocks , like biomass or municipal waste , CCS actually reduces greenhouse gas levels .
Most people have a general sympathy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase the sense of urgency about climate change .
However , that does not mean every proposition from Extinction Rebellion should be supported .
Labour MPs in particular should be cautious in endorsing what seems to be an elitist plan to bypass democracy , and to narrow down the technical options by which we can achieve our shared aims .

Nadia Whittome MP recently wrote in LabourList to explain why she is supporting the climate and ecological emergency bill tabled by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. The bill is also supported by Labour MPs including Clive Lewis and Alex Sobel. But there are strong reasons for which to be sceptical of this proposed legislation sponsored by the organisation Extinction Rebellion.
The urgency of addressing climate change is undisputed on the left. Nevertheless, while it is clear that action must be taken, there must be a discussion about what those actions need to be. The danger is that if we do not move the debate towards the shared goals of lowering carbon emissions, protecting well-paid, skilled jobs, and protecting the interests of families and households, the issue could become another culture war divide, potentially damaging for the Labour Party.
For example, a major factor in the general election defeat of the Australian Labor Party in last year’s general election was its inability to bridge the gap between its greener, urban and often university-educated supporters in the big cities, and its traditional working-class voters, particularly in Queensland, who support coal mining. At the 2019 Labour Party conference, there were undignified scenes when energy workers in the GMB trade union were heckled by some constituency delegates.
The climate and ecological emergency bill proposes to dangerously bypass democracy and public scrutiny altogether. It says the government should contract out the policy area to a “reputable, independent body”, which would convene a ‘citizens’ assembly’, which Extinction Rebellion have clarified will be selected from the population at random, like a jury. This citizens’ assembly will hear from “experts” and if the assembly agrees on a measure with 80% in favour, the “Secretary of State must seek agreement with the assembly”, and the “Secretary of State must implement the strategy” (the only exceptions being where the measure would either spend public funds, or raise taxes). The assembly would bypass normal parliamentary processes, though the measures they agree could have vast impact on communities, families and the economy.
This is a very problematic approach, and the support for it by Labour MPs could undermine confidence in the party’s policy of involving affected workers and trade unions in any just transition. The climate and ecological emergency bill treats the general public as an obstacle to be overcome, and this is the approach most likely to alienate people who could be won over if they are respected and engaged with.
A good example of a sector that is difficult to decarbonise, where there is a need for the public to be engaged with in finding a solution, is domestic heating. BEIS recently published the results of a very detailed survey on public attitudes to how the heating of our homes can be decarbonised. Encouragingly, this shows high levels of support for measures to move to low-carbon heating, but equally the public has little awareness of the different technical options.
This is an area where there is a vital need to gain democratic legitimacy for any measures that will affect household bills. Gas heating is substantially cheaper than electric heating (about 4p per kWh, rather than 15p), but heating our homes is responsible for 15% of all the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. There will be a headwind against decarbonisation if it is be paid for by huge increases in bills for working people.
For many green campaigners, the answer is to shift all heating to electricity, with most homes being switched to a “heat pump”. This seems to be the preferred route for many in the Civil Service and academia. Heat pumps are not new technology, but most people in Britain have limited awareness of them, as evidenced by the recent BEIS report.
Heat pumps are a very efficient form of electric heat, but a report by Element Energy for the Westminster government concluded that, even if the costs of heat pumps fell considerably, their lifetime costs would always be higher for consumers than gas. There is also a question mark about the huge expansion of electricity capacity required and whether that would be sourced from renewables.
There is a viable alternative: to maintain the gas grid and its connections to 24 million homes, but to green the gas within it, perhaps to a blend of hydrogen and biomethane (which is chemically the same as the natural gas we already use, yet made from renewable sources). The viability of such a conversion is proven. British households were converted to natural gas between 1967 and 1977, but before that they used to use town gas, itself about 50% hydrogen and made from coal. However, hydrogen can also be made by splitting water, using electricity, into hydrogen and water, with no carbon emissions.
Regrettably, instead of encouraging viable technical solutions, the climate and ecological emergency bill actually seeks to exclude one of the most promising technologies that can address climate change. Extinction Rebellion opposes carbon capture and storage (CCS), whereby it is possible to capture waste CO2 from industrial processes and electricity generation and store it permanently underground.
Instead, the bill states that the UK must only use “natural climate solutions” to achieve net zero, which they define as measures such as “reforestation, sustainable land management, and the restoration of wetlands, peat bogs and coastal ecosystems”.
Quite apart from the fact that wetlands actually produce natural methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, these measures simply don’t scale up to provide sufficient decarbonisation without an almost complete dismantling of our modern, urban way of life. In contrast, the British government recently revealed that even at today’s levels of CO2 production, we could store 170 years’ worth of CO2 in the UK – and when combined with other measures to reduce CO2 production, we have capacity for hundreds of years.
Scepticism about CCS is misplaced. Norway has just approved a €2.1bn project to capture CO2 and store it under the North Sea, and a British company, Equinor, has just announced the first, at scale, production facility for hydrogen with carbon capture offshore in the Humber estuary. Instead of doubting CCS, the Labour Party and environmental movements should be advocating more of it: especially when combined with renewable feedstocks, like biomass or municipal waste, CCS actually reduces greenhouse gas levels.
Most people have a general sympathy with the broader objectives of Extinction Rebellion to increase the sense of urgency about climate change. However, that does not mean every proposition from Extinction Rebellion should be supported. Labour MPs in particular should be cautious in endorsing what seems to be an elitist plan to bypass democracy, and to narrow down the technical options by which we can achieve our shared aims.


