labourlist--2020-09-23--Labour says bill risks war crimes going “unpunished” – but abstains on vote

John Healey has declared that a government bill relating to British troops serving overseas “ creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished ” – but Labour did not vote against it tonight .
In a parliamentary debate this afternoon , the Shadow Defence Secretary told MPs that the overseas operations bill “ calls into question Britain ’ s proud commitment to the Geneva Convention ” and “ our moral authority ” .
But Healey said he was certain the government would be “ prepared to rewrite parts of this bill ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces personnel from prosecution under the European Convention on Human Rights .
Labour did not vote against the bill at second reading this evening , and it passed with 331 MPs voting in favour and 77 against .
It will now proceed to committee stage , at which point Labour and other opposition MPs will attempt to amend the bill .
Most of the rebel MPs are now backbenchers , but Blake , Whittome and Winter were parliamentary private secretaries ( PPSs ) on the Labour frontbench .
It is understood that frontbenchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they wanted to break the whip tonight , though Whittome has said she did not consider herself to have quit .
Momentum co-chair Andrew Scattergood commented : “ Keir Starmer must not sack any Labour MP from his frontbench for standing up for basic human rights and the rule of law .
It ’ s the role of the leadership to unite the party , sacking any of these MPs will simply fuel division .
“ It ’ s shameful that Labour ’ s leadership didn ’ t oppose a bill which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes against humanity.
” Speaking in the Commons today , Healey said : “ The presumption against prosecutions for all crimes against sexual violence clearly creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished.
” He argued that the proposed legislation would create a “ triple lock ” for troops and veterans , including a presumption against prosecution for alleged offences committed more than five years ago .
“ The facts of this bill are that it now places torture and other war crimes on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is not embarrassing .
That is unconscionable , ” Healey later added .
“ Ministers must think again.
” The bill comes after 70 % of allegations received by the Iraq historic allegations team were dismissed .
Healey pointed out that the proposed legislation does not deal with investigations but only with “ prosecutorial decisions and process ” .
Labour ’ s spokesperson for defence and the armed forces went on to argue that “ this is what the bill should deal with , can deal with , and our aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help make sure that it does ” .
The Tories pledged in 2019 to tackle “ vexatious claims ” against armed forces personnel , such as those raised about the conduct of British troops during the Iraq war or Northern Ireland operations , but Healey noted that “ nothing in this bill applies to Northern Ireland ” .
Labour ’ s former shadow immigration minister Bell Ribeiro-Addy tabled an amendment to throw out the bill this evening .
She argued on LabourList : “ There ’ s nothing remotely patriotic about rejecting international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also faced resistance on the bill from within its own party .
The senior Conservative MP and former cabinet minister David Davis said he is “ deeply troubled ” by the plans to “ decriminalise torture by British personnel ” .
The Law Society criticised the proposed legislation in advance of the debate this afternoon , saying that the bill “ creates a special category of criminal case , hitherto unrecognised in UK law ” and would deny victims access to justice .
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace attacked Labour over the Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite Healey replied : “ That is not worthy of the office of the Secretary of State for Defence… This is too important for party politics .
”

