labourlist--2020-12-15--Keir Starmer demands urgent review of Christmas Covid rules

Keir Starmer has demanded that the Prime Minister urgently convene an emergency COBRA meeting to review the current plans to relax the coronavirus restrictions over the Christmas period .
In a letter sent to Boris Johnson this afternoon , the Labour leader wrote that it has “ become increasingly clear over recent days that the tier system you introduced two weeks ago has failed to control transmission of Covid-19 ” .
Starmer added : “ I understand that people want to spend time with their families after this awful year , but the situation has clearly taken a turn for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was taken .
“ It serves no-one for politicians to ignore this fact .
It is my view that you should now convene COBRA in the next 24 hours to review whether the current relaxation is appropriate given the rising number of cases.
” The Labour leader also told the Prime Minister that he would have the Labour Party ’ s full support “ if you conclude with government scientists that we need to take tougher action to keep people safe over Christmas ” .
The letter from Starmer follows growing disquiet over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the Christmas period .
Between December 23rd and 27th , people will be allowed to form a bubble of three households .
The Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal have today warned that people might see the easing “ as permission to drop their guard ” and described the bubbling arrangements as a “ rash decision ” that will “ cost many lives ” .
A further 20,263 coronavirus cases and a 232 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were recorded in the UK on Monday , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted it has “ no plans to review the Christmas guidelines ” .
London mayor Sadiq Khan urged Downing Street this morning to “ look at the rules ” for the festive period .
He told the government : “ I ’ m not sure you got it right , in fact I ’ m sure you haven ’ t got it right , in relaxations over Christmas.
” He added during his interview with Sky News : “ If they don ’ t change the rules , my message to your viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do all that ’ s allowed .
There ’ s no reason why you have to kiss or hug an older relation.
” Starmer had also voiced concerns over the Christmas rules earlier this week .
On Monday , he said : “ I ’ m increasingly worried about the lifting of restrictions over Christmas .
I ’ m not going to pretend it ’ s easy for the government , because it isn ’ t .
“ You could understand the human desire for families to get together , particularly after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to say , looking at the numbers , I am increasingly concerned about the lifting of restrictions .
“ To keep areas in tier three , and put London into tier three , and then at the same time release restrictions over the Christmas period , I think a lot of people will be saying , ‘ hang on , I ’ m not sure this quite works ’ .
“ At the moment what I ’ d say to people is , we all have a responsibility to do whatever we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means I think for most of us , staying at home if we possibly can for Christmas.
” Jonathan Ashworth emphasised on Monday the need to fix testing and tracing after Matt Hancock announced that a “ new variant ” of coronavirus has been identified in the UK and London would need to urgently enter Tier 3 .
The Health Secretary had used a parliamentary statement to the Commons to warn that a new variant is “ growing faster than the existing variants ” and “ may be associated with faster spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hancock told MPs that the capital , along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire , would be entering Tier 3 from Wednesday .
Review of the Covid measures and cases in the region will take place on December 23rd and weekly thereafter .
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the Prime Minister today .
It has become increasingly clear over recent days that the tier system you introduced two weeks ago has failed to control transmission of Covid-19 .
Sadly , it does now appear that the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infections , putting our economy and our NHS at grave risk in the new year .
This will be a source of great anxiety for people across the country , who have made so many sacrifices to keep families , loved ones and communities safe .
The fantastic work of scientists and others in developing a vaccine has been a tremendous achievement for our country and allowed us to all feel hopeful again .
But we have been brought back down to earth with a thud as the grim possibility of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I welcomed the fact that the government had sought a four-nation approach on the arrangements over the Christmas period .
I understand that people want to spend time with their families after this awful year , but the situation has clearly taken a turn for the worse since the decision about Christmas was taken .
It serves no-one for politicians to ignore this fact .
It is my view that you should now convene COBRA in the next 24 hours to review whether the current relaxation is appropriate given the rising number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists that we need to take tougher action to keep people safe over Christmas , then you will have my support .
Any further tightening of restrictions will obviously be deeply disappointing to many across the country .
Many will have already started planning for Christmas and would have held on to the prospect of a happy day with family and loved ones to get us through these tough months .
But the public do not want false reassurance , warm words or ducked challenges from their Prime Minister .
They want leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country .
The tiered system has not kept the virus under control and has left us with precious little headroom .
Put simply , if you take the wrong decision now , the ramifications for our NHS and our economy in the new year could be severe .
Our country has already seen one of the worst excess death rates in Europe and the worst recession of any major economy .
This was not inevitable , but a failure to take the tough decisions at the right time .
The government was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic and in September , when it was clear we needed a circuit break over half-term , you chose to ignore the scientific advice and delayed the inevitable until November .
I am urging you to not repeat that same mistake now .
Your priority should be a safe Christmas , which allows a healthy and prosperous new year .

Keir Starmer has demanded that the Prime Minister urgently convene an emergency COBRA meeting to review the current plans to relax the coronavirus restrictions over the Christmas period.
In a letter sent to Boris Johnson this afternoon, the Labour leader wrote that it has “become increasingly clear over recent days that the tier system you introduced two weeks ago has failed to control transmission of Covid-19”.
Starmer added: “I understand that people want to spend time with their families after this awful year, but the situation has clearly taken a turn for the worse since the decision about Christmas was taken.
“It serves no-one for politicians to ignore this fact. It is my view that you should now convene COBRA in the next 24 hours to review whether the current relaxation is appropriate given the rising number of cases.”
The Labour leader also told the Prime Minister that he would have the Labour Party’s full support “if you conclude with government scientists that we need to take tougher action to keep people safe over Christmas”.
The letter from Starmer follows growing disquiet over government plans to allow increased household mixing over the Christmas period. Between December 23rd and 27th, people will be allowed to form a bubble of three households.
The Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal have today warned that people might see the easing “as permission to drop their guard” and described the bubbling arrangements as a “rash decision” that will “cost many lives”.
A further 20,263 coronavirus cases and a 232 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were recorded in the UK on Monday, according to government figures. But Downing Street has insisted it has “no plans to review the Christmas guidelines”.
London mayor Sadiq Khan urged Downing Street this morning to “look at the rules” for the festive period. He told the government: “I’m not sure you got it right, in fact I’m sure you haven’t got it right, in relaxations over Christmas.”
He added during his interview with Sky News: “If they don’t change the rules, my message to your viewers is we’re under no obligation to do all that’s allowed. There’s no reason why you have to kiss or hug an older relation.”
Starmer had also voiced concerns over the Christmas rules earlier this week. On Monday, he said: “I’m increasingly worried about the lifting of restrictions over Christmas. I’m not going to pretend it’s easy for the government, because it isn’t.
“You could understand the human desire for families to get together, particularly after a year like this. But I have to say, looking at the numbers, I am increasingly concerned about the lifting of restrictions.
“To keep areas in tier three, and put London into tier three, and then at the same time release restrictions over the Christmas period, I think a lot of people will be saying, ‘hang on, I’m not sure this quite works’.
“At the moment what I’d say to people is, we all have a responsibility to do whatever we can to keep the infection down. That means I think for most of us, staying at home if we possibly can for Christmas.”
Jonathan Ashworth emphasised on Monday the need to fix testing and tracing after Matt Hancock announced that a “new variant” of coronavirus has been identified in the UK and London would need to urgently enter Tier 3.
The Health Secretary had used a parliamentary statement to the Commons to warn that a new variant is “growing faster than the existing variants” and “may be associated with faster spread in the South East of England”.
Hancock told MPs that the capital, along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire, would be entering Tier 3 from Wednesday. Review of the Covid measures and cases in the region will take place on December 23rd and weekly thereafter.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the Prime Minister today.
Dear Prime Minister,
Urgent review of the Covid Christmas restrictions
It has become increasingly clear over recent days that the tier system you introduced two weeks ago has failed to control transmission of Covid-19. Sadly, it does now appear that the government has – once again – lost control of infections, putting our economy and our NHS at grave risk in the new year.
This will be a source of great anxiety for people across the country, who have made so many sacrifices to keep families, loved ones and communities safe. The fantastic work of scientists and others in developing a vaccine has been a tremendous achievement for our country and allowed us to all feel hopeful again. But we have been brought back down to earth with a thud as the grim possibility of an increasingly bleak winter comes into view.
I welcomed the fact that the government had sought a four-nation approach on the arrangements over the Christmas period. I understand that people want to spend time with their families after this awful year, but the situation has clearly taken a turn for the worse since the decision about Christmas was taken. It serves no-one for politicians to ignore this fact.
It is my view that you should now convene COBRA in the next 24 hours to review whether the current relaxation is appropriate given the rising number of cases. If you conclude with government scientists that we need to take tougher action to keep people safe over Christmas, then you will have my support.
Any further tightening of restrictions will obviously be deeply disappointing to many across the country. Many will have already started planning for Christmas and would have held on to the prospect of a happy day with family and loved ones to get us through these tough months. But the public do not want false reassurance, warm words or ducked challenges from their Prime Minister. They want leadership.
This is a critical moment for our country. The tiered system has not kept the virus under control and has left us with precious little headroom. Put simply, if you take the wrong decision now, the ramifications for our NHS and our economy in the new year could be severe.
Our country has already seen one of the worst excess death rates in Europe and the worst recession of any major economy. This was not inevitable, but a failure to take the tough decisions at the right time. The government was too slow at the start of the pandemic and in September, when it was clear we needed a circuit break over half-term, you chose to ignore the scientific advice and delayed the inevitable until November.
I am urging you to not repeat that same mistake now. Your priority should be a safe Christmas, which allows a healthy and prosperous new year.
Yours sincerely
Keir Starmer
Leader of the Labour Party


labourlist--2020-12-15--What would settle the Scottish debate over our constitutional settlement?