labourlist--2020-09-09--“Stand by your oath to respect rule of law”, Lammy tells Justice Secretary

David Lammy has told the Justice Secretary that he should “ stand by your oath to respect the rule of law ” after the government admitted yesterday that its new Brexit bill would break international law .
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis confirmed to the House of Commons on Tuesday that the government ’ s internal markets bill would “ break international law in a very specific and limited way ” .
Cabinet member Matt Hancock agreed this morning that he was “ comfortable ” with the plan to break international law .
It has been reported that Robert Buckland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not intend to resign .
But the Shadow Justice Secretary has applied further pressure on Buckland , with a letter reminding him of his “ sworn duty to respect the rule of law ” and asking whether he will break cabinet responsibility .
Below is the full text of David Lammy ’ s letter to Robert Buckland .
In your role as Lord Chancellor , you have a sworn duty to respect the rule of law .
Maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law has been central to your position for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not need to remind you of the oath you took on the on 30 July 2019 in the Royal Courts of Justice : “ I… do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law , defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible.
” Yesterday Brandon Lewis MP , the Northern Ireland Secretary , confirmed that by breaking the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break international law in a very specific and limited way ” .
This morning Matt Hancock , the Health Secretary , said he is “ comfortable ” with the fact the UK is willing to break international law .
What steps do you plan to take to protect the rule of law from attack from inside your own government ?
If you fail to prevent the government from breaking the rule of law , will you stand by your oath to respect the rule of law by breaking cabinet responsibility on this matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

David Lammy has told the Justice Secretary that he should “stand by your oath to respect the rule of law” after the government admitted yesterday that its new Brexit bill would break international law.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis confirmed to the House of Commons on Tuesday that the government’s internal markets bill would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”.
Cabinet member Matt Hancock agreed this morning that he was “comfortable” with the plan to break international law. It has been reported that Robert Buckland “can live with it” and does not intend to resign.
But the Shadow Justice Secretary has applied further pressure on Buckland, with a letter reminding him of his “sworn duty to respect the rule of law” and asking whether he will break cabinet responsibility.
Below is the full text of David Lammy’s letter to Robert Buckland.
Dear Robert,
In your role as Lord Chancellor, you have a sworn duty to respect the rule of law. Maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law has been central to your position for more than 400 years. I do not need to remind you of the oath you took on the on 30 July 2019 in the Royal Courts of Justice:
“I… do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible.”
Yesterday Brandon Lewis MP, the Northern Ireland Secretary, confirmed that by breaking the EU withdrawal agreement, the government would “break international law in a very specific and limited way”. This morning Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, said he is “comfortable” with the fact the UK is willing to break international law.
What steps do you plan to take to protect the rule of law from attack from inside your own government? If you fail to prevent the government from breaking the rule of law, will you stand by your oath to respect the rule of law by breaking cabinet responsibility on this matter?
Yours sincerely,
David Lammy MP
Shadow Lord Chancellor and the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice


labourlist--2020-09-09--Drakeford slams internal markets bill as “smash and grab” on devolution