John Healey has declared that a government bill relating to British troops serving overseas “creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished” – but Labour did not vote against it tonight.
In a parliamentary debate this afternoon, the Shadow Defence Secretary told MPs that the overseas operations bill “calls into question Britain’s proud commitment to the Geneva Convention” and “our moral authority”.
But Healey said he was certain the government would be “prepared to rewrite parts of this bill”, which seeks to exempt British armed forces personnel from prosecution under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Labour did not vote against the bill at second reading this evening, and it passed with 331 MPs voting in favour and 77 against. It will now proceed to committee stage, at which point Labour and other opposition MPs will attempt to amend the bill.
18 Labour MPs voted against: Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Olivia Blake, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Lavery, Rebecca Long-Bailey, John McDonnell, Kate Osamor, Kate Osborne, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Zarah Sultana, Jon Trickett, Claudia Webbe, Nadia Whittome and Beth Winter.
Most of the rebel MPs are now backbenchers, but Blake, Whittome and Winter were parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) on the Labour frontbench. It is understood that frontbenchers were told they would be resigning their roles if they voted against the bill – though Whittome has said she did not intent to quit.
Momentum co-chair Andrew Scattergood commented: “Keir Starmer must not sack any Labour MP from his frontbench for standing up for basic human rights and the rule of law. It’s the role of the leadership to unite the party, sacking any of these MPs will simply fuel division.
“It’s shameful that Labour’s leadership didn’t oppose a bill which protects those who commit torture and other crimes against humanity.”
Speaking in the Commons today, Healey said: “The presumption against prosecutions for all crimes against sexual violence clearly creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished.”
He argued that the proposed legislation would create a “triple lock” for troops and veterans, including a presumption against prosecution for alleged offences committed more than five years ago.
“The facts of this bill are that it now places torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes of sexual violence. That is not embarrassing. That is unconscionable,” Healey later added. “Ministers must think again.”
The bill comes after 70% of allegations received by the Iraq historic allegations team were dismissed. Healey pointed out that the proposed legislation does not deal with investigations but only with “prosecutorial decisions and process”.
Labour’s spokesperson for defence and the armed forces went on to argue that “this is what the bill should deal with, can deal with, and our aim during its passage through parliament is to help make sure that it does”.
The Tories pledged in 2019 to tackle “vexatious claims” against armed forces personnel, such as those raised about the conduct of British troops during the Iraq war or Northern Ireland operations, but Healey noted that “nothing in this bill applies to Northern Ireland”.
Labour’s former shadow immigration minister Bell Ribeiro-Addy tabled an amendment to throw out the bill this evening. She argued on LabourList: “There’s nothing remotely patriotic about rejecting international law and decriminalising torture.”
The government has also faced resistance on the bill from within its own party. The senior Conservative MP and former cabinet minister David Davis said he is “deeply troubled” by the plans to “decriminalise torture by British personnel”.
The Law Society criticised the proposed legislation in advance of the debate this afternoon, saying that the bill “creates a special category of criminal case, hitherto unrecognised in UK law” and would deny victims access to justice.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace attacked Labour over the Iraq war during the debate. His Labour opposite Healey replied: “That is not worthy of the office of the Secretary of State for Defence… This is too important for party politics.”


labourlist--2020-09-23--Throw out the overseas operations bill. Decriminalising torture isn’t patriotic

The UK government is getting ready to defy international law for the second time in two weeks .
Before parliament this afternoon for its second reading , the overseas operations ( service personnel and veterans ) bill is their latest attempt to use domestic law as a means of reneging on the UK ’ s international obligations .
In current form , this bill effectively decriminalises torture , violates essential rule of law principles such as judicial and prosecutorial independence , and defies international human rights law .
Just a week after Boris Johnson ripped up his own “ oven-ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , it would mean soldiers can not be prosecuted for war crimes if five years have passed since the alleged date of the incident .
Given the time scale involved with reporting most war crimes , this would provide British soldiers with de facto immunity for acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva Convention .
This has obvious and disastrous implications for upholding justice for the victims of war crimes .
The overwhelming evidence suggests that some British soldiers did commit acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq and Afghanistan .
Thousands of complaints of mistreatment have been lodged by Iraqi and Afghan civilians .
Only last month , evidence came to light that the Ministry of Defence had withheld evidence relating to the possible execution of 33 Afghan civilians in 2011 .
In spite of this , there have been few prosecutions and even fewer convictions , with the director of the Service Prosecution Authority ( SPA ) ruling out further legal action against accused soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in all but one case .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iraq war .
All of this is not to deny that vexatious claims against military personnel are a possibility , but rather that it ’ s pure confection to suggest the problem requires this kind of extreme solution .
Clearly , this bill is not really about protecting veterans , which is why it has no support from senior legal military figures .
Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett – Britain ’ s most senior military judge , who was not even consulted before this legislation was published – has called on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about these “ ill-conceived ” proposals .
The government claims that this is about patriotism and standing up for our military personnel , but its bill would actually restrict the time in which soldiers can make claims against the Ministry of Defence .
How exactly does this support troops who face conditions such as PTSD years later ?
If this government really cared about UK veterans , it would do something to address the plight of the thousands of veterans left to sleep rough on the streets or failed by inadequate mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill is twofold .
Firstly , to shield the MoD and government from being held to account for their foreign adventures .
Secondly , perhaps the key strand of the Dominic Cummings-Boris Johnson project , to concentrate power in the hands of the executive .
Enabling the Attorney General to decide whether accusations merit prosecution is putting what should be an independent prosecutorial decision in the hands of a political appointee .
In other words , allowing the government to mark their own homework .
Passing this bill would send yet another clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law .
It is therefore disappointing to see that many of those who were willing to take a stand against violating international law under on the subjects of trade and Brexit are less concerned about violating international law on human rights .
We don ’ t set time limits on serious domestic offences , so why would we set these on offences committed overseas ?
We can not say that Black Lives Matter , then turn a blind eye to the decriminalisation of torture of Black and Brown people in other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights must be protected .
There ’ s nothing remotely patriotic about rejecting international law and decriminalising torture .
It just leaves British soldiers and civilians around the world less safe .
That ’ s why , along with colleagues in the Socialist Campaign Group , I ’ ve tabled a reasoned amendment to throw out the overseas operations bill this evening .
We must unequivocally condemn any legislation that decriminalises torture , defies international law and does nothing to protect troops from false claims , all to limit transparency around military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this self-serving , self-interested government of the few .