For a referendum that was supposed to resolve long running divisions over independence , the polarising effects of the 2014 campaign define Scottish politics to this day .
If there is a further referendum in the coming years , and whatever the outcome of that vote , there is no guarantee that this issue will stop being the fault line in Scottish politics dominating political dialogue .
Recent calls for a “ third question ” in any future independence referendum , along with the status quo and independence , beg the question of whether such an outcome would resolve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposal were radical enough .
Is there a version of devolution max , federalism , con-federalism or home rule that would be acceptable to most people on each side of this debate ?
A model with the benefits of pan-UK democratic and economic structures , with power firmly resting in Scotland on all issues that affect Scotland .
Such a proposal could be put to a referendum or could simply be implemented .
Any settlement would have to recognise that the Scottish people are entitled to self-determination , and that consent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decision-making with Scotland having rights as a minority nation .
It would have to be a relationship of partners rather than a dominance by the nation with the largest population .
And that means Scotland would withhold consent in certain circumstances .
Of course , there are disadvantages as well as advantages to any set of proposals , and there would be “ postcode ” service provision and varying standards in different parts of the UK .
But the status quo is not working .
Whatever happens , we will remain living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation is in everyone ’ s interests .
The 2014 independence proposals kept the pound , the Bank of England and many other aspects of current arrangements .
Even if Scotland went independent , it is likely that a new set of structures would be created to facilitate cross-border working .
Would most people support the following : • Transparency in funding transfers between nations and regions .
• The pound as the currency with an agreed remit for a renamed Bank of England .
• Substantial borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holyrood , and with the ability to invest to protect and develop industry and sectors .
• Reserved areas to be agreed between the four nations , i.e .
pensions , customs , etc .
• Qualified majority voting by nations on reserved matters with specific consents required where stipulated , i.e .
war .
• Representation of nations and regions in a reformed second chamber .
Could such a constitutional settlement have prevented Iraq , austerity and privatisation ?
Well , potentially yes .
For example , there could be a requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Scottish Parliament where war is being proposed .
Similarly , there could be a requirement for Trident to be agreed by Holyrood as well as Westminster .
Would a framework along these lines “ settle ” the issue for the foreseeable future , or is the constitutional issue going to continue to dominate and divide Scottish politics for all our lifetimes , whether Scotland remains part of the UK or becomes independent ?

For a referendum that was supposed to resolve long running divisions over independence, the polarising effects of the 2014 campaign define Scottish politics to this day. If there is a further referendum in the coming years, and whatever the outcome of that vote, there is no guarantee that this issue will stop being the fault line in Scottish politics dominating political dialogue.
Recent calls for a “third question” in any future independence referendum, along with the status quo and independence, beg the question of whether such an outcome would resolve the issue. Perhaps it could – if the proposal were radical enough.
Is there a version of devolution max, federalism, con-federalism or home rule that would be acceptable to most people on each side of this debate? A model with the benefits of pan-UK democratic and economic structures, with power firmly resting in Scotland on all issues that affect Scotland. Such a proposal could be put to a referendum or could simply be implemented.
Any settlement would have to recognise that the Scottish people are entitled to self-determination, and that consent is needed from the Scottish peoples’ representatives in decision-making with Scotland having rights as a minority nation. It would have to be a relationship of partners rather than a dominance by the nation with the largest population. And that means Scotland would withhold consent in certain circumstances.
Of course, there are disadvantages as well as advantages to any set of proposals, and there would be “postcode” service provision and varying standards in different parts of the UK. But the status quo is not working. Whatever happens, we will remain living on a relatively small interdependent island where cooperation is in everyone’s interests.
The 2014 independence proposals kept the pound, the Bank of England and many other aspects of current arrangements. Even if Scotland went independent, it is likely that a new set of structures would be created to facilitate cross-border working. Would most people support the following:
Full tax raising powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Westminster raising taxes for reserved matters.
Transparency in funding transfers between nations and regions.
The pound as the currency with an agreed remit for a renamed Bank of England.
Substantial borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament within a framework set between Westminster and Holyrood, and with the ability to invest to protect and develop industry and sectors.
Reserved areas to be agreed between the four nations, i.e. pensions, customs, etc.
Qualified majority voting by nations on reserved matters with specific consents required where stipulated, i.e. war.
Representation of nations and regions in a reformed second chamber.
Could such a constitutional settlement have prevented Iraq, austerity and privatisation? Well, potentially yes. For example, there could be a requirement for an affirmative vote for military action in the Scottish Parliament where war is being proposed. Similarly, there could be a requirement for Trident to be agreed by Holyrood as well as Westminster.
Would a framework along these lines “settle” the issue for the foreseeable future, or is the constitutional issue going to continue to dominate and divide Scottish politics for all our lifetimes, whether Scotland remains part of the UK or becomes independent?


labourlist--2020-12-15--School closures row escalates as anxieties mount over Christmas bubbles

Bumping up London , along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire , to Tier 3 could not wait until the review originally scheduled for Wednesday .
Matt Hancock has announced that the capital will face the toughest restrictions from tomorrow , and that the increase in cases could be linked to a new variant of Covid-19 .
( There is no evidence yet that this is cause for worry . )
Labour in response continued to bang the drum for fixing the test and trace system by scrapping Serco .
But perhaps the most pertinent point Jonathan Ashworth made was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tier 2 would not be enough to contain the spread – and in some areas , like Kent , Tier 3 is not enough either .
It ’ s not looking good for Boris Johnson ’ s tier system .
But in Wales , too , Mark Drakeford has suggested another lockdown could be due after Christmas .
The row over school closures has escalated , with Sadiq Khan and some Labour local authorities on the one side , and the government and the Labour leadership on the other .
There has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 19-year-olds , which prompted the mayor to call for schools to be closed early and for longer , but the government has decided to take legal action to force them to stay open .
As London councils chair Georgia Gould said , councils like Greenwich are doing their best and acting on public health advice .
Labour frontbencher Rachel Reeves was clear when she declared yesterday that “ schools should be the last thing to close ” .
The party does not want to be accused of taking a relaxed attitude to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to have taken a position on Christmas , however , and the situation is becoming increasingly anxious .
On the record , No 10 has rejected suggestions that it will review the planned relaxation of rules .
After all , the plans got buy-in from all four nations and Keir Starmer has not questioned the idea of making an exception for Christmas .
If people are intent on seeing each other at the end of a really tough year , wouldn ’ t it be better not to start a rule-breaking pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new year more likely ?
That was the logic .
But clearly everyone is worried , with ministers now emphasising the importance of ‘ personal responsibility ’ .
Other countries , such as Germany , are making very different decisions .
Andy Burnham and I covered all of these issues and more in our live event last night .
The Greater Manchester mayor believed schools “ should have been included ” in the national lockdown and makes the point that there is lots of disruption anyway as pupils are repeatedly being sent home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing right now , I would pretty much have the country in Tier Two , ” he told me , rejecting the five-day Christmas bubbles as “ far too risky ” .
Burnham also set out big plans for Labour on devolution in England , believing it to be absolutely key for the party , said he was “ not plotting any return to Westminster ” but not ruling it out one day in the future either , and had some big ideas for reform in parliament .
Catch up with my write-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .
Don ’ t forget to sign up to our event with The UK in a Changing Europe at noon .
We will be discussing Labour a year after the election with Sir John Curtice , Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP , Lucy Powell MP and Anand Menon .
Join live and you ’ ll be able to put questions to the panel .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Bumping up London, along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire, to Tier 3 could not wait until the review originally scheduled for Wednesday. Matt Hancock has announced that the capital will face the toughest restrictions from tomorrow, and that the increase in cases could be linked to a new variant of Covid-19. (There is no evidence yet that this is cause for worry.) Labour in response continued to bang the drum for fixing the test and trace system by scrapping Serco. But perhaps the most pertinent point Jonathan Ashworth made was that the government was “warned” Tier 2 would not be enough to contain the spread – and in some areas, like Kent, Tier 3 is not enough either. It’s not looking good for Boris Johnson’s tier system. But in Wales, too, Mark Drakeford has suggested another lockdown could be due after Christmas.
The row over school closures has escalated, with Sadiq Khan and some Labour local authorities on the one side, and the government and the Labour leadership on the other. There has been a huge increase in cases among 11- to 19-year-olds, which prompted the mayor to call for schools to be closed early and for longer, but the government has decided to take legal action to force them to stay open. As London councils chair Georgia Gould said, councils like Greenwich are doing their best and acting on public health advice. Labour frontbencher Rachel Reeves was clear when she declared yesterday that “schools should be the last thing to close”. The party does not want to be accused of taking a relaxed attitude to closures.
The leadership does not yet appear to have taken a position on Christmas, however, and the situation is becoming increasingly anxious. On the record, No 10 has rejected suggestions that it will review the planned relaxation of rules. After all, the plans got buy-in from all four nations and Keir Starmer has not questioned the idea of making an exception for Christmas. If people are intent on seeing each other at the end of a really tough year, wouldn’t it be better not to start a rule-breaking pattern of behaviour, making breaches in the new year more likely? That was the logic. But clearly everyone is worried, with ministers now emphasising the importance of ‘personal responsibility’. Other countries, such as Germany, are making very different decisions.
Andy Burnham and I covered all of these issues and more in our live event last night. The Greater Manchester mayor believed schools “should have been included” in the national lockdown and makes the point that there is lots of disruption anyway as pupils are repeatedly being sent home. “If I was running this thing right now, I would pretty much have the country in Tier Two,” he told me, rejecting the five-day Christmas bubbles as “far too risky”. Burnham also set out big plans for Labour on devolution in England, believing it to be absolutely key for the party, said he was “not plotting any return to Westminster” but not ruling it out one day in the future either, and had some big ideas for reform in parliament. Catch up with my write-up and the video here to watch it back.
Don’t forget to sign up to our event with The UK in a Changing Europe at noon. We will be discussing Labour a year after the election with Sir John Curtice, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Lucy Powell MP and Anand Menon. Join live and you’ll be able to put questions to the panel. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-12-15--Workers should be helped to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow. Here’s how

