labourlist--2020-09-10--On Brexit, Keir Starmer is making the same mistakes as Jeremy Corbyn

Where have all the Remainers gone ?
Less than a year ago , a mass movement existed committed to fighting Brexit until its last breath .
A multitude of national organisations mobilised a huge political coalition , organising the biggest protests since the Iraq War .
At its grassroots were hundreds of local groups , running stalls and public meetings .
Now , with the government announcing its intention to proceed with a no deal Brexit in less than four months , the anti-Brexit movement is almost silent .
For all the endless punditry , it is impossible to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no deal or this is just a stunt that will allow him to claim a concession before inevitably signing an agreement .
But the truth is that with or without a deal , the realities of a Brexit led by Boris Johnson will be bleak .
What lies ahead is perhaps the most extreme deregulation and erection of borders that this country has ever experienced .
The end of free movement will mean the biggest expansion of immigration controls in decades .
A trade deal with the US could mean an irreversible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean a downgrading in our food and consumer standards .
The proponents of Brexit were always clear that their agenda was to “ cut red tape ” , but the extent of the deregulation agenda is still hard to compute : we are looking at an unprecedented race to the bottom on workplace rights , environmental standards and tax .
The government is currently consulting on plans to create “ free ports ” – potentially designating whole cities as low regulation tax havens .
Rejoining the EU is a lost cause in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s Brexit agenda represents a devastating attack on the rights and prosperity of so many people , the absence of a strong opposition on Brexit – either in parliament or in the streets – is striking .
Keir Starmer , the Labour leader elected in large part because of his Remainer credentials , has remained silent on the subject at every available opportunity .
What few public pronouncements he has made on the subject are delivered in the blandest terms possible .
We ’ ve been here before , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply reluctant to take proactive public stands on anything related to Brexit .
Labour ’ s policy , cooked up in backrooms rather than in a democratic process , evolved about a year behind the political landscape .
Everything was based on narrow electoral calculation and parliamentary chess playing .
Setting out a clear principled policy , either for soft Brexit or later for a pro-Remain position , was viewed as falling into some kind of trap set by the Conservatives , and so Labour fudged and hid .
The irony is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same thing .
In doing so , he is being cheered on by many people who were sharply critical of Corbyn ’ s dithering , and slammed by others who only a year ago supported exactly this strategy .
The whole point of triangulating on Brexit is that it delivers electoral victory .
The problem is that it demonstrably does not .
In failing to loudly oppose the government ’ s agenda , the Labour leadership thinks that it is being terribly clever , ducking the issue and waiting for Johnson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so , it is only giving the Tories more space and time to control the narrative .
Corbyn ’ s constant handbrake turns on Brexit meant that Labour had no opportunity to set out a clear policy and campaign to convince the public of it .
The result was its annihilation at the 2019 general election .
No amount of economic damage will be enough to sink Boris Johnson if the government is allowed to set the narrative about who is to blame .
No amount of deregulation , deportation of EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shock or repel the public if the government is allowed to present it as normal .
There is no point in Starmer urging the Prime Minister to get a deal if he does not say what kind .
It is urgent that Labour starts campaigning around an alternative vision for Britain after Brexit .
This shouldn ’ t be hard , because it already has a full alternative policy , democratically established at its conference and supported by Starmer in his leadership campaign .
Continued free movement , single market access and improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , migrants and the environment : these could form a basis for Labour ’ s policy , both now and at the next election .
Remainers are silent because they are demoralised , but the part of the public which was rallied in opposition to the right wing nationalist politics of Brexit is still out there .
Labour ’ s road to victory was and remains finding this new mass base , and marrying it to working class organisation and a renewed radical politics .
If it fails to energetically fight the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get more demoralised , Dominic Cummings will decide the new normal , and we will wake up in five years ’ time in an economy modelled on Singapore , with nobody even promising to take us back .

Where have all the Remainers gone? Less than a year ago, a mass movement existed committed to fighting Brexit until its last breath. A multitude of national organisations mobilised a huge political coalition, organising the biggest protests since the Iraq War. At its grassroots were hundreds of local groups, running stalls and public meetings. Now, with the government announcing its intention to proceed with a no deal Brexit in less than four months, the anti-Brexit movement is almost silent.
For all the endless punditry, it is impossible to tell whether Boris Johnson intends to actually proceed with no deal or this is just a stunt that will allow him to claim a concession before inevitably signing an agreement. But the truth is that with or without a deal, the realities of a Brexit led by Boris Johnson will be bleak.
What lies ahead is perhaps the most extreme deregulation and erection of borders that this country has ever experienced. The end of free movement will mean the biggest expansion of immigration controls in decades. A trade deal with the US could mean an irreversible privatisation of the NHS, and will mean a downgrading in our food and consumer standards.
The proponents of Brexit were always clear that their agenda was to “cut red tape”, but the extent of the deregulation agenda is still hard to compute: we are looking at an unprecedented race to the bottom on workplace rights, environmental standards and tax. The government is currently consulting on plans to create “free ports” – potentially designating whole cities as low regulation tax havens.
Rejoining the EU is a lost cause in the immediate term, but given that the government’s Brexit agenda represents a devastating attack on the rights and prosperity of so many people, the absence of a strong opposition on Brexit – either in parliament or in the streets – is striking. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader elected in large part because of his Remainer credentials, has remained silent on the subject at every available opportunity. What few public pronouncements he has made on the subject are delivered in the blandest terms possible.
We’ve been here before, of course. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was also deeply reluctant to take proactive public stands on anything related to Brexit. Labour’s policy, cooked up in backrooms rather than in a democratic process, evolved about a year behind the political landscape. Everything was based on narrow electoral calculation and parliamentary chess playing. Setting out a clear principled policy, either for soft Brexit or later for a pro-Remain position, was viewed as falling into some kind of trap set by the Conservatives, and so Labour fudged and hid.
The irony is that Keir Starmer is now doing almost exactly the same thing. In doing so, he is being cheered on by many people who were sharply critical of Corbyn’s dithering, and slammed by others who only a year ago supported exactly this strategy.
The whole point of triangulating on Brexit is that it delivers electoral victory. The problem is that it demonstrably does not. In failing to loudly oppose the government’s agenda, the Labour leadership thinks that it is being terribly clever, ducking the issue and waiting for Johnson’s strategy to unravel. But in doing so, it is only giving the Tories more space and time to control the narrative. Corbyn’s constant handbrake turns on Brexit meant that Labour had no opportunity to set out a clear policy and campaign to convince the public of it. The result was its annihilation at the 2019 general election.
No amount of economic damage will be enough to sink Boris Johnson if the government is allowed to set the narrative about who is to blame. No amount of deregulation, deportation of EU citizens or loss of living standards will shock or repel the public if the government is allowed to present it as normal. There is no point in Starmer urging the Prime Minister to get a deal if he does not say what kind.
It is urgent that Labour starts campaigning around an alternative vision for Britain after Brexit. This shouldn’t be hard, because it already has a full alternative policy, democratically established at its conference and supported by Starmer in his leadership campaign. Continued free movement, single market access and improved, rather than eroded, protections for workers, migrants and the environment: these could form a basis for Labour’s policy, both now and at the next election.
Remainers are silent because they are demoralised, but the part of the public which was rallied in opposition to the right wing nationalist politics of Brexit is still out there. Labour’s road to victory was and remains finding this new mass base, and marrying it to working class organisation and a renewed radical politics. If it fails to energetically fight the Tories’ Brexit agenda, progressives will get more demoralised, Dominic Cummings will decide the new normal, and we will wake up in five years’ time in an economy modelled on Singapore, with nobody even promising to take us back.


labourlist--2020-09-11--The elephant in the countryside: Labour cannot afford to ignore rural voters