The UK government is getting ready to defy international law for the second time in two weeks. Before parliament this afternoon for its second reading, the overseas operations (service personnel and veterans) bill is their latest attempt to use domestic law as a means of reneging on the UK’s international obligations.
In current form, this bill effectively decriminalises torture, violates essential rule of law principles such as judicial and prosecutorial independence, and defies international human rights law. Just a week after Boris Johnson ripped up his own “oven-ready” Brexit deal (the withdrawal agreement), it would mean soldiers cannot be prosecuted for war crimes if five years have passed since the alleged date of the incident. Given the time scale involved with reporting most war crimes, this would provide British soldiers with de facto immunity for acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva Convention.
This has obvious and disastrous implications for upholding justice for the victims of war crimes. The overwhelming evidence suggests that some British soldiers did commit acts of torture and other breaches of the Geneva Convention during the US-UK led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of complaints of mistreatment have been lodged by Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Only last month, evidence came to light that the Ministry of Defence had withheld evidence relating to the possible execution of 33 Afghan civilians in 2011.
In spite of this, there have been few prosecutions and even fewer convictions, with the director of the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA) ruling out further legal action against accused soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan in all but one case. There have been just seven prosecutions arising from the Iraq war. All of this is not to deny that vexatious claims against military personnel are a possibility, but rather that it’s pure confection to suggest the problem requires this kind of extreme solution.
Clearly, this bill is not really about protecting veterans, which is why it has no support from senior legal military figures. Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett – Britain’s most senior military judge, who was not even consulted before this legislation was published – has called on the Defence Secretary to “think again” about these “ill-conceived” proposals.
The government claims that this is about patriotism and standing up for our military personnel, but its bill would actually restrict the time in which soldiers can make claims against the Ministry of Defence. How exactly does this support troops who face conditions such as PTSD years later? If this government really cared about UK veterans, it would do something to address the plight of the thousands of veterans left to sleep rough on the streets or failed by inadequate mental health services.
The real thrust of this bill is twofold. Firstly, to shield the MoD and government from being held to account for their foreign adventures. Secondly, perhaps the key strand of the Dominic Cummings-Boris Johnson project, to concentrate power in the hands of the executive. Enabling the Attorney General to decide whether accusations merit prosecution is putting what should be an independent prosecutorial decision in the hands of a political appointee. In other words, allowing the government to mark their own homework.
Passing this bill would send yet another clear message that the UK government is above the law. It is therefore disappointing to see that many of those who were willing to take a stand against violating international law under on the subjects of trade and Brexit are less concerned about violating international law on human rights.
We don’t set time limits on serious domestic offences, so why would we set these on offences committed overseas? We cannot say that Black Lives Matter, then turn a blind eye to the decriminalisation of torture of Black and Brown people in other countries. All human rights matter. All human rights must be protected.
There’s nothing remotely patriotic about rejecting international law and decriminalising torture. It just leaves British soldiers and civilians around the world less safe. That’s why, along with colleagues in the Socialist Campaign Group, I’ve tabled a reasoned amendment to throw out the overseas operations bill this evening.
We must unequivocally condemn any legislation that decriminalises torture, defies international law and does nothing to protect troops from false claims, all to limit transparency around military interventions and further enhance the executive power of this self-serving, self-interested government of the few.