At Community , we are proud of our history .
When our industries changed over the last century , we stayed for our members , supporting them to reskill , retrain and find new work .
Today we represent our members in new jobs and industries across the UK .
A new kind of change is here .
It ’ s change on a scale that will affect every one of us , and it ’ s already taking hold .
Automation is already taking on routine , repetitive and manual jobs .
Artificial intelligence is allowing technology to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes are going to fundamentally change the jobs and lives of tomorrow .
But with 80 % of the 2030 workforce already working now , it is the workers of today who will need to come to terms with this challenge .
That ’ s why we , with the Fabian Society , set up the Commission on Workers and Technology to investigate the workers ’ view of technology change .
Helping workers prepare for the future is part of the fabric of our union .
We need a strategy to realise a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can work in fulfilling and well-paid jobs , and where change is planned and managed with workers at its heart , not as an afterthought .
Our new report sets out a compelling vision for how we can start to build that future .
The jobs that exist today will evolve as automation comes into effect and will require workers to have different skillsets in order to adapt .
Getting this right will improve productivity , job quality and pay .
Getting it wrong could be devastating to our towns , cities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers through these changes , as we always have .
Where industries change , we will be there with our members to help them transition into new kinds of jobs .
Trade unions , like Community , can play a vital role in working with individuals , governments and employers to deliver training and up-skilling .
But more needs to be done to help us all to transition into the jobs of tomorrow .
The Commission on Workers and Technology , chaired by the Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP , has spent two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , visiting workplaces and speaking to hundreds of workers across the UK .
Our research culminates in this report , which sets out recommendations for the steps that the government must urgently take to respond to this challenge .
The report we ’ ve released today has four sections .
The first talks about the importance of giving a worker voice in decision-making – that means in workplaces , as well as in the government bodies that create our industrial strategy on a local , sectoral and national level .
Governments haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board workers ’ voices and consult with them as change has happened .
We need to be listening to workers in all parts of this country , understanding how they feel about their jobs , skills and futures and creating the spaces for them to come into to shape the direction of our industrial strategy .
The second part of the report explains how we can give workers a fair share in the rewards of technology change .
We know that as tasks are automated there is the potential for increased productivity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve recommended that pay growth guidelines are developed for workforces , and that unions negotiate a fair share for workers in new technology agreements .
A fair share also means fairly sharing the rewards of automation across the country .
We need to act locally – it ’ s critically important that those parts of this country that feel “ left behind ” have the investment and long-term thinking that is needed to allow them to develop to their full potential .
We believe that the use of devolved powers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
To that end , the report recommends decentralisation , including to mayoral combined authorities , and new local social partnerships .
The third part of the paper talks about how we can give people a better experience of work .
We recommend the creation of good works standards to monitor workplaces against .
We want those who work in the least protected sectors – gig work and platform work – to be able to have the protection of trade unions .
The protection of trade unions and the power of collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good jobs .
Finally , we know that we can not achieve a better future without education to give our workers the skills to take on these new roles , so the fourth part of the report recommends a package of reforms to widen access to education for adults .
We want to see the apprenticeship levy reformed to support wider forms of training , and to ask employers to monitor the skills of their workforces , creating plans for reskilling and redeploying existing workers .
We call for local industrial strategies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , which set out how the right skills training can be delivered to local people .
To that end , we ’ re also proposing that the current network of job centres is reformed so that they can offer skills training to those currently in work .
We recommend further funding for the adult education budget and devolving the power to deliver the £3bn already pledged to fund national skills .
We need an industrial strategy that puts people at its heart , leading to a future where everyone across our great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , and where change is planned and managed with everyone ’ s interests considered .
Today ’ s report sets out a compelling vision for the ways that we can start to build that future .
The Commission on Workers and Technology is a joint project run by Community and the Fabian Society .
You can find out more here .

At Community, we are proud of our history. When our industries changed over the last century, we stayed for our members, supporting them to reskill, retrain and find new work. Today we represent our members in new jobs and industries across the UK.
A new kind of change is here. It’s change on a scale that will affect every one of us, and it’s already taking hold. Automation is already taking on routine, repetitive and manual jobs. Artificial intelligence is allowing technology to make decisions and complete complex tasks. These changes are going to fundamentally change the jobs and lives of tomorrow.
But with 80% of the 2030 workforce already working now, it is the workers of today who will need to come to terms with this challenge. That’s why we, with the Fabian Society, set up the Commission on Workers and Technology to investigate the workers’ view of technology change. Helping workers prepare for the future is part of the fabric of our union.
We need a strategy to realise a future where everyone across our great country can work in fulfilling and well-paid jobs, and where change is planned and managed with workers at its heart, not as an afterthought. Our new report sets out a compelling vision for how we can start to build that future.
The jobs that exist today will evolve as automation comes into effect and will require workers to have different skillsets in order to adapt. Getting this right will improve productivity, job quality and pay. Getting it wrong could be devastating to our towns, cities, workplaces and communities.
We will support workers through these changes, as we always have. Where industries change, we will be there with our members to help them transition into new kinds of jobs. Trade unions, like Community, can play a vital role in working with individuals, governments and employers to deliver training and up-skilling. But more needs to be done to help us all to transition into the jobs of tomorrow.
The Commission on Workers and Technology, chaired by the Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP, has spent two years researching the impact of technology on workers, visiting workplaces and speaking to hundreds of workers across the UK. Our research culminates in this report, which sets out recommendations for the steps that the government must urgently take to respond to this challenge.
The report we’ve released today has four sections. The first talks about the importance of giving a worker voice in decision-making – that means in workplaces, as well as in the government bodies that create our industrial strategy on a local, sectoral and national level. Governments haven’t done enough to take on board workers’ voices and consult with them as change has happened. We need to be listening to workers in all parts of this country, understanding how they feel about their jobs, skills and futures and creating the spaces for them to come into to shape the direction of our industrial strategy.
The second part of the report explains how we can give workers a fair share in the rewards of technology change. We know that as tasks are automated there is the potential for increased productivity and profits- these gains must be shared. We’ve recommended that pay growth guidelines are developed for workforces, and that unions negotiate a fair share for workers in new technology agreements.
A fair share also means fairly sharing the rewards of automation across the country. We need to act locally – it’s critically important that those parts of this country that feel “left behind” have the investment and long-term thinking that is needed to allow them to develop to their full potential. We believe that the use of devolved powers can help to share the rewards across our country. To that end, the report recommends decentralisation, including to mayoral combined authorities, and new local social partnerships.
The third part of the paper talks about how we can give people a better experience of work. We recommend the creation of good works standards to monitor workplaces against. We want those who work in the least protected sectors – gig work and platform work – to be able to have the protection of trade unions. The protection of trade unions and the power of collective bargaining is crucial to creating and maintaining good jobs.
Finally, we know that we cannot achieve a better future without education to give our workers the skills to take on these new roles, so the fourth part of the report recommends a package of reforms to widen access to education for adults. We want to see the apprenticeship levy reformed to support wider forms of training, and to ask employers to monitor the skills of their workforces, creating plans for reskilling and redeploying existing workers.
We call for local industrial strategies, developed by businesses, trade unions and government, which set out how the right skills training can be delivered to local people. To that end, we’re also proposing that the current network of job centres is reformed so that they can offer skills training to those currently in work. We recommend further funding for the adult education budget and devolving the power to deliver the £3bn already pledged to fund national skills.
We need an industrial strategy that puts people at its heart, leading to a future where everyone across our great country can work in fulfilling and well-paid jobs, and where change is planned and managed with everyone’s interests considered. Today’s report sets out a compelling vision for the ways that we can start to build that future.
The Commission on Workers and Technology is a joint project run by Community and the Fabian Society. You can find out more here.