When Labour won the 1997 and 2001 general elections , it boasted over 100 rural MPs reaching into Conservative heartlands .
Constituency boundaries have changed , but that can not hide the disastrous situation in which Labour now finds itself .
With the new leadership , we have an opportunity to re-engage with these areas , but that must start by addressing the elephant in the countryside : Labour ’ s rural problem .
As the new Countryside Alliance report reveals , Labour now holds just 17 of the 199 seats in England and Wales designated as rural .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional Tory shires but quite another to see working-class rural constituencies like Workington , Penistone and Stockbridge , Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield – which had been Labour for generations – fall to the Conservatives .
Most worrying is the refusal of the party to address this failure , even after the historic defeat of 2019 .
Post-election analysis from all parts of the party has completely ignored Labour ’ s rejection in the countryside .
Blaming Brexit is not an option , as the report shows .
Labour MPs and the Fabian Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem ’ long before Britain ’ s relationship with the European Union became an overwhelming electoral issue .
Our report traces the party ’ s rural problem since 2015 , identifying what went wrong in these areas and what Labour could do to turn around its fortunes .
As well as drawing on the seminal research by Maria Eagle MP , the report considers research from the Fabian Society and polling from ORB International .
The report focuses on Labour ’ s electoral fortunes in rural England and Wales over the past three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour MP for Garston and Halewood Maria Eagle after the 2015 election , Labour had – and still has – a rural problem .
It becomes clear when examining Labour ’ s relationship with the countryside just how crucial rural seats have been in stopping the party from entering government .
In 2015 , the slim Tory majority was won in the countryside as Conservatives , not Labour , ousted Lib Dem MPs .
In 2017 , the year that the Conservatives lost this majority , it was only their strength in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of seats compared to Labour ’ s 16 % – that kept them in power .
And in 2019 , the loss of rural constituencies across North Wales and the North of England saw Labour slump to a historic defeat .
Post-election analysis suggested that Labour neglected its support in working-class Britain , including rural areas , to “ expand its support among the liberal , metropolitan middle class ” .
It was these decisions made in the run-up to the 2019 election , and preceding elections , that led to the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An electoral strategy of trying to appeal almost exclusively to those in cities meant it ignored the rural electorate .
The result has been a downward trajectory for the Labour Party over the past three elections .
Labour can not afford to make the same mistakes again .
Whilst it still holds its advantage in cities , there are not enough seats available in those areas to secure the additional MPs needed to form a government .
It is only through the countryside , with the support of the rural electorate , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is therefore essential that Labour starts to re-engage with these voters .
We must focus on what matters to the electorate in the countryside , and not simply manipulate rural issues to appeal further to its urban base .
ORB International carried out polling in 2019 to find out what issues affect people ’ s voting intentions .
The research unsurprisingly revealed that access to hospitals and healthcare , local transport and affordable housing are what really matter .
Less than 1 % , when asked , mentioned hunting as a priority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue to dominate how it frames rural issues , and its relationship with the rural electorate and rural organisations .
Labour needs to pursue policies relevant to the countryside and work with stakeholders who represent rural interests .
We can not continue to ignore the countryside because to do so would mean continued electoral defeat .
Labour must recognise where it has gone wrong with regard to the rural electorate and follow a new path that resets its relationship with them .
We hope that this piece of work both offers insights into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation within Labour that helps it re-engage with the countryside .
Labour ’ s rejection by rural communities can not continue to be the elephant in the countryside .
No party can afford to ignore the rural vote if it is serious about forming a government .
The full Countryside Alliance report is available here .

When Labour won the 1997 and 2001 general elections, it boasted over 100 rural MPs reaching into Conservative heartlands. Constituency boundaries have changed, but that cannot hide the disastrous situation in which Labour now finds itself. With the new leadership, we have an opportunity to re-engage with these areas, but that must start by addressing the elephant in the countryside: Labour’s rural problem.
As the new Countryside Alliance report reveals, Labour now holds just 17 of the 199 seats in England and Wales designated as rural. It’s one thing being beaten in traditional Tory shires but quite another to see working-class rural constituencies like Workington, Penistone and Stockbridge, Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield – which had been Labour for generations – fall to the Conservatives. Most worrying is the refusal of the party to address this failure, even after the historic defeat of 2019. Post-election analysis from all parts of the party has completely ignored Labour’s rejection in the countryside.
Blaming Brexit is not an option, as the report shows. Labour MPs and the Fabian Society had identified Labour’s ‘rural problem’ long before Britain’s relationship with the European Union became an overwhelming electoral issue. Our report traces the party’s rural problem since 2015, identifying what went wrong in these areas and what Labour could do to turn around its fortunes. As well as drawing on the seminal research by Maria Eagle MP, the report considers research from the Fabian Society and polling from ORB International. The report focuses on Labour’s electoral fortunes in rural England and Wales over the past three general elections. As first recognised by Labour MP for Garston and Halewood Maria Eagle after the 2015 election, Labour had – and still has – a rural problem.
It becomes clear when examining Labour’s relationship with the countryside just how crucial rural seats have been in stopping the party from entering government. In 2015, the slim Tory majority was won in the countryside as Conservatives, not Labour, ousted Lib Dem MPs. In 2017, the year that the Conservatives lost this majority, it was only their strength in the countryside – where they won 81% of seats compared to Labour’s 16% – that kept them in power. And in 2019, the loss of rural constituencies across North Wales and the North of England saw Labour slump to a historic defeat.
Post-election analysis suggested that Labour neglected its support in working-class Britain, including rural areas, to “expand its support among the liberal, metropolitan middle class”. It was these decisions made in the run-up to the 2019 election, and preceding elections, that led to the party’s worst result since 1935. An electoral strategy of trying to appeal almost exclusively to those in cities meant it ignored the rural electorate. The result has been a downward trajectory for the Labour Party over the past three elections.
Labour cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. Whilst it still holds its advantage in cities, there are not enough seats available in those areas to secure the additional MPs needed to form a government. It is only through the countryside, with the support of the rural electorate, that Labour can return to government. It is therefore essential that Labour starts to re-engage with these voters. We must focus on what matters to the electorate in the countryside, and not simply manipulate rural issues to appeal further to its urban base.
ORB International carried out polling in 2019 to find out what issues affect people’s voting intentions. The research unsurprisingly revealed that access to hospitals and healthcare, local transport and affordable housing are what really matter. Less than 1%, when asked, mentioned hunting as a priority. Yet the Labour Party has allowed this issue to dominate how it frames rural issues, and its relationship with the rural electorate and rural organisations.
Labour needs to pursue policies relevant to the countryside and work with stakeholders who represent rural interests. We cannot continue to ignore the countryside because to do so would mean continued electoral defeat. Labour must recognise where it has gone wrong with regard to the rural electorate and follow a new path that resets its relationship with them.
We hope that this piece of work both offers insights into the rural electorate and also starts a conversation within Labour that helps it re-engage with the countryside. Labour’s rejection by rural communities cannot continue to be the elephant in the countryside. No party can afford to ignore the rural vote if it is serious about forming a government.
The full Countryside Alliance report is available here.


labourlist--2020-09-11--The UK should lead the call for an independent inquiry into the Beirut port explosion

Following three days of frantic searching through the rumble at the port of Beirut , rescue teams finally gave up on finding survivors last weekend .
The people of Lebanon had hoped for a miracle , but the heart-wrenching realisation seemed to sum-up the tragedy that has engulfed Lebanon ’ s capital .
On August 4th , a devastating explosion ripped through the Lebanese capital .
More than a month after the largest non-nuclear blast in modern history , the extent of the destruction that has been caused remains difficult to comprehend .
The death of more than 200 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; three hospitals destroyed and a further three badly damaged ; buildings , homes and vital infrastructure destroyed in a radius of 15 miles of the port .
The tragedy could hardly have come at a worse time for Lebanon .
After years of appalling governance , with corruption rife at every level of government .
Civil service appointments determined by factional patronage ; decisions taken not in the national interest , but in the interest of a religious or political loyalty .
Governments may change , but rigid constitution facilitates mean the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game of musical chairs , with the same self-serving politicians trading governmental positions with one other .
With such a broken political system , it is little wonder that the outpouring of grief from the people of Beirut is mixed with a deep-rooted anger .
While the politicians and their hangers-on have used positions of authority to further their own ends , Lebanon ’ s economy and living standards in the country have progressively worsened in recent years .
Since the explosion at the port of Beirut last month , things have deteriorated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 % and over half of the country ’ s population find themselves living below the poverty line .
Add to this the crippling impact that the spread of Covid-19 has had on an already struggling healthcare system , and the scale of the challenge facing Lebanon becomes overwhelming .
Nowhere is the problem felt more acutely than amongst the large refugee populations , predominantly those from Palestine and Syria .
It is against this backdrop that the international community has been mobilising its relief effort .
The United Nations and France in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to provide aid .
The UK has so far provided what can fairly be described as modest aid , as well as technical and logistic support .
The UN , national governments and voluntary organisations are acutely aware of the difficult logistical problems of organising a major humanitarian effort given Lebanon ’ s inadequate infrastructure and through governmental structures can not frankly can not be trusted to act in the best interest of the people .
Save the Children has made clear that none of their resources go through “ official institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership with community and youth-led organisations .
Co-operation with governmental institutions is limited to building capacity and targeted initiatives to prevent violence against children .
The situation in Beirut undoubtedly demands significant and long-term support , but the international community must do more .
Given the scale and nature of the tragedy unfolding in Lebanon , there is no question that an independent international investigation is necessary to determine not only the cause of last month ’ s explosion , but also the steps necessary to avoid such a tragedy ever being allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that allowed thousands of tons of explosive materials to be stored in such a way and in such a populated location must be laid bare , but so too must the institutional and structural failures that permitted such negligence to take place .
The Lebanese government has proven themselves incapable of undertaking such an inquiry .
It must be conducted with the utmost transparency and demand genuine accountability – neither of which this administration can provide to the people of Lebanon .
The importance of such an inquiry – and the potential significance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant the engagement of the United Nations .
The UN Human Rights Council has the resources and expertise necessary to lead such an investigation , and should be empowered to effectively examine the circumstances that allowed this disaster to take place .
The human rights of the Lebanese people would rightly be at the heart of its determinations .
For the UNHRC to lead such an inquiry would require the agreement of several nations .
But first there is a requirement for at least one government to set forward such a proposal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry that offers the prospect of genuine accountability for the people of Lebanon .
As a leading voice at the United Nations , we believe it should be the UK government that shows leadership on the global stage and sets forward these proposals .
At a time of unimaginable grief , the people of Lebanon deserve nothing less .