labourlist--2020-09-23--WATCH: Independence referendum is “question for Scotland”, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has declared that issues relating to a second Scottish independence referendum are “ questions for Scotland ” but argued that “ another divisive referendum is about the last thing that we need ” .
In an interview with Sky News this afternoon , the Labour leader discussed what the party offers the Scottish people and whether he would “ rule out ” a second independence referendum as Prime Minister Boris Johnson has done .
He was asked whether he stood by a comment he made in January , in which he remarked that the SNP will have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win a majority in the 2021 Holyrood election .
The leader of the opposition argued in the interview today that Labour will be “ making the argument going into that election that this is not the time for another divisive independence referendum ” .
The party leader told viewers that he is “ concentrating at the moment on the argument that we need to make next between now and next May ” , and stressed that “ what happens beyond that is hypothetical ” .
But pressed for an answer specifically on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer replied : “ These issues are questions for Scotland .
I do stand by that.
” The Labour leader also discussed the new Covid restrictions being introduced this week , and criticised the Prime Minister for not “ holding together the four nations ” as rules in Scotland , England , Wales and Northern Ireland have diverged .
He repeated his call for the government to put a “ support mechanism in place ” for businesses and said that the Prime Minister should have done that on Tuesday when the changes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slammed Johnson ’ s handling of the response to the pandemic .
He told Sky News that “ character matters at a time like this ” , and described the Prime Minister and the government as being collectively guilty of “ serial incompetence ” .

Keir Starmer has declared that issues relating to a second Scottish independence referendum are “questions for Scotland” but argued that “another divisive referendum is about the last thing that we need”.
In an interview with Sky News this afternoon, the Labour leader discussed what the party offers the Scottish people and whether he would “rule out” a second independence referendum as Prime Minister Boris Johnson has done.
He was asked whether he stood by a comment he made in January, in which he remarked that the SNP will have a mandate for another independence referendum if they win a majority in the 2021 Holyrood election.
The leader of the opposition argued in the interview today that Labour will be “making the argument going into that election that this is not the time for another divisive independence referendum”.
The party leader told viewers that he is “concentrating at the moment on the argument that we need to make next between now and next May”, and stressed that “what happens beyond that is hypothetical”.
But pressed for an answer specifically on the comment made earlier in the year, Starmer replied: “These issues are questions for Scotland. I do stand by that.”
"These issues are a matter for Scotland, I do stand by that.” Sky’s @BethRigby questions Sir Keir Starmer on whether he still stands by his words that if the SNP win Holyrood in 2021, they would have a mandate for an independence referendum. More here: https://t.co/B43KhwYS6f pic.twitter.com/BGWhV3PhLj — SkyNews (@SkyNews) September 23, 2020
The Labour leader also discussed the new Covid restrictions being introduced this week, and criticised the Prime Minister for not “holding together the four nations” as rules in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have diverged.
He repeated his call for the government to put a “support mechanism in place” for businesses and said that the Prime Minister should have done that on Tuesday when the changes to the restrictions were announced.
He also slammed Johnson’s handling of the response to the pandemic. He told Sky News that “character matters at a time like this”, and described the Prime Minister and the government as being collectively guilty of “serial incompetence”.


labourlist--2020-09-23--“In a pandemic, character matters”: Starmer sets out electoral strategy in BBC interview