labourlist--2020-12-15--New report shows early years sector on “brink of collapse”, warns Labour

Labour ’ s Tulip Siddiq has warned that new figures released by the education standards authority Ofsted shows provides “ further worrying evidence that the early years sector is on the brink of collapse ” .
Responding to research on early years providers published by the regulator today , which showed that a third fear closure due in part to the financial impact of Covid , the shadow early years minister urged the government to rethink planned cuts .
Commenting this afternoon , Siddiq said that the potential collapse of providers in the early years sector is “ putting at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rely on childcare and the life chances of many young children ” .
She added : “ The government must heed Labour ’ s calls for targeted support for nurseries , childminders and pre-schools and urgently rethink plans to slash their funding from January.
” The government has continued to fund local authorities for the childcare places they usually provide throughout a term , rather than allocating funding based on how many children attend , in a bid to help secure their income .
But in response to a written parliamentary question from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford explained that local authorities ’ funding to childcare providers would return to ‘ funding following the child ’ from January 1st .
The report released by Ofsted this afternoon revealed that most childcare providers continue to operate with fewer children on the roll and with lower demand for places compared with the same time last year due to the pandemic .
Providers in the most deprived areas and those in London and the West Midlands were more likely to report that they had far fewer children in attendance , and many struggled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or self-isolation .
Research produced by the Early Years Alliance last month found that one in four nurseries and childminders could cease operating within the first six months when the government cuts its funding to the sector from January next year .
Labour called on the government to focus financial support on the struggling childcare sector in July this year to “ prevent a wave of nursery closures ” in the pandemic , emphasising the associated impacts on parents ’ ability to work .
The shadow minister for children and early years told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass shutting down of childcare settings would result in a “ setting back ” in the country ’ s economic recovery from coronavirus .

Labour’s Tulip Siddiq has warned that new figures released by the education standards authority Ofsted shows provides “further worrying evidence that the early years sector is on the brink of collapse”.
Responding to research on early years providers published by the regulator today, which showed that a third fear closure due in part to the financial impact of Covid, the shadow early years minister urged the government to rethink planned cuts.
Commenting this afternoon, Siddiq said that the potential collapse of providers in the early years sector is “putting at risk the jobs of working parents who rely on childcare and the life chances of many young children”.
She added: “The government must heed Labour’s calls for targeted support for nurseries, childminders and pre-schools and urgently rethink plans to slash their funding from January.”
The government has continued to fund local authorities for the childcare places they usually provide throughout a term, rather than allocating funding based on how many children attend, in a bid to help secure their income.
But in response to a written parliamentary question from Siddiq, children and families minister Vicky Ford explained that local authorities’ funding to childcare providers would return to ‘funding following the child’ from January 1st.
The report released by Ofsted this afternoon revealed that most childcare providers continue to operate with fewer children on the roll and with lower demand for places compared with the same time last year due to the pandemic.
Providers in the most deprived areas and those in London and the West Midlands were more likely to report that they had far fewer children in attendance, and many struggled to provide staffing due to staff illness or self-isolation.
Research produced by the Early Years Alliance last month found that one in four nurseries and childminders could cease operating within the first six months when the government cuts its funding to the sector from January next year.
Labour called on the government to focus financial support on the struggling childcare sector in July this year to “prevent a wave of nursery closures” in the pandemic, emphasising the associated impacts on parents’ ability to work.
The shadow minister for children and early years told government ministers at the time that a mass shutting down of childcare settings would result in a “setting back” in the country’s economic recovery from coronavirus.


labourlist--2020-12-15--A year on from the 2019 election, how far has the Labour Party progressed?

LabourList held our second joint event with The UK in a Changing Europe today on the subject of how far the Labour Party has progressed one year since the 2019 general election and the devastating defeat that gave rise to an 80-seat Tory majority .
Sir John Curtice took the opportunity to explain that there are two alternative explanations for the result last year .
The first says Labour ’ s support crashed among former supporters who voted Leave in 2016 , which saw the Conservatives be more successful than Labour among working-class voters .
This leads to the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what used to be its core base .
The second interpretation says Labour did not win enough support among Remain voters .
Unlike the Conservatives who persuaded 75 % of Leave voters to vote for them , Labour only won the support of 45-50 % of Remain voters ( touching on the failure to win over pro-Remain Scottish voters ) .
This leads to the conclusion that Labour can not compete with the Tories for the Leave vote and should focus on the Remain vote that already represents around 80 % of Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that Labour has avoided talking about Brexit as much as possible over the last year , preferring to focus on coronavirus , and that the opposition party is “ roughly even-stevens ” with the Tories on national vote share .
Curtice said an election held now would likely not give the Conservatives enough seats for an overall majority , nor to form another administration .
Tory support has dropped particularly among new voters , he said , with 5 % of the 2019 Conservative vote now going to Labour and 15 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour has not reconnected with its working-class base .
He told the event : “ If anything , Labour ’ s progress in the last 12 months seems to have been stronger amongst middle-class voters than it has been amongst working-class voters .
And it ’ s still trailing the Conservatives amongst working-class voters.
” Looking at Labour ’ s prospects in elections next year , the political scientist commented that “ Scotland at the moment looks like a disaster ” , the party is “ seemingly holding its own in Wales , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough for a majority ” , and it “ hasn ’ t made enough progress for there to be any guarantee ” of advances in English local contests .
Labour frontbencher Lucy Powell highlighted the findings of the Labour Together election review , including that the Tories were better than Labour at mobilising non-voters and that the 2019 defeat had been “ a long time coming ” .
She concluded that Labour must “ inspire with a positive agenda ” and with an offer of “ big economic change ” that is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internally that the party needs culture change and should put community organising at the heart of its campaigning efforts .
Streatham MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy argued that constituencies like hers must also be considered ‘ Labour heartlands ’ and that Labour must be careful that its messaging does not see the party “ try to outdo the Tories ” .
She also emphasised that “ people don ’ t vote for disunited parties ” , and shared her view that there will be a general election before 2024 .
I outlined how Keir Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internally , from appointing a new general secretary to establishing a working majority on Labour ’ s ruling body .
But I also suggested that there is currently an unnecessary communication vacuum between the leadership and party members that should be addressed over the next year .
We then took questions from the audience .
Below is the full recording of our latest live event .
Our first event with Rachel Reeves focused on Labour ’ s Brexit position .
The next joint event by LabourList and The UK in a Changing Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federalism .

LabourList held our second joint event with The UK in a Changing Europe today on the subject of how far the Labour Party has progressed one year since the 2019 general election and the devastating defeat that gave rise to an 80-seat Tory majority.
Sir John Curtice took the opportunity to explain that there are two alternative explanations for the result last year. The first says Labour’s support crashed among former supporters who voted Leave in 2016, which saw the Conservatives be more successful than Labour among working-class voters. This leads to the conclusion that Labour must “reconnect” with what used to be its core base.
The second interpretation says Labour did not win enough support among Remain voters. Unlike the Conservatives who persuaded 75% of Leave voters to vote for them, Labour only won the support of 45-50% of Remain voters (touching on the failure to win over pro-Remain Scottish voters). This leads to the conclusion that Labour cannot compete with the Tories for the Leave vote and should focus on the Remain vote that already represents around 80% of Labour’s support.
The leading pollster noted that Labour has avoided talking about Brexit as much as possible over the last year, preferring to focus on coronavirus, and that the opposition party is “roughly even-stevens” with the Tories on national vote share. Curtice said an election held now would likely not give the Conservatives enough seats for an overall majority, nor to form another administration. Tory support has dropped particularly among new voters, he said, with 5% of the 2019 Conservative vote now going to Labour and 15% now undecided.
Curtice also observed that Labour has not reconnected with its working-class base. He told the event: “If anything, Labour’s progress in the last 12 months seems to have been stronger amongst middle-class voters than it has been amongst working-class voters. And it’s still trailing the Conservatives amongst working-class voters.”
Looking at Labour’s prospects in elections next year, the political scientist commented that “Scotland at the moment looks like a disaster”, the party is “seemingly holding its own in Wales, but that won’t necessarily be enough for a majority”, and it “hasn’t made enough progress for there to be any guarantee” of advances in English local contests.
Labour frontbencher Lucy Powell highlighted the findings of the Labour Together election review, including that the Tories were better than Labour at mobilising non-voters and that the 2019 defeat had been “a long time coming”. She concluded that Labour must “inspire with a positive agenda” and with an offer of “big economic change” that is “rooted in their place”, and internally that the party needs culture change and should put community organising at the heart of its campaigning efforts.
Streatham MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy argued that constituencies like hers must also be considered ‘Labour heartlands’ and that Labour must be careful that its messaging does not see the party “try to outdo the Tories”. She also emphasised that “people don’t vote for disunited parties”, and shared her view that there will be a general election before 2024.
I outlined how Keir Starmer has managed to quickly change the party internally, from appointing a new general secretary to establishing a working majority on Labour’s ruling body. But I also suggested that there is currently an unnecessary communication vacuum between the leadership and party members that should be addressed over the next year. We then took questions from the audience.
Below is the full recording of our latest live event. Our first event with Rachel Reeves focused on Labour’s Brexit position. The next joint event by LabourList and The UK in a Changing Europe in the new year will explore radical federalism.