Following three days of frantic searching through the rubble at the port of Beirut, rescue teams finally gave up on finding survivors last weekend. The people of Lebanon had hoped for a miracle, but the heart-wrenching realisation seemed to sum-up the tragedy that has engulfed Lebanon’s capital.
On August 4th, a devastating explosion ripped through the Lebanese capital. More than a month after the largest non-nuclear blast in modern history, the extent of the destruction that has been caused remains difficult to comprehend. The death of more than 200 people, with an estimated 7,000 left injured; three hospitals destroyed and a further three badly damaged; buildings, homes and vital infrastructure destroyed in a radius of 15 miles of the port.
The tragedy could hardly have come at a worse time for Lebanon. After years of appalling governance, with corruption rife at every level of government. Civil service appointments determined by factional patronage; decisions taken not in the national interest, but in the interest of a religious or political loyalty. Governments may change, but rigid constitution facilitates mean the same corrupt elites engaging in a perpetual game of musical chairs, with the same self-serving politicians trading governmental positions with one other. With such a broken political system, it is little wonder that the outpouring of grief from the people of Beirut is mixed with a deep-rooted anger.
While the politicians and their hangers-on have used positions of authority to further their own ends, Lebanon’s economy and living standards in the country have progressively worsened in recent years. Since the explosion at the port of Beirut last month, things have deteriorated further. Unemployment has surged past the 30% and over half of the country’s population find themselves living below the poverty line.
Add to this the crippling impact that the spread of Covid-19 has had on an already struggling healthcare system, and the scale of the challenge facing Lebanon becomes overwhelming. Nowhere is the problem felt more acutely than amongst the large refugee populations, predominantly those from Palestine and Syria.
It is against this backdrop that the international community has been mobilising its relief effort. The United Nations and France in particular have set ambitious goals in their efforts to provide aid. The UK has so far provided what can fairly be described as modest aid, as well as technical and logistic support.
The UN, national governments and voluntary organisations are acutely aware of the difficult logistical problems of organising a major humanitarian effort given Lebanon’s inadequate infrastructure and through governmental structures cannot frankly cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the people. Save the Children has made clear that none of their resources go through “official institutions”, with support delivered instead through partnership with community and youth-led organisations. Co-operation with governmental institutions is limited to building capacity and targeted initiatives to prevent violence against children.
The situation in Beirut undoubtedly demands significant and long-term support, but the international community must do more. Given the scale and nature of the tragedy unfolding in Lebanon, there is no question that an independent international investigation is necessary to determine not only the cause of last month’s explosion, but also the steps necessary to avoid such a tragedy ever being allowed to happen again. The systemic negligence that allowed thousands of tons of explosive materials to be stored in such a way and in such a populated location must be laid bare, but so too must the institutional and structural failures that permitted such negligence to take place.
The Lebanese government has proven themselves incapable of undertaking such an inquiry. It must be conducted with the utmost transparency and demand genuine accountability – neither of which this administration can provide to the people of Lebanon.
The importance of such an inquiry – and the potential significance of its eventual findings – must now warrant the engagement of the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Council has the resources and expertise necessary to lead such an investigation, and should be empowered to effectively examine the circumstances that allowed this disaster to take place. The human rights of the Lebanese people would rightly be at the heart of its determinations.
For the UNHRC to lead such an inquiry would require the agreement of several nations. But first there is a requirement for at least one government to set forward such a proposal, and unite the international community behind an inquiry that offers the prospect of genuine accountability for the people of Lebanon. As a leading voice at the United Nations, we believe it should be the UK government that shows leadership on the global stage and sets forward these proposals. At a time of unimaginable grief, the people of Lebanon deserve nothing less.


labourlist--2020-09-11--Brexit battles, furlough extensions and Richard Leonard faces no-confidence motion

We ’ re back to tricky amendments , legislative loopholes and possibly even parliamentary ping pong after the government dismayed its own Tory MPs and peers by confirming that it wants to break international law on Brexit .
Bob Neill , the Conservative who elicited that infamous response from Brandon Lewis earlier this week , has tabled an amendment to the internal markets bill that would establish a parliamentary lock on changes to the withdrawal agreement .
And he says its supporters are “ not natural rebels ” .
There is also trouble in the Lords , where Brexiteers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is this whole drama intended to serve as a distraction ahead of UK concessions ?
And will Labour back the rebels ?
Silence on that question so far .
But the Welsh Labour government isn ’ t happy , as Mick Antoniw has explained on LabourList .
The latest coronavirus measures aren ’ t going down well in the Conservative Party either – and I ’ m not just talking about the libertarians who insist on the right to meet in groups of more than six .
The Treasury committee , made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Chancellor to “ carefully consider ” targeted extensions to its furlough scheme .
This is what Labour has been calling for : a recognition that some sectors won ’ t be able to recover by October , even without the possibility of a second wave and lockdown , but don ’ t deserve to be cut off from support because they could be viable in the future or need more time to adapt .
The TUC and Unite are pushing hard for changes to the job retention scheme instead of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about avoiding deep scarring to the economy , not to mention his leadership ambitions , he ’ ll need to listen .
The battles in Scottish Labour are also coming to a crunch point tomorrow .
A motion has been submitted to the Scottish executive committee ( SEC ) : “ The SEC expresses that it has no confidence in the leader of the Scottish Labour Party.
” It has been signed by ten SEC members , the number required for the motion to be accepted .
There are some swing voters on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential for the result to be close , but this is a matter of building pressure rather than getting the no-confidence motion approved anyway as it would have no binding consequence without other rule changes .
And then there ’ s the matter of regional list selections .
More on this stuff from us later .
We ’ ve had some must-read comment pieces on LabourList this week , and we ’ ve published so much content that I ’ m worried you may have missed some of them .
On the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate and ecological emergency bill last week and Andy Newman opposing it this week .
On Brexit , Michael Chessum has argued that Keir Starmer is making the same mistakes as Jeremy Corbyn .
On Covid , Richard Burgon MP has explained why the government should adopt a ‘ zero Covid ’ strategy .
On the economy , John Lehal set out how Labour can shift the narrative from Tory incompetence to why Labour has the right plan to build back better .
And James Meadway suggested ways for Labour to develop a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Labour ’ s electoral strategy and internal affairs , Caitlin Prowle ’ s piece on the GMB report and misogyny in the labour movement is essential reading .
Our columnist Jake Richards has explored how Labour could become the party of law and order .
On Scottish Labour , David Martin – not someone on the party ’ s left – defended Richard Leonard .
Gurinder Singh Josan shared ideas for fixing Labour ’ s governance deficit .
Alice Perry delivered a report on the latest national executive committee ( NEC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued an urgent # SOS4jobs .
Ged Nichols invited you to TUC Congress , all taking place online next week .
And there is plenty more comment to come .
Donate to LabourList if you can , and have a great weekend .