Keir Starmer has set out Labour ’ s new electoral strategy in a fresh BBC interview today , ahead of his first party political broadcast airing on ITV at 6.25pm and BBC One at 6.55pm and his coronavirus restrictions statement on BBC One at 8pm .
Accused by the BBC ’ s Laura Kuenssberg of being “ personal ” in his attacks on the Prime Minister , the Labour leader said : “ I think , in a pandemic , character matters .
Character absolutely matters because in a period like this everybody is looking at the Prime Minister to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister and government to succeed in defeating and managing the virus .
So character matters in a moment like this , more than perhaps than in other times because everybody is vested on whether the government gets it right and succeeds.
” Of Boris Johnson , described by the opposition leader on Tuesday as “ writing flippant columns about bendy bananas ” , Starmer added : “ I don ’ t think he has got the right character for this and I don ’ t think he is up to it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members by declaring that the party deserved to lose in December 2019 , the Labour leader replied : “ What Labour Party members and affiliates and supporters want more than anything is for the Labour Party to win and election .
“ Therefore what I am setting out is how do we get from where we are from where we need to be to win an election .
There is huge support for that in the Labour Party and labour movement .
“ The response to yesterday ’ s speech has been really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see that we have got a mountain to climb , but we are climbing it , and we are heading in the right direction.
” Starmer reiterated that Labour must “ understand that trust of the electorate is critical ” , and acknowledged that his online conference speech did not focus on policy , saying : “ It is why I set out the values of the Labour Party rather than detailed policies .
Trust.
” Presented with the argument that he is rejecting the legacy of Jeremy Corbyn , the new leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ listen to what voters are saying ” , adding : “ What I am hearing is that the basic trust has broken down .
“ Trust in the Labour Party is a force for good and a force for change .
We need to rebuild that trust , and that is why I set out yesterday the values that drive [ us ] … They are long-standing Labour values but we need to translate them into trust going forward.
” Asked whether he could afford to wait before telling voters about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May 2021 , Starmer said : “ I think at this stage , six months into a new leadership , when we are picking ourselves up from a devastating loss , what I need to do is set out the values that drive me .
“ What are the instincts and beliefs that drive me forward and our party forward , build trust in the Labour Party and set out what it is we want to achieve .
Of course next May we will have those important elections and of course we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He added : “ I have spent a lot of time in different parts of the country where people didn ’ t vote Labour this time , and the strong sense I get is they are looking at me and they are asking a very basic question , which is “ are you listening to me ?
Am I being heard ?
” .
“ They are not actually saying , ‘ what is your detailed policy on this or on that ?
’ .
They want to know ‘ what sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your aspirations ?
What are your values and beliefs , and do they chime with mine ?
’ .
” Grilled on a second independence referendum in Scotland , where Labour faces a tough set of Holyrood elections next year , Starmer said : “ We will be going into that election in May making it very clear that another divisive referendum on independence in Scotland is not what is needed… “ I am setting out the position we will be taking going into the May election .
We don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know .
We don ’ t know what will happen after May .
“ And in politics , people tell you with great certainty what is going to happen next year and the year after , but it doesn ’ t always turn out that way .
We are making our argument going into May that a divisive referendum is not needed.
” Starmer will appear on television this evening in Labour ’ s new party political broadcast , which features Starmer talking about where he came from and why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his statement responding to the Prime Minister on coronavirus restrictions .

Keir Starmer has set out Labour’s new electoral strategy in a fresh BBC interview today, ahead of his first party political broadcast airing on ITV at 6.25pm and BBC One at 6.55pm and his coronavirus restrictions statement on BBC One at 8pm.
Accused by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg of being “personal” in his attacks on the Prime Minister, the Labour leader said: “I think, in a pandemic, character matters. Character absolutely matters because in a period like this everybody is looking at the Prime Minister to be assured.
“Everybody wants the Prime Minister and government to succeed in defeating and managing the virus. So character matters in a moment like this, more than perhaps than in other times because everybody is vested on whether the government gets it right and succeeds.”
Of Boris Johnson, described by the opposition leader on Tuesday as “writing flippant columns about bendy bananas”, Starmer added: “I don’t think he has got the right character for this and I don’t think he is up to it.”
Asked whether he “hurt” Labour members by declaring that the party deserved to lose in December 2019, the Labour leader replied: “What Labour Party members and affiliates and supporters want more than anything is for the Labour Party to win and election.
“Therefore what I am setting out is how do we get from where we are from where we need to be to win an election. There is huge support for that in the Labour Party and labour movement.
“The response to yesterday’s speech has been really, really positive because I think people see that we have got a mountain to climb, but we are climbing it, and we are heading in the right direction.”
Starmer reiterated that Labour must “understand that trust of the electorate is critical”, and acknowledged that his online conference speech did not focus on policy, saying: “It is why I set out the values of the Labour Party rather than detailed policies. Trust.”
Presented with the argument that he is rejecting the legacy of Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader said he was prioritising the need to “listen to what voters are saying”, adding: “What I am hearing is that the basic trust has broken down.
“Trust in the Labour Party is a force for good and a force for change. We need to rebuild that trust, and that is why I set out yesterday the values that drive [us]… They are long-standing Labour values but we need to translate them into trust going forward.”
Asked whether he could afford to wait before telling voters about his policy plans when there are crucial elections in May 2021, Starmer said: “I think at this stage, six months into a new leadership, when we are picking ourselves up from a devastating loss, what I need to do is set out the values that drive me.
“What are the instincts and beliefs that drive me forward and our party forward, build trust in the Labour Party and set out what it is we want to achieve. Of course next May we will have those important elections and of course we will have manifestos going into those elections.”
He added: “I have spent a lot of time in different parts of the country where people didn’t vote Labour this time, and the strong sense I get is they are looking at me and they are asking a very basic question, which is “are you listening to me? Am I being heard?”.
“They are not actually saying, ‘what is your detailed policy on this or on that?’. They want to know ‘what sort of party is this and what are your aspirations? What are your values and beliefs, and do they chime with mine?’.”
Grilled on a second independence referendum in Scotland, where Labour faces a tough set of Holyrood elections next year, Starmer said: “We will be going into that election in May making it very clear that another divisive referendum on independence in Scotland is not what is needed…
“I am setting out the position we will be taking going into the May election. We don’t know what will happen after that. We don’t know. We don’t know what will happen after May.
“And in politics, people tell you with great certainty what is going to happen next year and the year after, but it doesn’t always turn out that way. We are making our argument going into May that a divisive referendum is not needed.”
Starmer will appear on television this evening in Labour’s new party political broadcast, which features Starmer talking about where he came from and why he is proud of Britain, and in his statement responding to the Prime Minister on coronavirus restrictions.