labourlist--2020-12-15--The schools dilemma facing councils as Covid cases rise ahead of Christmas

Covid cases are doubling every seven days in some areas and the situation is particularly bad in London and the South East .
Matt Hancock declared on Monday that there was “ not a moment to spare ” as he announced that the capital , along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire , would enter Tier 3 on Wednesday .
But the most recent estimates from the Office for National Statistics showed earlier this month that the prevalence of infection is highest among secondary school-age children .
And , in their letter to the Prime Minister this week , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia Gould pointed out that while the government can place London and other high-prevalence areas in Tier 3 , this will do nothing to reduce transmission among this group with schools remaining open .
This rise in Covid cases has sparked growing concern over the planned relaxation of the restrictions during the Christmas period .
Amid increasing disquiet over allowing three-household bubbles between December 23rd and 27th , the Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal today warned that the arrangements are a “ rash decision ” that will “ cost many lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ urgent review ” of the rules and said “ doing nothing is not really viable ” .
But government has shown in recent days how determined it is for schools to remain open .
When the Labour-led London local authority Greenwich asked schools to switch to online learning this week , the Education Secretary threatened legal action .
Gavin Williamson wrote to the schools and his department issued the borough with a “ temporary continuity notice ” under the Coronavirus Act demanding the withdrawal of the council leader ’ s letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the council has since backed down .
A split emerged within Labour , with some council leaders and the mayor calling for schools to close while the Labour leadership insisted that “ schools should be the last thing to close ” .
Local authorities are in a bind .
Councils have a legal obligation to provide a suitable education for children , whether inside or outside school , under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 .
While schools can close , and many are sending pupils home at an alarming rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues .
Local authorities faced legal action earlier this year when schools were closed the first time .
The Good Law Project argued that the reliance on remote learning was disadvantaging poorer children who could not access the lessons the government said should be provided online .
Councils , already operating on a shoestring budget after ten years of cuts , do not have the resources to provide additional support .
The Good Law Project admitted this when starting its action .
Meanwhile , the Department for Education told schools in October that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government promised to help their poorest and most vulnerable pupils learn remotely , would be slashed by up to 80 % .
One teacher in Essex revealed at the time that this meant an expected 129 laptops were reduced to just 29 and that one in every four students at his school do not have access to a device they can use to learn online at home .
There is no denying the disproportionate impact on poorer children .
Research from the Nuffield Foundation found the most disadvantaged pupils were much less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed earlier this year .
Teachers in the most deprived schools reported 30 % of pupils returning their last piece of work , compared to 49 % of pupils in the least deprived schools .
The survey also found 62 % of vulnerable pupils , 58 % with special educational needs , 52 % eligible for pupil premium funding and 48 % of young carers were less engaged .
You can bet that private schools have much better tech for the students , but it ’ s also not just about access ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact .
Disruption to learning exists even while schools remain open , and while the extent of this is hard to know , estimates from the DfE and self-reporting from schools paint a stark picture .
Latest departmental figures show that approximately 7-9 % of pupils in state-funded settings did not attend school on December 10th for Covid-related reasons .
This comes after an increase since half term in the number of schools reporting that they have had one or more pupils self-isolating , due to potential contact with a case inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % on November 19th .
Crucially , this figure breaks down as 60 % of state-funded secondaries and 21 % of primaries having sent pupils home last week , with an average of 24 pupils in state secondaries isolating per confirmed Covid case .
And this national level data reflects the situation in Greenwich , where the council leader said that on Friday 3,670 children were self-isolating , and an additional 580 children had to do so on Monday .
Lessons revert to distanced learning for these students .
While councils struggle with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on children in England sitting exams this year , unlike in Wales where the Labour government has cancelled them on the basis that it is “ impossible to guarantee a level playing field ” .
As the number of Covid cases continues to grow and everyone prepares for a major relaxation to the Covid rules next week , it seems perverse to many that schools will stay open despite high levels of transmission in these settings .
Pupils , mixing in schools with hundreds if not thousands of other children , in areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed in a matter of days to hug their elderly family members .
Whether schools remain open or the bubbling plan is shelved , many feel something has to give .
This problem we have seen councils grappling with this week was wholly foreseeable .
Boris Johnson unveiled his plans for Christmas at the end of November , with over a month to make arrangements for the upcoming increase in social mixing .
Trade unions have been calling for weeks for schools to be allowed “ go online ” two weeks before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to self-isolate over Christmas .
Yet there has been no mitigation , apart from allowing to schools to close one day early , in the weeks leading up to this restrictions relaxation .
After weeks of inaction , the government is now busy issuing legal threats and vilifying those local leaders who are moving to mitigate the consequences of Downing Street ’ s approach to the pandemic .

Covid cases are doubling every seven days in some areas and the situation is particularly bad in London and the South East. Matt Hancock declared on Monday that there was “not a moment to spare” as he announced that the capital, along with parts of Essex and Hertfordshire, would enter Tier 3 on Wednesday. But the most recent estimates from the Office for National Statistics showed earlier this month that the prevalence of infection is highest among secondary school-age children. And, in their letter to the Prime Minister this week, London mayor Sadiq Khan and London Councils chair Georgia Gould pointed out that while the government can place London and other high-prevalence areas in Tier 3, this will do nothing to reduce transmission among this group with schools remaining open.
This rise in Covid cases has sparked growing concern over the planned relaxation of the restrictions during the Christmas period. Amid increasing disquiet over allowing three-household bubbles between December 23rd and 27th, the Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal today warned that the arrangements are a “rash decision” that will “cost many lives”. Keir Starmer has called for an “urgent review” of the rules and said “doing nothing is not really viable”.
But government has shown in recent days how determined it is for schools to remain open. When the Labour-led London local authority Greenwich asked schools to switch to online learning this week, the Education Secretary threatened legal action. Gavin Williamson wrote to the schools and his department issued the borough with a “temporary continuity notice” under the Coronavirus Act demanding the withdrawal of the council leader’s letter to headteachers advising them to close, and the council has since backed down. A split emerged within Labour, with some council leaders and the mayor calling for schools to close while the Labour leadership insisted that “schools should be the last thing to close”.
Local authorities are in a bind. Councils have a legal obligation to provide a suitable education for children, whether inside or outside school, under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996. While schools can close, and many are sending pupils home at an alarming rate, councils must ensure adequate online learning continues. Local authorities faced legal action earlier this year when schools were closed the first time. The Good Law Project argued that the reliance on remote learning was disadvantaging poorer children who could not access the lessons the government said should be provided online.
Councils, already operating on a shoestring budget after ten years of cuts, do not have the resources to provide additional support. The Good Law Project admitted this when starting its action. Meanwhile, the Department for Education told schools in October that their allocation of laptops, which the government promised to help their poorest and most vulnerable pupils learn remotely, would be slashed by up to 80%. One teacher in Essex revealed at the time that this meant an expected 129 laptops were reduced to just 29 and that one in every four students at his school do not have access to a device they can use to learn online at home.
There is no denying the disproportionate impact on poorer children. Research from the Nuffield Foundation found the most disadvantaged pupils were much less likely to engage with remote learning when schools closed earlier this year. Teachers in the most deprived schools reported 30% of pupils returning their last piece of work, compared to 49% of pupils in the least deprived schools. The survey also found 62% of vulnerable pupils, 58% with special educational needs, 52% eligible for pupil premium funding and 48% of young carers were less engaged. You can bet that private schools have much better tech for the students, but it’s also not just about access; issues like overcrowded housing have a huge impact.
Disruption to learning exists even while schools remain open, and while the extent of this is hard to know, estimates from the DfE and self-reporting from schools paint a stark picture. Latest departmental figures show that approximately 7-9% of pupils in state-funded settings did not attend school on December 10th for Covid-related reasons. This comes after an increase since half term in the number of schools reporting that they have had one or more pupils self-isolating, due to potential contact with a case inside the school, reaching a peak of 36% on November 19th. Crucially, this figure breaks down as 60% of state-funded secondaries and 21% of primaries having sent pupils home last week, with an average of 24 pupils in state secondaries isolating per confirmed Covid case. And this national level data reflects the situation in Greenwich, where the council leader said that on Friday 3,670 children were self-isolating, and an additional 580 children had to do so on Monday. Lessons revert to distanced learning for these students.
While councils struggle with this dilemma, the Tories are insisting on children in England sitting exams this year, unlike in Wales where the Labour government has cancelled them on the basis that it is “impossible to guarantee a level playing field”. As the number of Covid cases continues to grow and everyone prepares for a major relaxation to the Covid rules next week, it seems perverse to many that schools will stay open despite high levels of transmission in these settings. Pupils, mixing in schools with hundreds if not thousands of other children, in areas with high rates of Covid will be allowed in a matter of days to hug their elderly family members. Whether schools remain open or the bubbling plan is shelved, many feel something has to give.
This problem we have seen councils grappling with this week was wholly foreseeable. Boris Johnson unveiled his plans for Christmas at the end of November, with over a month to make arrangements for the upcoming increase in social mixing. Trade unions have been calling for weeks for schools to be allowed “go online” two weeks before the end of term to prevent families having to self-isolate over Christmas. Yet there has been no mitigation, apart from allowing to schools to close one day early, in the weeks leading up to this restrictions relaxation. After weeks of inaction, the government is now busy issuing legal threats and vilifying those local leaders who are moving to mitigate the consequences of Downing Street’s approach to the pandemic.