We’re back to tricky amendments, legislative loopholes and possibly even parliamentary ping pong after the government dismayed its own Tory MPs and peers by confirming that it wants to break international law on Brexit. Bob Neill, the Conservative who elicited that infamous response from Brandon Lewis earlier this week, has tabled an amendment to the internal markets bill that would establish a parliamentary lock on changes to the withdrawal agreement. And he says its supporters are “not natural rebels”. There is also trouble in the Lords, where Brexiteers are unhappy with the government’s proposal. Is this whole drama intended to serve as a distraction ahead of UK concessions? And will Labour back the rebels? Silence on that question so far. But the Welsh Labour government isn’t happy, as Mick Antoniw has explained on LabourList.
The latest coronavirus measures aren’t going down well in the Conservative Party either – and I’m not just talking about the libertarians who insist on the right to meet in groups of more than six. The Treasury committee, made up mostly of Tory MPs, has told the Chancellor to “carefully consider” targeted extensions to its furlough scheme. This is what Labour has been calling for: a recognition that some sectors won’t be able to recover by October, even without the possibility of a second wave and lockdown, but don’t deserve to be cut off from support because they could be viable in the future or need more time to adapt. The TUC and Unite are pushing hard for changes to the job retention scheme instead of a cliff edge. If Rishi Sunak cares about avoiding deep scarring to the economy, not to mention his leadership ambitions, he’ll need to listen.
The battles in Scottish Labour are also coming to a crunch point tomorrow. A motion has been submitted to the Scottish executive committee (SEC): “The SEC expresses that it has no confidence in the leader of the Scottish Labour Party.” It has been signed by ten SEC members, the number required for the motion to be accepted. There are some swing voters on the SEC, and there is the potential for the result to be close, but this is a matter of building pressure rather than getting the no-confidence motion approved anyway as it would have no binding consequence without other rule changes. And then there’s the matter of regional list selections. More on this stuff from us later.
We’ve had some must-read comment pieces on LabourList this week, and we’ve published so much content that I’m worried you may have missed some of them. On the environment, we had Nadia Whittome backing the climate and ecological emergency bill last week and Andy Newman opposing it this week. On Brexit, Michael Chessum has argued that Keir Starmer is making the same mistakes as Jeremy Corbyn. On Covid, Richard Burgon MP has explained why the government should adopt a ‘zero Covid’ strategy. On the economy, John Lehal set out how Labour can shift the narrative from Tory incompetence to why Labour has the right plan to build back better. And James Meadway suggested ways for Labour to develop a distinctive narrative on business.
For more on Labour’s electoral strategy and internal affairs, Caitlin Prowle’s piece on the GMB report and misogyny in the labour movement is essential reading. Our columnist Jake Richards has explored how Labour could become the party of law and order. On Scottish Labour, David Martin – not someone on the party’s left – defended Richard Leonard. Gurinder Singh Josan shared ideas for fixing Labour’s governance deficit. Alice Perry delivered a report on the latest national executive committee (NEC) meeting. Unite’s Steve Turner issued an urgent #SOS4jobs. Ged Nichols invited you to TUC Congress, all taking place online next week. And there is plenty more comment to come.
Donate to LabourList if you can, and have a great weekend.


labourlist--2020-09-11--Labour can once more be the party of law and order

“ We need to come down hard on crime .
That means coming down hard on criminals.
” These were the characteristically bombastic words of Boris Johnson during the 2019 general election campaign .
Whilst Brexit and the NHS dominated the political agenda last winter , law and order was the third most important issue for the public – and its salience has been rising slowly but significantly in recent years .
The Conservatives , who watch opinion polls and the views of focus groups like hawks , were well aware of this fact , making a high-profile announcement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour should be rigorous in challenging Johnson on law and order .
They might talk tough on crime , but the Conservatives ’ record in government is appalling .
Even if they were able to deliver their police recruitment target , this would see numbers at the same levels as on the day David Cameron took office in 2010 .
The result of ten years of austerity was a total drop of 15 % in police figures .
Overall , police budgets fell by 20 % over the same period .
Each time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on crime , these stark facts should be put to them .
But beyond crude police numbers – the public face of the government ’ s crime strategy – there is a more hidden , crumbling criminal justice system .
It ’ s one thing catching criminals , but it ’ s quite another to then convict them .
As powerfully set out by the Secret Barrister , there was a backlog of over 35,000 cases waiting to be tried even before the pandemic , which led to the suspension of crown court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words of a senior judge , a result of a “ political decision ” to cut costs and close court buildings .
Priti Patel , at last year ’ s Conservative Party conference , said : “ To the criminals , I simply say this : we are coming after you.
” But too often , quite the opposite is happening .
Even when alleged criminals are caught , it can now take years for them to face their reckoning in court .
Further , the cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some criminals will be slipping through the net .
Recent statistics show that England and Wales registered the lowest charging rate since records began ( the figures related to the pre-pandemic period ) .
Simply put , this means more victims of crime and more communities ravaged by repeat offenders .
Alongside an approach that lambasts Conservative hypocrisy on police numbers and convictions , there must be a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation of offenders .
It remains shocking that reoffending rates for those who serve less than 12 months in prison is 64 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a short period under Theresa May , argued that short-term sentences must be reformed because all the evidence suggests the current sentencing framework simply led to more crime .
He was sacked and thrown out of the Conservative Party for his stance on Brexit , but some of his agenda was along the right lines .
A strategy that emboldens the police and criminal justice system , combined with proper investment in appropriate services to enable community-based punishment for certain offenders , is the best means of tackling crime ( quite apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crime ’ ) .
The public understand that any approach requires competence , as well as investment in services .
It is why Boris Johnson ’ s embarrassing shtick , implying Keir Starmer is an unprincipled lawyer simply looking for his next brief , will not work .
It takes quite something for the former journalist – once accused of conspiring to have a fellow journalist beaten up – to challenge a former Director of Public Prosecutions , who worked with the security services to foil terrorist plots , over which one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our communities safe .
Starmer ’ s professional background and capability will help Labour on this issue , but that is by no means enough .
In 2019 , too many voters felt Labour could not be trusted to keep the country safe – and Jeremy Corbyn ’ s own supporters appear to accept that his polling took an irreversible nose-dive after his response to the Russian attack in Salisbury .
To rebuild trust will require new advocates within the party on law and order , to reassure the public that Labour has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantive policies , on the issues of crime and national security .
In this respect , Labour can lean on its time in government .
Whilst certainly imperfect , between 1997 and 2010 the Labour government ensured considerable investment across the criminal justice system , and in the police , prisons and probation .
The UK spent a larger proportion of its GDP on law and order than ever before and was top of the OECD in this respect .
This was combined with ( often forgotten about ) reforms of vast swathes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing under the Tories .
Police numbers were at records levels , and there were more drug users entering treatment than ever before .
Although harking back to our time in government can not be the sole strategy , it is a record to be proud of in light of the current mess .
Labour must once more be the party of law and order .
As Boris Johnson ’ s government fights a culture war regarding the last night of the Proms , and Priti Patel sends navy warships in an attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour will offer a serious and substantive policy agenda to keep our streets safe .

“We need to come down hard on crime. That means coming down hard on criminals.” These were the characteristically bombastic words of Boris Johnson during the 2019 general election campaign. Whilst Brexit and the NHS dominated the political agenda last winter, law and order was the third most important issue for the public – and its salience has been rising slowly but significantly in recent years. The Conservatives, who watch opinion polls and the views of focus groups like hawks, were well aware of this fact, making a high-profile announcement to recruit a further 20,000 police officers.
Labour should be rigorous in challenging Johnson on law and order. They might talk tough on crime, but the Conservatives’ record in government is appalling. Even if they were able to deliver their police recruitment target, this would see numbers at the same levels as on the day David Cameron took office in 2010. The result of ten years of austerity was a total drop of 15% in police figures. Overall, police budgets fell by 20% over the same period. Each time a minister talks about stamping down on crime, these stark facts should be put to them.
But beyond crude police numbers – the public face of the government’s crime strategy – there is a more hidden, crumbling criminal justice system. It’s one thing catching criminals, but it’s quite another to then convict them. As powerfully set out by the Secret Barrister, there was a backlog of over 35,000 cases waiting to be tried even before the pandemic, which led to the suspension of crown court trials. This was, in the words of a senior judge, a result of a “political decision” to cut costs and close court buildings.
Priti Patel, at last year’s Conservative Party conference, said: “To the criminals, I simply say this: we are coming after you.” But too often, quite the opposite is happening. Even when alleged criminals are caught, it can now take years for them to face their reckoning in court. Further, the cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service of around 27% since 2010 mean that some criminals will be slipping through the net. Recent statistics show that England and Wales registered the lowest charging rate since records began (the figures related to the pre-pandemic period). Simply put, this means more victims of crime and more communities ravaged by repeat offenders.
Alongside an approach that lambasts Conservative hypocrisy on police numbers and convictions, there must be a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation of offenders. It remains shocking that reoffending rates for those who serve less than 12 months in prison is 64%. David Gauke, Justice Secretary for a short period under Theresa May, argued that short-term sentences must be reformed because all the evidence suggests the current sentencing framework simply led to more crime. He was sacked and thrown out of the Conservative Party for his stance on Brexit, but some of his agenda was along the right lines.
A strategy that emboldens the police and criminal justice system, combined with proper investment in appropriate services to enable community-based punishment for certain offenders, is the best means of tackling crime (quite apart from policies that confront the ‘causes of crime’).
The public understand that any approach requires competence, as well as investment in services. It is why Boris Johnson’s embarrassing shtick, implying Keir Starmer is an unprincipled lawyer simply looking for his next brief, will not work. It takes quite something for the former journalist – once accused of conspiring to have a fellow journalist beaten up – to challenge a former Director of Public Prosecutions, who worked with the security services to foil terrorist plots, over which one of them is most capable of keeping our communities safe.
Starmer’s professional background and capability will help Labour on this issue, but that is by no means enough. In 2019, too many voters felt Labour could not be trusted to keep the country safe – and Jeremy Corbyn’s own supporters appear to accept that his polling took an irreversible nose-dive after his response to the Russian attack in Salisbury. To rebuild trust will require new advocates within the party on law and order, to reassure the public that Labour has the right instincts, as well as substantive policies, on the issues of crime and national security.
In this respect, Labour can lean on its time in government. Whilst certainly imperfect, between 1997 and 2010 the Labour government ensured considerable investment across the criminal justice system, and in the police, prisons and probation. The UK spent a larger proportion of its GDP on law and order than ever before and was top of the OECD in this respect. This was combined with (often forgotten about) reforms of vast swathes of the criminal justice system that were failing under the Tories. Police numbers were at records levels, and there were more drug users entering treatment than ever before. Although harking back to our time in government cannot be the sole strategy, it is a record to be proud of in light of the current mess.
Labour must once more be the party of law and order. As Boris Johnson’s government fights a culture war regarding the last night of the Proms, and Priti Patel sends navy warships in an attempt to stop dinghies crossing the channel, Labour will offer a serious and substantive policy agenda to keep our streets safe.