Mark Drakeford has said that the internal markets bill represents a “ smash and grab ” on the devolution settlement and takes back powers that have been devolved to Wales , Northern Ireland and Scotland for 20 years .
In a Times Radio interview this morning , the Labour Welsh First Minister discussed the legislation published today , which would grant British ministers with unilateral powers after the UK leaves the EU .
The Welsh Labour leader described the bill put forward by the UK government as an “ enormous power grab ” and has warned that the measures included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union that is the UK ” .
Commenting on the plans for the internal market post-Brexit , Drakeford said : “ Now the UK government instead of relying , as we wish , on agreement on discussion on finding common ways to address common problems , their answer is to smash and grab the devolution settlement .
“ It is a very bad day for the union because this will put enormous strains into the union that is the United Kingdom .
Those of us who believe in the United Kingdom and want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very bad day indeed.
” The internal market bill sets out trading arrangements across the UK after the transition period .
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said on Tuesday it would break international law in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol .
Ministers are promoting the bill as giving the government powers to spend more in devolved areas , on things including infrastructure and culture , for the first time since devolution .
One official has reportedly said that the internal markets plan proposed by the government represents an end to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blair/Brown years ” and that it will be “ hard to argue against more money ” .
But Welsh counsel general and minister for European transition Jeremy Miles said : “ The UK government plans to sacrifice the future of the union by stealing powers from devolved administrations… This bill is an attack on democracy.
” Miles added that the Welsh administration will “ do everything we can to challenge the power grab and the race to the bottom which this bill represents ” , warning that the UK government is “ explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bill includes plans for a “ mutual recognition regime ” after the UK leaves the EU , which would require regulatory standards in one area of the union to be automatically accepted in others .
Miles said : “ Their proposals for mutual recognition may sound sensible but they are the starting gun for a race to the bottom , undermining the high standards we currently enjoy in terms of food standards , animal welfare and the environment .
“ Vital decisions over support for Welsh businesses , important infrastructure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food on the shelves of Welsh supermarkets should be made in Wales , by the government of Wales , and with the consent of the Senedd – and not at the behest of Conservative backbenchers ” .
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon criticised the plans as a “ full frontal assault on devolution ” and argued that the campaign for independence is now about stopping the “ Scottish parliament from being undermined and its powers eroded ” .

Mark Drakeford has said that the internal markets bill represents a “smash and grab” on the devolution settlement and takes back powers that have been devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for 20 years.
In a Times Radio interview this morning, the Labour Welsh First Minister discussed the legislation published today, which would grant British ministers with unilateral powers after the UK leaves the EU.
The Welsh Labour leader described the bill put forward by the UK government as an “enormous power grab” and has warned that the measures included will “put enormous strains into the union that is the UK”.
Commenting on the plans for the internal market post-Brexit, Drakeford said: “Now the UK government instead of relying, as we wish, on agreement on discussion on finding common ways to address common problems, their answer is to smash and grab the devolution settlement.
“It is a very bad day for the union because this will put enormous strains into the union that is the United Kingdom. Those of us who believe in the United Kingdom and want it to succeed think that this is a very bad day indeed.”
The internal market bill sets out trading arrangements across the UK after the transition period. Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said on Tuesday it would break international law in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.
Ministers are promoting the bill as giving the government powers to spend more in devolved areas, on things including infrastructure and culture, for the first time since devolution.
One official has reportedly said that the internal markets plan proposed by the government represents an end to the “devolve and forget approach of the Blair/Brown years” and that it will be “hard to argue against more money”.
But Welsh counsel general and minister for European transition Jeremy Miles said: “The UK government plans to sacrifice the future of the union by stealing powers from devolved administrations… This bill is an attack on democracy.”
Miles added that the Welsh administration will “do everything we can to challenge the power grab and the race to the bottom which this bill represents”, warning that the UK government is “explicitly seeking to rewrite the devolution settlement”.
The bill includes plans for a “mutual recognition regime” after the UK leaves the EU, which would require regulatory standards in one area of the union to be automatically accepted in others.
Miles said: “Their proposals for mutual recognition may sound sensible but they are the starting gun for a race to the bottom, undermining the high standards we currently enjoy in terms of food standards, animal welfare and the environment.
“Vital decisions over support for Welsh businesses, important infrastructure and investment opportunities and the safety of the food on the shelves of Welsh supermarkets should be made in Wales, by the government of Wales, and with the consent of the Senedd – and not at the behest of Conservative backbenchers”.
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon criticised the plans as a “full frontal assault on devolution” and argued that the campaign for independence is now about stopping the “Scottish parliament from being undermined and its powers eroded”.


labourlist--2020-09-09--Keir Starmer sends message to Boris Johnson: get Brexit done