labourlist--2020-12-15--The history of the Human Rights Act, in conversation with Francesca Klug

Matthew Turner and I were recently joined by Professor Francesca Klug , a renowned human rights academic and member of our Labour Campaign for Human Rights advisory group , to discuss the history of the campaign for the UK ’ s Human Rights Act ( HRA ) .
Although independent from party politics herself , Francesca played a key role in advising the 1997 Labour government on the implementation and framework of the Act .
Our conversation covered the organisations and individuals calling for the legislation , the Labour Party ’ s role in establishing the HRA , how human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fears that the Act is now under attack .
When we recorded our discussion , the government had not yet announced the independent review into the HRA , but it has been clear for some time that their intention has been to revoke the Act – continuing an ideological and fundamentally misguided quest for ‘ sovereignty ’ .
Other articles will far more eloquently explain the error of this move , and we are confident that the Labour Party will continue to mount a strong defence of the Act .
But I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly as an understanding of our present predicament requires an appreciation of the past .
70 years ago , in 1950 , the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted under the 1945 Labour government , with the support of Winston Churchill , and Francesca expertly guided us through its subsequent journey to incorporation into UK law in 1998 .
The discussion began with the background to the HRA , and specifically the social and political context of the ’ 80s and ’ 90s leading up to the Act – with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ louder cries for legal rights and protections – before focusing on the views within the Labour Party and the reservations held by some , including initially Tony Blair .
We consider how the party came to adopt the HRA , the form it took ( for example , leaving parliament with the last word on the matter ) and the common-sense narrative it encouraged around ‘ bringing rights home ’ .
Most importantly , our conversation highlighted the significance of the Act , the lack of protections that existed before and the overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since coming into force in 2000 , the HRA has obligated the executive , legislature and judiciary to play a key role in protecting rights .
In the long term , however , it depends on the human capacity to empathise and identify with others ; in recent years , a sense of disenchantment with the Act has grown – under David Cameron , every Conservative manifesto called for its repeal – and , in 2019 , the Conservatives campaigned on a euphemistic promise to “ update ” it .
Francesca has written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory of human rights , and I have been struck by her definition of our current “ third wave ” as a period of mutuality : with codes of practice , trade agreements , parliamentary commissions , pressure groups , public debates and our media playing a more engaged role than ever before in the protection and promotion of rights .
Undoubtedly , the international and domestic courts and monitoring bodies of the previous century continue to matter , but we all bear a responsibility for a human rights-embedded culture .
The late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights being “ made and remade and made again ” , and argued that the correct term is “ doing human rights ” .
The denigration and monstering of the HRA has made it all too easy to paint it as a ‘ villains ’ charter ’ .
In reality , the victims of crime are the overwhelming beneficiaries of the Act .
The campaign for the HRA was hard fought , and we would be wise to remember it .

Matthew Turner and I were recently joined by Professor Francesca Klug, a renowned human rights academic and member of our Labour Campaign for Human Rights advisory group, to discuss the history of the campaign for the UK’s Human Rights Act (HRA). Although independent from party politics herself, Francesca played a key role in advising the 1997 Labour government on the implementation and framework of the Act. Our conversation covered the organisations and individuals calling for the legislation, the Labour Party’s role in establishing the HRA, how human rights sit with Labour values and our fears that the Act is now under attack.
When we recorded our discussion, the government had not yet announced the independent review into the HRA, but it has been clear for some time that their intention has been to revoke the Act – continuing an ideological and fundamentally misguided quest for ‘sovereignty’. Other articles will far more eloquently explain the error of this move, and we are confident that the Labour Party will continue to mount a strong defence of the Act. But I think this interview comes at a timely moment, particularly as an understanding of our present predicament requires an appreciation of the past.
70 years ago, in 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted under the 1945 Labour government, with the support of Winston Churchill, and Francesca expertly guided us through its subsequent journey to incorporation into UK law in 1998. The discussion began with the background to the HRA, and specifically the social and political context of the ’80s and ’90s leading up to the Act – with the heavy-handedness of the Margaret Thatcher government prompting louder cries for legal rights and protections – before focusing on the views within the Labour Party and the reservations held by some, including initially Tony Blair. We consider how the party came to adopt the HRA, the form it took (for example, leaving parliament with the last word on the matter) and the common-sense narrative it encouraged around ‘bringing rights home’.
Most importantly, our conversation highlighted the significance of the Act, the lack of protections that existed before and the overwhelmingly positive impact it has had since. Since coming into force in 2000, the HRA has obligated the executive, legislature and judiciary to play a key role in protecting rights. In the long term, however, it depends on the human capacity to empathise and identify with others; in recent years, a sense of disenchantment with the Act has grown – under David Cameron, every Conservative manifesto called for its repeal – and, in 2019, the Conservatives campaigned on a euphemistic promise to “update” it.
Francesca has written several excellent books on the history and theory of human rights, and I have been struck by her definition of our current “third wave” as a period of mutuality: with codes of practice, trade agreements, parliamentary commissions, pressure groups, public debates and our media playing a more engaged role than ever before in the protection and promotion of rights. Undoubtedly, the international and domestic courts and monitoring bodies of the previous century continue to matter, but we all bear a responsibility for a human rights-embedded culture.
The late US philosopher Richard Rorty has spoken of human rights being “made and remade and made again”, and argued that the correct term is “doing human rights”. The denigration and monstering of the HRA has made it all too easy to paint it as a ‘villains’ charter’. In reality, the victims of crime are the overwhelming beneficiaries of the Act. The campaign for the HRA was hard fought, and we would be wise to remember it.


labourlist--2020-12-15--WATCH: “Doing nothing is not really viable,” says Starmer on Christmas rules

Keir Starmer has concluded that “ doing nothing is not really viable ” and “ a responsible government is going to have to do something ” amid rising concerns over the relaxation of Covid rules for five days at Christmas .
The government has planned to allow increased household mixing across all coronavirus tiers between December 23rd and 27th , allowing people to form a bubble of three households to mark the festive period .
But the Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal have today jointly warned against the move , which they say will “ cost many lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now called for an emergency COBRA meeting to review the plans .
Commenting on the need for government action in a broadcast clip this afternoon , Starmer said : “ We ’ re two weeks out of lockdown and unfortunately the numbers are going up quite sharply , both in Tier 2 areas and Tier 3 areas .
“ It ’ s increasingly looking like the government ’ s losing control of the virus , and that ’ s a very serious situation to get ourselves in .
And in those circumstances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look again at the Christmas restrictions and see whether they need to be toughened up .
“ Nobody wants to do that , everybody understands why families want to see each other , and it ’ s difficult for the government .
I get that .
But they really need to review this now to look what else can be done .
“ Because the risk otherwise is that we don ’ t protect the NHS and protect the economy going into January and February.
” He added : “ There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken to toughen these restrictions .
At the moment what I ’ m saying to the government is , you review it , talk to the four nations , talk to the scientists , review it , look at the risks , toughen up , get the language and the messaging right .
“ I recognise this is difficult .
I ’ m also saying to government , if you go down that route , we will support you on that .
I think it ’ s very important we ’ re all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way .
But what I don ’ t think the government can do is sit back and ignore what is obviously a problem now .
“ I think doing nothing is not really viable .
I think a responsible government is going to have to do something .
There are a number of things it could do to toughen them .
We ’ ll look at what they say .
“ I don ’ t want to make this party political because we know people want to see each other , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It might come as a pleasant surprise to families .
So I ’ m saying to the government : review , toughen up , and we ’ ll support you on that.
” Asked about his own plans for Christmas , Starmer said : “ We ’ re staying at home , not going anywhere , having a very quiet , small family Christmas .
We would normally have had a bigger Christmas and seen a lot more people.
” The HSJ and BMJ have bluntly warned : “ We believe the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ error that will cost many lives .
If our political leaders fail to take swift and decisive action , they can no longer claim to be ‘ protecting the NHS ’ .
” Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove is understood be to be holding a call with the devolved nations – Nicola Sturgeon , Mark Drakeford and Arlene Foster – this afternoon to discuss the planned relaxation of rules .
The government may keep the current plans in place but ‘ toughen up ’ messaging .
Alternatively , it could reduce the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of households that can mix , introduce travel restrictions or ‘ delay Christmas ’ .