labourlist--2020-09-11--New TUC survey casts doubt over Covid safety of UK workplaces

A new study from the TUC has revealed that many workplaces in the UK are still not following crucial coronavirus safety guidelines to protect workers – despite the government urging the public to return to offices .
The Prime Minister has advised everyone to return to their places of work to help the country “ get back on its feet ” , and Matt Hancock has claimed that the “ vast majority ” of workplaces are Covid secure .
But new research conducted by BritainThinks for the trade union federation last month suggests in fact that many UK workplaces have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic .
In the survey of over 2,100 workers , only 46 % said their places of work had introduced social distancing measures and just 38 % said their bosses had carried out the legally required coronavirus risk assessment .
Workers on low pay and in precarious jobs are most at risk of unsafe conditions , the TUC poll suggests , with 27 % of those earning less than £15,000 a year and 38 % of those in insecure work reporting zero action from employers to reduce the risk of transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grady said : “ Making sure workplaces are safe is key to preventing the spread of Covid-19 and getting our economy back on its feet .
If we don ’ t deal with the public health crisis , we won ’ t be able to deal with the economic one.
” “ Rather than trying to bully people back into offices , ministers should change the law to require all employers to publish their risk assessments and make sure workplaces are safe.
” “ And they should crack down on bad bosses who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we saw with Leicester , it only takes one bad boss playing fast and loose with workers ’ safety to shut down an entire city.
” Leicester was hit with a lockdown in July of this year , partly due to the unsafe conditions of the city ’ s clothing factories , some of which paid workers less than £3.50 an hour and had no measures in place to stop Covid transmission .
The study also showed that 32 % of workers were worried unsafe conditions would lead to them exposing other members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same number said they had already complained to their employer about the issue .
The news comes after the Health and Safety Executive ( HSE ) decided to outsource its coronavirus workplace inspection process to private firms , whose staff have neither the same training nor powers to punish bad employers as HSE inspectors .
Although the government has promised extra financial support for the UK ’ s health and safety regulator to help it keep workplaces Covid-free , a one-year cap on the funding has forced the HSE to open tendering to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision to use untrained inspectors , O ’ Grady added : “ Big outsourcing companies have failed the UK on test and trace – and now this government is going to give them more money to fail again , on workplace safety .
“ Funding for the HSE has been cut by over a third in the past decade .
The government should reverse those cuts and provide HSE with sustained funding so they can recruit and train proper workplace inspectors , inspect more workplaces , and prosecute bad bosses.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HSE investigation received a report of a “ workplace concern ” in a government office and found that it was failing to implement safety measures .
There have been two confirmed Covid-19 cases in the Leeds workplace .
Workers at the Department of Work and Pensions office were pictured gathering closely around a colleague ’ s desk , breaking the government ’ s social distancing guidelines , and a whistleblower said he was concerned for his health .
Labour has criticised Downing Street ’ s partial privatisation of the Covid test and trace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted it was only managing to reach 60 % of people who had been in contact with someone with coronavirus .
Serco and Sitel , the two private firms hired to help run the national test and trace system , are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme after their contracts were renewed by the government in August .

A new study from the TUC has revealed that many workplaces in the UK are still not following crucial coronavirus safety guidelines to protect workers – despite the government urging the public to return to offices.
The Prime Minister has advised everyone to return to their places of work to help the country “get back on its feet”, and Matt Hancock has claimed that the “vast majority” of workplaces are Covid secure.
But new research conducted by BritainThinks for the trade union federation last month suggests in fact that many UK workplaces have not been made safe by employers during the coronavirus pandemic.
In the survey of over 2,100 workers, only 46% said their places of work had introduced social distancing measures and just 38% said their bosses had carried out the legally required coronavirus risk assessment.
Workers on low pay and in precarious jobs are most at risk of unsafe conditions, the TUC poll suggests, with 27% of those earning less than £15,000 a year and 38% of those in insecure work reporting zero action from employers to reduce the risk of transmission.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Making sure workplaces are safe is key to preventing the spread of Covid-19 and getting our economy back on its feet. If we don’t deal with the public health crisis, we won’t be able to deal with the economic one.”
“Rather than trying to bully people back into offices, ministers should change the law to require all employers to publish their risk assessments and make sure workplaces are safe.”
“And they should crack down on bad bosses who risk their workers’ lives. As we saw with Leicester, it only takes one bad boss playing fast and loose with workers’ safety to shut down an entire city.”
Leicester was hit with a lockdown in July of this year, partly due to the unsafe conditions of the city’s clothing factories, some of which paid workers less than £3.50 an hour and had no measures in place to stop Covid transmission.
The study also showed that 32% of workers were worried unsafe conditions would lead to them exposing other members of their household to coronavirus. The same number said they had already complained to their employer about the issue.
The news comes after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) decided to outsource its coronavirus workplace inspection process to private firms, whose staff have neither the same training nor powers to punish bad employers as HSE inspectors.
Although the government has promised extra financial support for the UK’s health and safety regulator to help it keep workplaces Covid-free, a one-year cap on the funding has forced the HSE to open tendering to private contractors.
On the HSE’s decision to use untrained inspectors, O’Grady added: “Big outsourcing companies have failed the UK on test and trace – and now this government is going to give them more money to fail again, on workplace safety.
“Funding for the HSE has been cut by over a third in the past decade. The government should reverse those cuts and provide HSE with sustained funding so they can recruit and train proper workplace inspectors, inspect more workplaces, and prosecute bad bosses.”
The TUC’s criticism comes after a HSE investigation received a report of a “workplace concern” in a government office and found that it was failing to implement safety measures. There have been two confirmed Covid-19 cases in the Leeds workplace.
Workers at the Department of Work and Pensions office were pictured gathering closely around a colleague’s desk, breaking the government’s social distancing guidelines, and a whistleblower said he was concerned for his health.
Labour has criticised Downing Street’s partial privatisation of the Covid test and trace programme after one company, Serco, admitted it was only managing to reach 60% of people who had been in contact with someone with coronavirus.
Serco and Sitel, the two private firms hired to help run the national test and trace system, are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme after their contracts were renewed by the government in August.


labourlist--2020-09-11--Time is running out for the Prime Minister to get a worthwhile Brexit deal