labourlist--2020-09-23--‘A New Leadership’ – Starmer’s first Labour party political broadcast

Keir Starmer ’ s first party political broadcast as Labour leader , named ‘ A New Leadership ’ to match the new slogan adopted ahead of its online conference , will be broadcast tonight on ITV at 6.25pm and BBC One at 6.55pm .
Introducing the new Labour leader to the country , the video features Starmer talking about where he came from and why he is proud of Britain , and shows him outside his pebbledash-covered childhood home in Oxted , Surrey .
As in the opposition leader ’ s ‘ Connected ’ speech on Tuesday and the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clip draws attention to the background and upbringing of Starmer – who was raised by a nurse and a toolmaker , and whose wife works for the NHS .
Over footage of a farmer , army veterans , children on the beach , Starmer talking to a family on a high street and separately to NHS workers , the leader says : “ I love this country .
I ’ m proud of this country , of all it has achieved and all it will go on to achieve .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An NHS that cared for my mother for much of her life .
The chance to be the first in my family to go to university , to go on into the law and to lead our Crown Prosecution Service for five years .
“ I want these opportunities to be available to everyone : in every village , town and city .
Every region and nation .
Whatever your age , background or ethnicity.
” The Labour leader goes on to emphasise “ values ” , in line with the leadership ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural values gap ’ and avoid being dragged into the ‘ culture war ’ , telling viewers that the UK was “ founded on values I share ” .
In a bid to appeal to voters who say they prioritise ‘ traditional British values ’ , Starmer adds : “ They ’ re the values of the Labour Party that I lead : decency , fairness , opportunity , compassion , security .
Those values that have sustained us through this pandemic.
” He describes the Labour Party as “ under new leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ under new management ” line of a PMQs in July – and its mission with him at the helm as “ to win the trust of the British people , so that together we can forge that better future ” .
Standing outside his childhood home , Starmer repeats a line from his conference speech to conclude the film with the statement : “ Together , we can make Britain the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in.
” Filming took place during the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Stevenage , Birmingham , Chesterfield and North Wales , as Starmer toured the country when Covid restrictions allowed him to do so .
The broadcast includes the stories of contributors who have had to deal with uncertainty around work , struggled with their mental health amid Covid restrictions , and coped with grief as family members passed away alone .
The film also highlights the contributions of frontline workers , particularly health staff , who put their lives at risk to keep the country going during the coronavirus pandemic , and celebrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Starmer will also be delivering an address to the nation this evening in response to the Prime Minister ’ s Tuesday statement on the new coronavirus restrictions .
This will be aired separately on BBC One at 8pm .