Keir Starmer has concluded that “doing nothing is not really viable” and “a responsible government is going to have to do something” amid rising concerns over the relaxation of Covid rules for five days at Christmas.
The government has planned to allow increased household mixing across all coronavirus tiers between December 23rd and 27th, allowing people to form a bubble of three households to mark the festive period.
But the Health Service Journal and British Medical Journal have today jointly warned against the move, which they say will “cost many lives”, and the Labour leader has now called for an emergency COBRA meeting to review the plans.
Commenting on the need for government action in a broadcast clip this afternoon, Starmer said: “We’re two weeks out of lockdown and unfortunately the numbers are going up quite sharply, both in Tier 2 areas and Tier 3 areas.
“It’s increasingly looking like the government’s losing control of the virus, and that’s a very serious situation to get ourselves in. And in those circumstances, the only responsible thing to do is to look again at the Christmas restrictions and see whether they need to be toughened up.
“Nobody wants to do that, everybody understands why families want to see each other, and it’s difficult for the government. I get that. But they really need to review this now to look what else can be done.
“Because the risk otherwise is that we don’t protect the NHS and protect the economy going into January and February.”
He added: “There are a number of options that could be taken to toughen these restrictions. At the moment what I’m saying to the government is, you review it, talk to the four nations, talk to the scientists, review it, look at the risks, toughen up, get the language and the messaging right.
“I recognise this is difficult. I’m also saying to government, if you go down that route, we will support you on that. I think it’s very important we’re all saying the same thing, communicating in the same way. But what I don’t think the government can do is sit back and ignore what is obviously a problem now.
“I think doing nothing is not really viable. I think a responsible government is going to have to do something. There are a number of things it could do to toughen them. We’ll look at what they say.
“I don’t want to make this party political because we know people want to see each other, families want to see each other. It might come as a pleasant surprise to families. So I’m saying to the government: review, toughen up, and we’ll support you on that.”
Asked about his own plans for Christmas, Starmer said: “We’re staying at home, not going anywhere, having a very quiet, small family Christmas. We would normally have had a bigger Christmas and seen a lot more people.”
The HSJ and BMJ have bluntly warned: “We believe the government is about to blunder into another major error that will cost many lives. If our political leaders fail to take swift and decisive action, they can no longer claim to be ‘protecting the NHS’.”
Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove is understood be to be holding a call with the devolved nations – Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drakeford and Arlene Foster – this afternoon to discuss the planned relaxation of rules.
The government may keep the current plans in place but ‘toughen up’ messaging. Alternatively, it could reduce the number of relaxation days, reduce the number of households that can mix, introduce travel restrictions or ‘delay Christmas’.


labourlist--2020-12-15--Labour slams Boris Johnson over “bumper bonus” for Dominic Cummings

Angela Rayner has criticised the Prime Minister for awarding Dominic Cummings a 40 % “ bumper bonus ” pay rise despite his rule-breaking and while implementing a real-terms pay cut for millions of public sector workers .
Reacting to the release of a Cabinet Office report detailing £9.6m in costs for 102 special advisers today , Labour ’ s deputy leader slammed the decision to give Cummings an increase to his salary in excess of £40,000 .
The information that emerged this afternoon revealed that the former top aide to Boris Johnson has been paid the equivalent of £140,000-£144,999 this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
Rayner said : “ Boris Johnson defended Dominic Cummings when he broke lockdown rules – then awarded him a £50,000 pay rise .
Yet he ’ s freezing pay for key workers and refusing to give our care workers a pay rise to the living wage .
“ Cummings ’ bumper bonus is an insult to key workers denied the pay rise they deserve .
It ’ s another example of how under this government it is one rule for the Tory Party and their friends and another for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month that Cummings was leaving his Downing Street post alongside his ally Lee Cain .
Ex-communications chief Cain is paid between £140,000 and £144,999 in 2020 , the same as the previous year .
The report also showed that part-time photographer Andrew Parsons is paid the full-time equivalent of £100,000-£104,999 while advisers Sir Edward Lister and Munira Mirza both earn between £140,000 and £144,999 .
Top spin doctor Jack Doyle earns between £110,000 and £114,999 and chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost makes between £125,000 and £129,999 according to the figures released by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister .
Labour accused Chancellor Rishi Sunak of taking a “ sledgehammer ” to confidence in his spending review last month , during which he confirmed the government would be implementing a pay freeze for millions of public sector workers .
Sunak announced in his statement to the House of Commons at the time that reports of a freeze were correct , telling MPs : “ I can not justify a significant across-the-board pay increase for all public sector workers .
”

Angela Rayner has criticised the Prime Minister for awarding Dominic Cummings a 40% “bumper bonus” pay rise despite his rule-breaking and while implementing a real-terms pay cut for millions of public sector workers.
Reacting to the release of a Cabinet Office report detailing £9.6m in costs for 102 special advisers today, Labour’s deputy leader slammed the decision to give Cummings an increase to his salary in excess of £40,000.
The information that emerged this afternoon revealed that the former top aide to Boris Johnson has been paid the equivalent of £140,000-£144,999 this year, representing an increase from £95,000-£99,999 last year.
Rayner said: “Boris Johnson defended Dominic Cummings when he broke lockdown rules – then awarded him a £50,000 pay rise. Yet he’s freezing pay for key workers and refusing to give our care workers a pay rise to the living wage.
“Cummings’ bumper bonus is an insult to key workers denied the pay rise they deserve. It’s another example of how under this government it is one rule for the Tory Party and their friends and another for the rest of us.”
It emerged last month that Cummings was leaving his Downing Street post alongside his ally Lee Cain. Ex-communications chief Cain is paid between £140,000 and £144,999 in 2020, the same as the previous year.
The report also showed that part-time photographer Andrew Parsons is paid the full-time equivalent of £100,000-£104,999 while advisers Sir Edward Lister and Munira Mirza both earn between £140,000 and £144,999.
Top spin doctor Jack Doyle earns between £110,000 and £114,999 and chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost makes between £125,000 and £129,999 according to the figures released by the Cabinet Office. Johnson earns £150,402 as Prime Minister.
Labour accused Chancellor Rishi Sunak of taking a “sledgehammer” to confidence in his spending review last month, during which he confirmed the government would be implementing a pay freeze for millions of public sector workers.
Sunak announced in his statement to the House of Commons at the time that reports of a freeze were correct, telling MPs: “I cannot justify a significant across-the-board pay increase for all public sector workers.”


labourlist--2020-12-15--Labour for the North: How Labour can rebuild the ‘Red Wall’ across the North

In the summer of 2019 Justin Madders , Peter Dowd and I formed the Labour for the North group to bring together Labour MPs from across the North of England .
We felt that it was important to amplify the voice of northern Labour MPs both within the party and outside it .
We were responding to what we believed was a growing view that the Labour Party was a London-centric entity and insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the North .
Our aim was to organise within parliament , but also to reach out to councillors , activists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North .
After the 2019 general election , we returned a considerably smaller group .
We lost 29 northern constituencies to the Tories , whilst many other seats came perilously close to turning blue .
Our sense that the party had a ‘ northern problem ’ was , heartbreakingly , proved right .
We strongly believe that this forum , alongside coordinated action for the North , is needed now more than ever .
One year on from the general election , we have published a report looking at what happened in December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have looked into the election , we steer clear of explanations that present one single factor as decisive , be it the leadership or Brexit .
Instead , we analyse the longer-term trends – demographic , cultural , economic , and political – that have led us to this point .
We also look to the future and examine how the Tories will attempt to consolidate their gains in the North and how we , as a party and as northern Labour MPs , must respond .
We find that their promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to little more than short-term projects designed to direct short-term resources at Tory-held or Tory-target seats .
We know that this will not produce the wholescale economic transformation that the North needs , but we must be alert to its political potential .
Our report finds that regional identities are particularly important in the North – and with them , a sense of pride in the places people live .
Labour must tap into these common narratives and collective values to build policies that actually resonate with people ’ s lives .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party must change if we are to win back our northern heartlands and form the next government .
Our challenge is to convince voters across the North that their voices have been heard and to assure them that we not only understand their anger and frustration , but also that we will address their concerns through our policies .
There is no doubt that Labour winning the next general election is the single best thing we can do to improve the lives of people across the North .
Much has changed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
The coronavirus pandemic has reshaped all of our lives and refocused political debate onto new areas .
The tireless fight of our Labour metro mayors , city mayors and council leaders for fairer lockdown deals has highlighted the importance of their roles .
Their fight also tapped into an underlying sense across the North that we have never been , and never will be , a priority for a Conservative government .
For a Labour government to win , though , it will need far more than this feeling being confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party to demonstrate that it is reconnecting with its former heartlands and will deliver for them in government .
We hope this report contributes to that vital task – because without the party reclaiming former seats in the North , there will not be a Labour government .