The government ’ s most senior lawyer resigned yesterday , just as a minister confirmed at the despatch box that , yes , Boris Johnson ’ s administration does intend to break international law by overriding parts of the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister celebrated not long ago .
It will only do so “ in a very specific and limited way ” , though , Brandon Lewis told the House of Commons .
Theresa May warned that the move could damage “ trust ” in the UK , while Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international stage.
” And it actually managed to break Keir Starmer ’ s silence on Brexit .
Lord Falconer , our Shadow Attorney General , commented that the government purported to act legally throughout the Brexit process , adding : “ This is new .
And very bad.
” But it is not really new for Johnson and his Vote Leave crew to smash convention , bend the rules , test the constitution and even break the law – just look at where we were one year ago , arguing about the prorogation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawful .
Let ’ s be clear , this Conservative Party cares just as much about conserving the concentration of power with the few as any other iteration of the Tories , who have also been willing to threaten the rule of law , such as in the Windrush scandal .
The difference is that this lot have adopted a ‘ rebellious ’ narrative to match their actions , and that makes some parts of the establishment nervous .
Starmer didn ’ t delve into all of that , of course .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Brexit , the same one that the party has had since he took over as leader : the government must keep their word and deliver the deal as promised .
Compare Starmer ’ s interview last night with the piece by Rachel Reeves for LabourList in July to see that the stance has not changed one bit .
“ Let ’ s get the deal , let ’ s move on and focus on the job at hand , which is dealing with this pandemic , ” the Labour leader said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians were sent last year and effectively copying the winning slogan : “ get Brexit done ” .
And he batted away any suggestion that Labour might talk about rejoining the EU .
The Labour leader has a plan to further draw attention to the contrast between himself and Johnson : one a man of detail , a safe pair of hands during a crisis ; the other capable of delivering a bold message but a bit of a mess and ill-suited to our current situation .
Starmer is going to launch his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he can handle tough questions .
The Prime Minister , on the other hand , will have a new spokesperson to front White House-style daily press briefings .
I ’ m told that Starmer ’ s conferences will be open to more than just broadcast journalists , but further details will come when we know more about how the government versions will work .
Setting up these rival briefings makes sense .
As Francis Beckett advised the leadership via a LabourList piece back in April , Starmer must not try to cultivate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him but instead capitalise on his qualities .
Most Labour MPs reckon his key asset is coming across as a normal , decent , trustworthy person , and they ’ ll be hoping that this move will see his positive personal approval ratings rub off on the Labour Party .
The strategy does carry risks , namely irritating party activists as the LBC phone-ins occasionally did .
But the platform offers a fantastic opportunity for Labour .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The civil service’s most senior lawyer resigned yesterday, just as a government minister confirmed at the despatch box that, yes, Boris Johnson’s administration does intend to break international law by overriding parts of the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister celebrated not long ago. It will only do so “in a very specific and limited way”, though, Brandon Lewis told the House of Commons. Theresa May warned that the move could damage “trust” in the UK, while Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary Louise Haigh said: “This seriously undermines our authority on the international stage.” And it actually managed to break Keir Starmer’s silence on Brexit.
Lord Falconer, our Shadow Attorney General, commented that the government purported to act legally throughout the Brexit process, adding: “This is new. And very bad.” But it is not really new for Johnson and his Vote Leave crew to smash convention, bend the rules, test the constitution and even break the law – just look at where we were one year ago, arguing about the prorogation of parliament, later ruled to be unlawful. Let’s be clear, this Conservative Party cares just as much about conserving the concentration of power with the few as any other iteration of the Tories, who have also been willing to threaten the rule of law, such as in the Windrush scandal. The difference is that this lot have adopted a ‘rebellious’ narrative to match their actions, and that makes some parts of the establishment nervous.
Starmer didn’t delve into all of that, of course. He is sticking to Labour’s line on Brexit, the same one that the party has had since he took over as leader: the government must keep their word and deliver the deal as promised. Compare Starmer’s interview last night with the piece by Rachel Reeves for LabourList in July to see that the stance has not changed one bit. “Let’s get the deal, let’s move on and focus on the job at hand, which is dealing with this pandemic,” the Labour leader said. He is learning from the big message politicians were sent last year and effectively copying the winning slogan: “get Brexit done”. And he batted away any suggestion that Labour might talk about rejoining the EU.
The Labour leader has a plan to further draw attention to the contrast between himself and Johnson: one a man of detail, a safe pair of hands during a crisis; the other capable of delivering a bold message but a bit of a mess and ill-suited to our current situation. Starmer is going to launch his own regular televised press conference, proving that he can handle tough questions. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, will have a new spokesperson to front White House-style daily press briefings. I’m told that Starmer’s conferences will be open to more than just broadcast journalists, but further details will come when we know more about how the government versions will work.
Setting up these rival briefings makes sense. As Francis Beckett advised the leadership via a LabourList piece back in April, Starmer must not try to cultivate an image that doesn’t suit him but instead capitalise on his qualities. Most Labour MPs reckon his key asset is coming across as a normal, decent, trustworthy person, and they’ll be hoping that this move will see his positive personal approval ratings rub off on the Labour Party. The strategy does carry risks, namely irritating party activists as the LBC phone-ins occasionally did. But the platform offers a fantastic opportunity for Labour. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.