Keir Starmer’s first party political broadcast as Labour leader, named ‘A New Leadership’ to match the new slogan adopted ahead of its online conference, will be broadcast tonight on ITV at 6.25pm and BBC One at 6.55pm.
Introducing the new Labour leader to the country, the video features Starmer talking about where he came from and why he is proud of Britain, and shows him outside his pebbledash-covered childhood home in Oxted, Surrey.
As in the opposition leader’s ‘Connected’ speech on Tuesday and the latest Prime Minister’s Questions session, the clip draws attention to the background and upbringing of Starmer – who was raised by a nurse and a toolmaker, and whose wife works for the NHS.
Over footage of a farmer, army veterans, children on the beach, Starmer talking to a family on a high street and separately to NHS workers, the leader says: “I love this country. I’m proud of this country, of all it has achieved and all it will go on to achieve.
“This country has given me so much. An NHS that cared for my mother for much of her life. The chance to be the first in my family to go to university, to go on into the law and to lead our Crown Prosecution Service for five years.
“I want these opportunities to be available to everyone: in every village, town and city. Every region and nation. Whatever your age, background or ethnicity.”
The Labour leader goes on to emphasise “values”, in line with the leadership’s broad aim to bridge the ‘cultural values gap’ and avoid being dragged into the ‘culture war’, telling viewers that the UK was “founded on values I share”.
In a bid to appeal to voters who say they prioritise ‘traditional British values’, Starmer adds: “They’re the values of the Labour Party that I lead: decency, fairness, opportunity, compassion, security. Those values that have sustained us through this pandemic.”
He describes the Labour Party as “under new leadership” – a phrase adapted from the “under new management” line of a PMQs in July – and its mission with him at the helm as “to win the trust of the British people, so that together we can forge that better future”.
Standing outside his childhood home, Starmer repeats a line from his conference speech to conclude the film with the statement: “Together, we can make Britain the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in.”
Filming took place during the summer across the United Kingdom, including Edinburgh, Stevenage, Birmingham, Chesterfield and North Wales, as Starmer toured the country when Covid restrictions allowed him to do so.
The broadcast includes the stories of contributors who have had to deal with uncertainty around work, struggled with their mental health amid Covid restrictions, and coped with grief as family members passed away alone.
The film also highlights the contributions of frontline workers, particularly health staff, who put their lives at risk to keep the country going during the coronavirus pandemic, and celebrates businesses who supported the “national effort”.
Starmer will also be delivering an address to the nation this evening in response to the Prime Minister’s Tuesday statement on the new coronavirus restrictions. This will be aired separately on BBC One at 8pm.


labourlist--2020-09-23--Labour slams Tories as government postpones plan to end ‘no-fault’ evictions

Labour has criticised the Tories for their failure to deliver on a key 2019 Conservative Party manifesto pledge as the government has announced that plans to abolish ‘ no-fault ’ Section 21 evictions have been postponed .
Responding to a statement from housing minister Christopher Pincher in parliament today , Labour ’ s Thangam Debbonaire stressed that the “ situation facing renters couldn ’ t be more urgent ” during a debate about protections for tenants .
The Shadow Housing Secretary highlighted that the end of the temporary suspension of evictions under the emergency Covid legislation on Sunday had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 more pressing .
Debbonaire said : “ The situation facing renters couldn ’ t be more urgent .
Lifting the ban on evictions as we head into a second Covid spike is irresponsible and a betrayal of their promise that no renter will lose their home because of coronavirus.
” The controversial piece of legislation means that landlords can ‘ seek possession ’ of their properties during the tenancy , and the tenants can then be evicted from their homes without any reason being provided .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Renters are being served Section 21 notices , leading to automatic evictions , as we speak .
This legislation can not wait.
” Charities and campaigners have renewed their calls for ‘ no-fault ’ evictions to be abolished , in order to alleviate some of the pressures on renters , as the country looks to be entering a second wave in the coronavirus pandemic .
The Prime Minister vowed that he would scrap the evictions during the general election campaign and included the plans in the last Queen ’ s speech , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
But Pincher told the House of Commons this afternoon that the manifesto commitment has been postponed until there is a “ sensible and stable economic and social terrain ” on which to carry the plans forward .
The leading housing charity Shelter warned earlier this year that 227,000 private renters will be at risk of eviction when the ban is lifted , and campaigners are urging the government to put further measures in place .
Labour called last week for the government to extend the emergency evictions ban , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government rejected calls from the opposition and charities and the suspension was lifted on September 20th .