In the summer of 2019 Justin Madders, Peter Dowd and I formed the Labour for the North group to bring together Labour MPs from across the North of England. We felt that it was important to amplify the voice of northern Labour MPs both within the party and outside it. We were responding to what we believed was a growing view that the Labour Party was a London-centric entity and insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the North. Our aim was to organise within parliament, but also to reach out to councillors, activists, Constituency Labour Parties and voters across the North.
After the 2019 general election, we returned a considerably smaller group. We lost 29 northern constituencies to the Tories, whilst many other seats came perilously close to turning blue. Our sense that the party had a ‘northern problem’ was, heartbreakingly, proved right. We strongly believe that this forum, alongside coordinated action for the North, is needed now more than ever. One year on from the general election, we have published a report looking at what happened in December 2019.
In common with other reports that have looked into the election, we steer clear of explanations that present one single factor as decisive, be it the leadership or Brexit. Instead, we analyse the longer-term trends – demographic, cultural, economic, and political – that have led us to this point. We also look to the future and examine how the Tories will attempt to consolidate their gains in the North and how we, as a party and as northern Labour MPs, must respond. We find that their promises on ‘levelling up’ currently amount to little more than short-term projects designed to direct short-term resources at Tory-held or Tory-target seats. We know that this will not produce the wholescale economic transformation that the North needs, but we must be alert to its political potential.
Our report finds that regional identities are particularly important in the North – and with them, a sense of pride in the places people live. Labour must tap into these common narratives and collective values to build policies that actually resonate with people’s lives. A number of recommendations set out how the party must change if we are to win back our northern heartlands and form the next government. Our challenge is to convince voters across the North that their voices have been heard and to assure them that we not only understand their anger and frustration, but also that we will address their concerns through our policies. There is no doubt that Labour winning the next general election is the single best thing we can do to improve the lives of people across the North.
Much has changed in the months since last year’s general election. The coronavirus pandemic has reshaped all of our lives and refocused political debate onto new areas. The tireless fight of our Labour metro mayors, city mayors and council leaders for fairer lockdown deals has highlighted the importance of their roles. Their fight also tapped into an underlying sense across the North that we have never been, and never will be, a priority for a Conservative government. For a Labour government to win, though, it will need far more than this feeling being confirmed by Tory inaction. It requires the Labour Party to demonstrate that it is reconnecting with its former heartlands and will deliver for them in government. We hope this report contributes to that vital task – because without the party reclaiming former seats in the North, there will not be a Labour government.
Read the full report here.


labourlist--2020-12-15--Day care centres were a lifeline for my family. We must keep them open

My father arrived in the UK in the 1960s as part of a wave of Bengali immigration into the East End , where he found his first work packing bread at a local Jewish bakery .
A natural leader and organiser , he ran a tailoring factory in the clothing trade employing local people , became a businessman selling clothes , then chaired the residents ’ association on the council estate where I grew up and served as a school governor .
He successfully stood for election as a Labour councillor in 2002 , becoming the civic mayor of Tower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political activist , it was in the council chamber during a typically passionate debate that my father had a stroke leaving him with significant cognitive and physical disabilities and eventually vascular dementia .
Adult day care centres were a lifeline for my father and my family .
For many Bangladeshis , care is seen as something to be retained in the home with immediate family members up to the end of life – studying at a nearby university meant that I could be close to my mother who was primarily caring for my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pressure off of us and allowed him to retain his sense of independence , surrounded by people of a similar age and background .
True to form , he even began organising among fellow attendees for improvements in the standard of care !
Across the country , day care centres have been temporarily shut due to coronavirus , further reducing the care being provided to disabled people in an already broken system .
Privatisation and the outsourcing of services have led to billions flowing away from those receiving care and instead into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of at least 12 % .
At the same time , the government continues to undermine the rights of elderly and disabled people .
During the pandemic , despite the need being greater than ever , changes to the Care Act have allowed local authorities to reduce care and support for individuals who rely on provision in the community .
Campaigners have highlighted this Disability Awareness Month that coronavirus must not be used as an excuse to water down the rights of disabled people through further cuts to service provision .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day care centres in my local area , Tower Hamlets , are now facing permanent closure .
The care my father received at Sonali Gardens Day Centre enabled him to spend the last years of his life with dignity as his dementia progressed .
The buses that would transport him and others in the morning , and at the end of the day , were also important in this regard .
There were opportunities to play board games , participate in competitions and even have a group trip to the seaside .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disabled people during the pandemic emphasises the importance of retaining these supportive social spaces .
Rather than cutting services , there must be a radical overhaul of our social care system .
UNISON , the largest union in the social care sector has called for a National Care Service that will pay all care workers a real living wage and provide equal access to care for all – just like for healthcare in the NHS .
But despite many Tory politicians performing their ‘ clapping for carers ’ over the past year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to social care budgets for years and continue to do so ; per person spending on social care for the over 65s fell by 31 % between 2010 and 2018 .
I saw first hand my father ’ s decline from an active Labour councillor , dedicated to strengthening his local ward and improving prospects for under-represented communities , to being barely able to remember how to read words or why he had walked out on to the street alone .
If he could have seen me stand as a Labour MP on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all older people , he would have said on this what he did then : “ What happened to me could happen to anyone , no one should be left without support.
” I will continue to fight for the idea that health and social care should be run in the interests of our communities and accountable to local people .
Because closing day care centres is a step backwards in the struggle for equality , a value which my father held so dear .

My father arrived in the UK in the 1960s as part of a wave of Bengali immigration into the East End, where he found his first work packing bread at a local Jewish bakery. A natural leader and organiser, he ran a tailoring factory in the clothing trade employing local people, became a businessman selling clothes, then chaired the residents’ association on the council estate where I grew up and served as a school governor. He successfully stood for election as a Labour councillor in 2002, becoming the civic mayor of Tower Hamlets in 2004. Ever the local political activist, it was in the council chamber during a typically passionate debate that my father had a stroke leaving him with significant cognitive and physical disabilities and eventually vascular dementia.
Adult day care centres were a lifeline for my father and my family. For many Bangladeshis, care is seen as something to be retained in the home with immediate family members up to the end of life – studying at a nearby university meant that I could be close to my mother who was primarily caring for my father. Day care took some of the pressure off of us and allowed him to retain his sense of independence, surrounded by people of a similar age and background. True to form, he even began organising among fellow attendees for improvements in the standard of care!
Across the country, day care centres have been temporarily shut due to coronavirus, further reducing the care being provided to disabled people in an already broken system. Privatisation and the outsourcing of services have led to billions flowing away from those receiving care and instead into the hands of shareholders who expect profits of at least 12%.
At the same time, the government continues to undermine the rights of elderly and disabled people. During the pandemic, despite the need being greater than ever, changes to the Care Act have allowed local authorities to reduce care and support for individuals who rely on provision in the community. Campaigners have highlighted this Disability Awareness Month that coronavirus must not be used as an excuse to water down the rights of disabled people through further cuts to service provision.
This is why it makes me so sad that day care centres in my local area, Tower Hamlets, are now facing permanent closure. The care my father received at Sonali Gardens Day Centre enabled him to spend the last years of his life with dignity as his dementia progressed. The buses that would transport him and others in the morning, and at the end of the day, were also important in this regard. There were opportunities to play board games, participate in competitions and even have a group trip to the seaside. The damage caused by isolation experienced by elderly and disabled people during the pandemic emphasises the importance of retaining these supportive social spaces.
Rather than cutting services, there must be a radical overhaul of our social care system. UNISON, the largest union in the social care sector has called for a National Care Service that will pay all care workers a real living wage and provide equal access to care for all – just like for healthcare in the NHS. But despite many Tory politicians performing their ‘clapping for carers’ over the past year, they have overseen historic funding reductions to social care budgets for years and continue to do so; per person spending on social care for the over 65s fell by 31% between 2010 and 2018.
I saw first hand my father’s decline from an active Labour councillor, dedicated to strengthening his local ward and improving prospects for under-represented communities, to being barely able to remember how to read words or why he had walked out on to the street alone. If he could have seen me stand as a Labour MP on a manifesto committing to free personal care for all older people, he would have said on this what he did then: “What happened to me could happen to anyone, no one should be left without support.”
I will continue to fight for the idea that health and social care should be run in the interests of our communities and accountable to local people. Because closing day care centres is a step backwards in the struggle for equality, a value which my father held so dear.