I am used to alarming statements from the government , but I couldn ’ t believe it when I was sitting in the House of Commons on Tuesday and the Northern Ireland Minister said he knew that the internal market bill would break international law but was going ahead with it anyway .
I looked round to see if others had heard the same thing and confirmed – in shock and despair – that they had .
Other Conservative ministers have since lined up to cheer him on and the bill is set to be rushed through next week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be saying that this bill changes the deal they signed up to support before the election .
They would argue that they couldn ’ t back it and couldn ’ t betray voters in this way .
But in this reality , we ’ re going back out to the world asking to make new trade deals when we can ’ t even be trusted to stick to the agreements we ’ ve already made .
We are facing more businesses unable to trade in these conditions , as well as price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods .
Families and businesses can not afford to foot the bill for these costs in a post-Covid economic recovery .
The Prime Minister has said he wants a deal at least as good as the ones that other countries have negotiated with the EU .
I want far more .
Why become independent if you don ’ t aim to have better standards on workers ’ rights , the environment and food ?
Yet we ’ re running out of time to get any kind of deal by the end of October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to agree on the deal so it can be sent to the EU for approval .
The EU and Canada have taken almost 15 years to negotiate a deal that is still under ratification .
The Northern Ireland protocol has been repeatedly kicked into the long grass by successive Brexit ministers .
It seems there is no resolution and the issue is still claiming careers , with head of the UK government ’ s legal department resigning over it this week .
After the transition period , Northern Ireland will continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and align with the single market on goods .
This will mean no checks are needed on goods passing from Northern Ireland into Ireland .
But what is still not clear is what exactly will happen with goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland .
Unilateral decisions by Whitehall risk undermining painstakingly-built relationships with both Ireland and Northern Ireland based on the foundation of the Good Friday agreement .
State aid and fisheries quotas are still sticking points , even at this late stage of negotiations .
Reclaiming British waters is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the UK fishing industry has legitimately sold quotas to European fishing boats .
Leaving the EU with or without a deal does not change the legal ownership of these quotas – EU boats will still have the right to fish in UK waters with the same legitimacy they enjoyed before Brexit .
There are practical issues , too .
Over 200 million new customs declarations will need to be filled in and processed .
A huge waiting area for lorries will need to be built at Dover to stop trucks backing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even started yet .
The time for posturing is over .
Any deal , even a non-comprehensive Australian-style one , needs to be agreed , go through legal clearance and get translated , and that ’ s all before ratification .
Both sides will need significant amounts of time to get any deal properly ratified , with the UK needing at least 21 days in parliament .
The Prime Minister has already begun to cover his bases , soften the blow and speak of ‘ no negotiated outcome ’ or an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be fooled by the labels .
It ’ s a no-deal Brexit .
It will mean reverting to WTO trading terms with the EU .
This government ’ s signature omnishambles approach is already emerging from where it was lurking in the shadows .
Confusion and U-turns won ’ t be acceptable .
The next few weeks are the last chance to put in place a deal that protects jobs , workers ’ rights and the environment without resorting to more law-breaking .

I am used to alarming statements from the government, but I couldn’t believe it when I was sitting in the House of Commons on Tuesday and the Northern Ireland Minister said he knew that the internal market bill would break international law but was going ahead with it anyway. I looked round to see if others had heard the same thing and confirmed – in shock and despair – that they had. Other Conservative ministers have since lined up to cheer him on and the bill is set to be rushed through next week.
In an alternate reality, Conservative MPs would be saying that this bill changes the deal they signed up to support before the election. They would argue that they couldn’t back it and couldn’t betray voters in this way. But in this reality, we’re going back out to the world asking to make new trade deals when we can’t even be trusted to stick to the agreements we’ve already made.
We are facing more businesses unable to trade in these conditions, as well as price hikes on food, cars and other goods. Families and businesses cannot afford to foot the bill for these costs in a post-Covid economic recovery.
The Prime Minister has said he wants a deal at least as good as the ones that other countries have negotiated with the EU. I want far more. Why become independent if you don’t aim to have better standards on workers’ rights, the environment and food? Yet we’re running out of time to get any kind of deal by the end of October deadline. There are just five weeks left to agree on the deal so it can be sent to the EU for approval. The EU and Canada have taken almost 15 years to negotiate a deal that is still under ratification.
The Northern Ireland protocol has been repeatedly kicked into the long grass by successive Brexit ministers. It seems there is no resolution and the issue is still claiming careers, with head of the UK government’s legal department resigning over it this week.
After the transition period, Northern Ireland will continue to enforce the EU’s customs rules and align with the single market on goods. This will mean no checks are needed on goods passing from Northern Ireland into Ireland. But what is still not clear is what exactly will happen with goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Unilateral decisions by Whitehall risk undermining painstakingly-built relationships with both Ireland and Northern Ireland based on the foundation of the Good Friday agreement.
State aid and fisheries quotas are still sticking points, even at this late stage of negotiations. Reclaiming British waters is not a straightforward proposition. For many years, the UK fishing industry has legitimately sold quotas to European fishing boats. Leaving the EU with or without a deal does not change the legal ownership of these quotas – EU boats will still have the right to fish in UK waters with the same legitimacy they enjoyed before Brexit.
There are practical issues, too. Over 200 million new customs declarations will need to be filled in and processed. A huge waiting area for lorries will need to be built at Dover to stop trucks backing up the M20 – but the building hasn’t even started yet.
The time for posturing is over. Any deal, even a non-comprehensive Australian-style one, needs to be agreed, go through legal clearance and get translated, and that’s all before ratification. Both sides will need significant amounts of time to get any deal properly ratified, with the UK needing at least 21 days in parliament.
The Prime Minister has already begun to cover his bases, soften the blow and speak of ‘no negotiated outcome’ or an ‘Australian style deal’. Don’t be fooled by the labels. It’s a no-deal Brexit. It will mean reverting to WTO trading terms with the EU.
This government’s signature omnishambles approach is already emerging from where it was lurking in the shadows. Confusion and U-turns won’t be acceptable. The next few weeks are the last chance to put in place a deal that protects jobs, workers’ rights and the environment without resorting to more law-breaking.


labourlist--2020-09-11--The government’s botched response to Covid-19 risks undermining a future vaccine

Before Covid-19 , if you referenced ‘ herd immunity ’ , most people would have drawn a blank .
It wasn ’ t at the top of the agenda of your local branch meeting , or one of the motions firing up delegates at conference .
But the phrase is now infamously associated with the government ’ s early approach to the pandemic , which appeared to support allowing the disease to spread throughout the country in order to build up a natural resistance .
This early response , compounded by a litany of subsequent failures , exacerbated the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps explain why we now have one of the highest death rates per capita in the world .
Despite its new-found reputation , herd immunity is a sound scientific concept – and critical to the long-term path out of this crisis .
In fact , one reason for which it wasn ’ t very well-known before Covid-19 was its own quiet success .
Simply put , it is the idea that if immunity from an infectious disease is sufficiently widespread , usually somewhere between 60 % and 95 % of a population depending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a natural barrier to people who are not immune from catching the disease .
This is the idea behind successful vaccinations programmes , which have made dangerous diseases such as smallpox , tuberculosis , measles , mumps and rubella a problem of the past .
Similarly , it will underpin any vaccine for Covid-19 and provide us with the best chance of returning to normality .
By providing vaccinations to enough of the population to achieve herd immunity , we can relax social distancing , quarantines and lockdowns – even if not everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that if the phrase herd immunity has become so toxic and so closely associated with the botched early response of the government , there may be a backlash to rolling out a potential vaccine that references the concept .
We have seen this kind of communication challenge with vaccines before .
In recent years , support for vaccination programmes has declined .
This trend is largely thought to have started because of the publication of a paper in 1998 , which claimed that the combined measles , mumps and rubella ( MMR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although this paper has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked , it has provided fertile ground for conspiracies around vaccination .
Today , there is an ‘ anti-vax ’ movement , based primarily on social media and the internet , which spreads the misinformation that vaccination is dangerous for children .
Sadly , this appears to be having an impact : in the UK , only around 87 % of kids have had both MMR jabs by the time they are five years old .
This has opened the possibility that diseases we thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , recent research by King ’ s College London has indicated that only 53 % of British people would be certain or very likely to allow themselves to take a Covid-19 vaccine .
All of this means we need to be prepared for how to explain any Covid-19 vaccine to the general public and create popular understanding and support for its use .
The good news is that the general problem of the ‘ anti-vax ’ movement has been recognised .
In September 2019 , Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates , including proper funding.
” We need to be planning for a public health campaign to properly inform people about the need and benefit of vaccination .
This can ’ t just be politicians speaking to the media – we need a widespread and high-profile campaign across , social media , radio and TV .
We need to reach people where they are , with a clear , simple to understand message .
Nor should we necessarily wait for a vaccine to be complete .
This issue is pressing .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is urgent that we do not allow vaccination to be undermined any further .
To support any such public health campaign , we must also consider a social media ban on the spreading of misinformation about vaccines and Covid-19 .
Just as hate speech is irrational and corrosive to community cohesion , intended or reckless spreading of misinformation about vaccines is both unscientific and a threat to public health .
Social media companies have been slow to tackle misinformation – but they will have a critical role to play in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unjustly undermined .
Herd immunity has been given a terrible reputation by this government .
But when the real concept is a combination of science and solidarity , it shows that through collective action , we are even able to defeat disease .
When the ‘ anti-vax ’ conspiracists spread falsehood , they are not only risking the lives of innocent people , but also threatening our shared bonds and solidarity .
Over many months , despite government incompetence and indifference , we have acted together to bring down the incidence of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ticking time bomb , and we must be forcing the government to act now , before it is too late .

Before Covid-19, if you referenced ‘herd immunity’, most people would have drawn a blank. It wasn’t at the top of the agenda of your local branch meeting, or one of the motions firing up delegates at conference. But the phrase is now infamously associated with the government’s early approach to the pandemic, which appeared to support allowing the disease to spread throughout the country in order to build up a natural resistance. This early response, compounded by a litany of subsequent failures, exacerbated the UK’s experience of the disease and helps explain why we now have one of the highest death rates per capita in the world.
Despite its new-found reputation, herd immunity is a sound scientific concept – and critical to the long-term path out of this crisis. In fact, one reason for which it wasn’t very well-known before Covid-19 was its own quiet success. Simply put, it is the idea that if immunity from an infectious disease is sufficiently widespread, usually somewhere between 60% and 95% of a population depending on the infection, this acts as a natural barrier to people who are not immune from catching the disease. This is the idea behind successful vaccinations programmes, which have made dangerous diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps and rubella a problem of the past.
Similarly, it will underpin any vaccine for Covid-19 and provide us with the best chance of returning to normality. By providing vaccinations to enough of the population to achieve herd immunity, we can relax social distancing, quarantines and lockdowns – even if not everyone has had the vaccine. The risk is that if the phrase herd immunity has become so toxic and so closely associated with the botched early response of the government, there may be a backlash to rolling out a potential vaccine that references the concept.
We have seen this kind of communication challenge with vaccines before. In recent years, support for vaccination programmes has declined. This trend is largely thought to have started because of the publication of a paper in 1998, which claimed that the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism in children. Although this paper has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, it has provided fertile ground for conspiracies around vaccination. Today, there is an ‘anti-vax’ movement, based primarily on social media and the internet, which spreads the misinformation that vaccination is dangerous for children.
Sadly, this appears to be having an impact: in the UK, only around 87% of kids have had both MMR jabs by the time they are five years old. This has opened the possibility that diseases we thought were gone forever may return. Indeed, recent research by King’s College London has indicated that only 53% of British people would be certain or very likely to allow themselves to take a Covid-19 vaccine. All of this means we need to be prepared for how to explain any Covid-19 vaccine to the general public and create popular understanding and support for its use.
The good news is that the general problem of the ‘anti-vax’ movement has been recognised. In September 2019, Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “We need serious action on falling vaccination rates, including proper funding.”
We need to be planning for a public health campaign to properly inform people about the need and benefit of vaccination. This can’t just be politicians speaking to the media – we need a widespread and high-profile campaign across, social media, radio and TV. We need to reach people where they are, with a clear, simple to understand message. Nor should we necessarily wait for a vaccine to be complete. This issue is pressing. In the context of flourishing Covid-19 conspiracy theories, it is urgent that we do not allow vaccination to be undermined any further.
To support any such public health campaign, we must also consider a social media ban on the spreading of misinformation about vaccines and Covid-19. Just as hate speech is irrational and corrosive to community cohesion, intended or reckless spreading of misinformation about vaccines is both unscientific and a threat to public health. Social media companies have been slow to tackle misinformation – but they will have a critical role to play in ensuring that public confidence in a vaccine is not unjustly undermined.
Herd immunity has been given a terrible reputation by this government. But when the real concept is a combination of science and solidarity, it shows that through collective action, we are even able to defeat disease. When the ‘anti-vax’ conspiracists spread falsehood, they are not only risking the lives of innocent people, but also threatening our shared bonds and solidarity.
Over many months, despite government incompetence and indifference, we have acted together to bring down the incidence of this terrible disease. Misinformation about vaccines is a ticking time bomb, and we must be forcing the government to act now, before it is too late.


labourlist--2020-09-11--Why the UNISON general secretary election could shape Labour’s future

Just as one leadership election ends , another appears .
Now that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have finished choosing new leaders , it ’ s the turn of the UK ’ s ‘ big three ’ unions to elect new general secretaries .
For the vast majority of the country who aren ’ t invested in union politics , this may seem irrelevant .
But these elections will have consequences for Labour that could shape Keir Starmer ’ s tenure as leader , and none more so than the race at public service union UNISON .
UNISON and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hugely supportive of Keir Starmer , endorsing him in the Labour leadership election this year and voting in his favour on a national executive committee that the new leader doesn ’ t fully control .
Starmer has a narrow majority on Labour ’ s governing body and , given the unpredictability of the upcoming NEC elections , can not afford to lose any supportive reps. Support from a union translates into more than just kind words and internal votes .
Labour receives nearly £5m in a normal year from trade unions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During a general election , that figure skyrockets and makes up a large part of the party ’ s war chest .
Although fees from Labour ’ s large membership base have reduced the reliance on union funding , their donations are still a lifeline for the party and , without them , they could struggle to keep the lights on .
All but one of the candidates in the UNISON race have directly said they want to see a change in their financial relationship with Labour .
Roger McKenzie and Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general secretary position to push Labour policy further to the left .
Frontrunner Christina McAnea , understood to have the support of the current union leadership , has distanced herself from that position , but has talked about putting union concerns first in negotiations with Labour .
Whether any candidates would actually be able to reduce the party donation each year is not certain .
The financial connection to Labour is handled by a separate body called UNISON Labour Link , and its members all get to vote on proposed changes .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to defund Labour .
Even slight changes to the status quo could have a serious effect , however .
Former Labour general secretary David Triesman has described how in 2002 , just a few delays in payments from disaffected trade unions left the party so heavily in debt that it was unable to pay staffers ’ wages .
That funding problem is said to be one of the factors that forced the party under Tony Blair to have a much cosier relationship with corporate donors and supporters .
Any changes in approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long trade union leaders can be in the post .
UNISON ’ s current general secretary has served for 20 years .
Whoever succeeds Prentis – whether they represent continuity or change – will define Labour ’ s relationship with the union far into the future .

Just as one leadership election ends, another appears. Now that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have finished choosing new leaders, it’s the turn of the UK’s ‘big three’ unions to elect new general secretaries. For the vast majority of the country who aren’t invested in union politics, this may seem irrelevant. But these elections will have consequences for Labour that could shape Keir Starmer’s tenure as leader, and none more so than the race at public service union UNISON.
UNISON and its outgoing general secretary Dave Prentis have been hugely supportive of Keir Starmer, endorsing him in the Labour leadership election this year and voting in his favour on a national executive committee that the new leader doesn’t fully control. Starmer has a narrow majority on Labour’s governing body and, given the unpredictability of the upcoming NEC elections, cannot afford to lose any supportive reps.
Support from a union translates into more than just kind words and internal votes. Labour receives nearly £5m in a normal year from trade unions, and received £950,000 from UNISON alone in 2019. During a general election, that figure skyrockets and makes up a large part of the party’s war chest. Although fees from Labour’s large membership base have reduced the reliance on union funding, their donations are still a lifeline for the party and, without them, they could struggle to keep the lights on.
All but one of the candidates in the UNISON race have directly said they want to see a change in their financial relationship with Labour. Roger McKenzie and Paul Holmes have said they would use the general secretary position to push Labour policy further to the left. Frontrunner Christina McAnea, understood to have the support of the current union leadership, has distanced herself from that position, but has talked about putting union concerns first in negotiations with Labour.
Whether any candidates would actually be able to reduce the party donation each year is not certain. The financial connection to Labour is handled by a separate body called UNISON Labour Link, and its members all get to vote on proposed changes. They would be overwhelmingly likely to block any attempts to defund Labour.
Even slight changes to the status quo could have a serious effect, however. Former Labour general secretary David Triesman has described how in 2002, just a few delays in payments from disaffected trade unions left the party so heavily in debt that it was unable to pay staffers’ wages. That funding problem is said to be one of the factors that forced the party under Tony Blair to have a much cosier relationship with corporate donors and supporters.
Any changes in approach could have a lasting effect given how long trade union leaders can be in the post. UNISON’s current general secretary has served for 20 years. Whoever succeeds Prentis – whether they represent continuity or change – will define Labour’s relationship with the union far into the future.


labourlist--2020-09-11--New ‘R’ rate increase caused by Tory test and trace “fiasco”, says Labour

Labour has described the increase in UK coronavirus cases as “ deeply worrying ” rise and suggested that the rise is a result of the government creating a “ fiasco ” in testing and contact tracing across the country .
Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth slammed Tory “ incompetence ” after it was announced today that the reproduction ‘ R ’ rate had increased to at least 1.2 , which means the number of cases is rising .
A stark rise in Covid-19 infections this week has led to new local lockdowns in Birmingham and Bolton , and research from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK R rate could be as high as 1.7 .
Responding to the news , which has sparked fears of a fresh national lockdown being imposed in the coming months , Labour ’ s Jonathan Ashworth said : “ The increasing prevalence of Covid-19 is deeply worrying .
“ At the start of summer , we warned ministers that an effective test , trace and isolate regime was needed ahead of the autumn .
Rather than following our advice ministers have created a fiasco in testing and contact tracing .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public test , trace and isolate service is put in place to drive infections down and keep people safe .
The Conservatives ’ incompetence can not hold Britain back from defeating the virus.
” Official documents that were leaked this week revealed that the government is pinning its hopes on a ‘ Project Moonshot ’ .
It plans to run 10 million Covid tests a day by early next year , which could cost £100bn .
The Shadow Health Secretary has questioned the viability of the ‘ Moonshot ’ programme , saying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promises ” on Covid testing and will not want “ another failed project ” .
Labour has also criticised the government ’ s failures on test and trace after it was revealed that private firms brought in by the Conservatives were significantly worse at contact tracing than their publicly run alternatives .
Recent data showed just 60 % of people who had been exposed to someone with coronavirus were contacted by Serco , one of the outsourcing companies , compared to 80 % being reached by local public health teams .

Labour has described the increase in UK coronavirus cases as “deeply worrying” rise and suggested that the rise is a result of the government creating a “fiasco” in testing and contact tracing across the country.
Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth slammed Tory “incompetence” after it was announced today that the reproduction ‘R’ rate had increased to at least 1.2, which means the number of cases is rising.
A stark rise in Covid-19 infections this week has led to new local lockdowns in Birmingham and Bolton, and research from Imperial College London has suggested that the UK R rate could be as high as 1.7.
Responding to the news, which has sparked fears of a fresh national lockdown being imposed in the coming months, Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth said: “The increasing prevalence of Covid-19 is deeply worrying.
“At the start of summer, we warned ministers that an effective test, trace and isolate regime was needed ahead of the autumn. Rather than following our advice ministers have created a fiasco in testing and contact tracing.
“It’s now urgent that an effective locally-led public test, trace and isolate service is put in place to drive infections down and keep people safe. The Conservatives’ incompetence cannot hold Britain back from defeating the virus.”
Official documents that were leaked this week revealed that the government is pinning its hopes on a ‘Project Moonshot’. It plans to run 10 million Covid tests a day by early next year, which could cost £100bn.
The Shadow Health Secretary has questioned the viability of the ‘Moonshot’ programme, saying the country is “fed up of undelivered promises” on Covid testing and will not want “another failed project”.
Labour has also criticised the government’s failures on test and trace after it was revealed that private firms brought in by the Conservatives were significantly worse at contact tracing than their publicly run alternatives.
Recent data showed just 60% of people who had been exposed to someone with coronavirus were contacted by Serco, one of the outsourcing companies, compared to 80% being reached by local public health teams.


labourlist--2020-09-11--Richard Leonard faces a motion of no confidence. What are the consequences?

Richard Leonard faces a motion of no confidence in his leadership at a Scottish executive committee ( SEC ) meeting kicking off at 10.30am tomorrow .
The move comes after James Kelly MSP quit the Scottish Labour frontbench and several other MSPs publicly called on Leonard to resign , saying they have no confidence in his ability to lead the party into the May 2021 Holyrood elections .
The defiant leader has refused to go .
He has instead vowed to “ fulfil the mandate ” of members who elected him , described questioning his leadership now as an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deselections will be on the cards .
These criticisms are proof that these Labour MSPs are “ inward-looking ” and “ that calls into question whether some of these people are the best people to stand for the Labour Party next year ” , Leonard shot back .
But could this motion make a difference ?
The first important aspect of this story is that the SEC motion would not be binding if passed .
This is not a direct route to triggering a leadership election , but a way of piling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , the move seeks to smoke out Leonard ’ s quieter opponents , with the GMB and Usdaw reps on the SEC being identified as swing voters .
( One of the two Usdaw reps , Jackie Martin , has signed the motion but the other hasn ’ t . )
Leonard ’ s critics would see GMB joining their side as a big coup : the leader worked for 20 years as a GMB Scotland organiser .
Leonard allies say this is really about the regional list selection plans , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership from them – hence the Scottish leader ’ s talk of deselection .
Ahead of the May elections , candidates need to be chosen .
Ordinary members get to vote on candidates for their regional list , and the left reckon some of Leonard ’ s key MSP opponents won ’ t fare well .
This is compounded by a battle over the leadership-backed proposal for women automatically to top each one of those ‘ zipped ’ ( alternated by gender ) lists .
( This excludes leader and deputy leader , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theirs . )
Martin McCluskey ’ s LabourList article in June touched on this disagreement .
The proposal on regional list selections has developed since then .
LabourList ’ s understanding is that the leadership still wants women to top lists , but there will also be reserved places for other protected characteristics – and for key workers , too .
The key worker idea came about partly as a result of the dissent over the past couple of weeks , and to highlight the argument that people shouldn ’ t be trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a pandemic .
But there isn ’ t clarity so far on what constitutes a key worker .
One Leonard critic cheerfully suggested that MSPs could actually be classified as such .
Leonard ’ s opponents flatly deny that these leadership battles relate to candidate selections , and say they genuinely want a leadership challenge to take place .
The thinking is that if the SEC approves the no-confidence motion , or it falls narrowly , Leonard will give in to calls for his resignation – and if he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factions disagree on whether a mechanism for triggering a Scottish Labour leadership challenge actually exists as there is no provision for it in the Scottish rulebook .
Leonard ’ s critics say the default is the UK rulebook , which would mean a challenge could go ahead if backed by 20 % of parliamentarians , i.e .
five MSPs ( or four MSPs and Ian Murray ) .
But so far , no consensus on that point .
Until the Holyrood elections , Scottish Labour ’ s stalemate has the potential to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show of support for Leonard tomorrow , or there isn ’ t and he goes .
Neither looks very likely .

Richard Leonard faces a motion of no confidence in his leadership at a Scottish executive committee (SEC) meeting kicking off at 10.30am tomorrow. The move comes after James Kelly MSP quit the Scottish Labour frontbench and several other MSPs publicly called on Leonard to resign, saying they have no confidence in his ability to lead the party into the May 2021 Holyrood elections.
The defiant leader has refused to go. He has instead vowed to “fulfil the mandate” of members who elected him, described questioning his leadership now as an “act of sabotage” and made clear that deselections will be on the cards. These criticisms are proof that these Labour MSPs are “inward-looking” and “that calls into question whether some of these people are the best people to stand for the Labour Party next year”, Leonard shot back. But could this motion make a difference?
The first important aspect of this story is that the SEC motion would not be binding if passed. This is not a direct route to triggering a leadership election, but a way of piling on the pressure. As part of that, the move seeks to smoke out Leonard’s quieter opponents, with the GMB and Usdaw reps on the SEC being identified as swing voters. (One of the two Usdaw reps, Jackie Martin, has signed the motion but the other hasn’t.) Leonard’s critics would see GMB joining their side as a big coup: the leader worked for 20 years as a GMB Scotland organiser.
Leonard allies say this is really about the regional list selection plans, and creating chaos in order to distract the leadership from them – hence the Scottish leader’s talk of deselection. Ahead of the May elections, candidates need to be chosen. Ordinary members get to vote on candidates for their regional list, and the left reckon some of Leonard’s key MSP opponents won’t fare well. This is compounded by a battle over the leadership-backed proposal for women automatically to top each one of those ‘zipped’ (alternated by gender) lists. (This excludes leader and deputy leader, who are automatically at the top of theirs.) Martin McCluskey’s LabourList article in June touched on this disagreement.
The proposal on regional list selections has developed since then. LabourList’s understanding is that the leadership still wants women to top lists, but there will also be reserved places for other protected characteristics – and for key workers, too. The key worker idea came about partly as a result of the dissent over the past couple of weeks, and to highlight the argument that people shouldn’t be trying to topple the leader in the middle of a pandemic. But there isn’t clarity so far on what constitutes a key worker. One Leonard critic cheerfully suggested that MSPs could actually be classified as such.
Leonard’s opponents flatly deny that these leadership battles relate to candidate selections, and say they genuinely want a leadership challenge to take place. The thinking is that if the SEC approves the no-confidence motion, or it falls narrowly, Leonard will give in to calls for his resignation – and if he doesn’t, things will get messy. The factions disagree on whether a mechanism for triggering a Scottish Labour leadership challenge actually exists as there is no provision for it in the Scottish rulebook. Leonard’s critics say the default is the UK rulebook, which would mean a challenge could go ahead if backed by 20% of parliamentarians, i.e. five MSPs (or four MSPs and Ian Murray). But so far, no consensus on that point. Until the Holyrood elections, Scottish Labour’s stalemate has the potential to end only if there is a truly overwhelming show of support for Leonard tomorrow, or there isn’t and he goes. Neither looks very likely.