Labour has criticised the Tories for their failure to deliver on a key 2019 Conservative Party manifesto pledge as the government has announced that plans to abolish ‘no-fault’ Section 21 evictions have been postponed.
Responding to a statement from housing minister Christopher Pincher in parliament today, Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire stressed that the “situation facing renters couldn’t be more urgent” during a debate about protections for tenants.
The Shadow Housing Secretary highlighted that the end of the temporary suspension of evictions under the emergency Covid legislation on Sunday had made the need for the government to scrap Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 more pressing.
Debbonaire said: “The situation facing renters couldn’t be more urgent. Lifting the ban on evictions as we head into a second Covid spike is irresponsible and a betrayal of their promise that no renter will lose their home because of coronavirus.”
The controversial piece of legislation means that landlords can ‘seek possession’ of their properties during the tenancy, and the tenants can then be evicted from their homes without any reason being provided.
The Shadow Housing Secretary added: “Renters are being served Section 21 notices, leading to automatic evictions, as we speak. This legislation cannot wait.”
Charities and campaigners have renewed their calls for ‘no-fault’ evictions to be abolished, in order to alleviate some of the pressures on renters, as the country looks to be entering a second wave in the coronavirus pandemic.
The Prime Minister vowed that he would scrap the evictions during the general election campaign and included the plans in the last Queen’s speech, with a proposed renters’ reform bill earlier this year.
But Pincher told the House of Commons this afternoon that the manifesto commitment has been postponed until there is a “sensible and stable economic and social terrain” on which to carry the plans forward.
The leading housing charity Shelter warned earlier this year that 227,000 private renters will be at risk of eviction when the ban is lifted, and campaigners are urging the government to put further measures in place.
Labour called last week for the government to extend the emergency evictions ban, which was first introduced in March. The government rejected calls from the opposition and charities and the suspension was lifted on September 20th.


labourlist--2020-09-23--Covid must be handled with effective risk management, not erratic risk avoidance

COBRA met this week for the first time in about four months .
What took so long ?
This isn ’ t just a question of ignored process .
It may be a clear indication as to why the handling of Covid-19 has been so erratic : proper processes for resolving issues have been neglected and their execution has been disjointed .
An effective committee can resolve conflicts of views and also progress change .
The process can be brutal .
Reputations and careers can be shredded in weeks , but it gets the job done – as I recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minister during the foot-and-mouth crisis .
But this is only part of the re-evaluation required .
The dilemma that government , but also the opposition and indeed the nation , will have to focus on now is how we may have to learn to live with or , to be more accurate , to coexist with the virus for some time .
The dilemmas we are facing are not unique .
Nearly all decisions in public life are balanced .
Including in health , where NICE ( National Institute for Health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medical procedures are underpinned by cost-benefit analysis .
I question whether government decisions during the crisis have been subject to any such rigorous analysis .
Mankind has been living with , and attempting to manage , endemic diseases for centuries , millennia even , and many of these scourges still afflict the world .
Malaria still kills about 435,000 a year worldwide , Tuberculosis ( TB ) 1.5m , Hepatitis C 700,000 , even Influenza kills 290-650,000 according to the WHO .
Less-noticed fungal conditions affect billions of people and kill an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases have hit societies with varying degrees of severity , sometimes disastrously .
But throughout history , mankind has had to manage , mitigate and attempt to reduce and even eliminate them , with varying degrees of success .
Even today , many parts of the world are still having to adapt to some or several of these and some , such as TB , are morphing into more virulent and treatment-resistant forms .
Many of these exacted a high toll at the time and took a long time to control and marginalise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadly , there are no easy answers .
Every choice made will result in people suffering and dying – but some choices may mean those numbers are reduced .
Cuts to diagnosis and surgery costs lives .
A broken economy and high unemployment crushes hopes and blights the dreams of young people , as does disrupted education .
Loneliness , especially of older people , shortens lives and increases mental illness and suicide .
A wrecked economy can not pay decent wages or support proper public services .
An emaciated entertainment and hospitality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the livelihoods of millions .
That is why we have to replace Matt Hancock ’ s erratic , reactive risk avoidance with well-informed and prudent risk management .
Closing down societies permanently until an effective vaccine is found is not a realistic option .
Hopefully , the huge international effort to develop and manufacture a vaccine will be successful – but that is by no means certain .
Even so , it will not be 100 % effective , as is the case with the flu vaccine .
The prudent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective risk management rather than risk avoidance .
There must be a clear policy with public education and public engagement .
None of this is to underestimate the heroic work of our health and care workers , nor the individual or family tragedies caused by our current pandemic .
But our real challenge may be to work out how to minimise but , realistically , not eliminate the toll of Covid-19 on our lives .
We have to face up to reality by acknowledging that for some years – potentially decades – we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

COBRA met this week for the first time in about four months. What took so long? This isn’t just a question of ignored process. It may be a clear indication as to why the handling of Covid-19 has been so erratic: proper processes for resolving issues have been neglected and their execution has been disjointed. An effective committee can resolve conflicts of views and also progress change. The process can be brutal. Reputations and careers can be shredded in weeks, but it gets the job done – as I recall from COBRA meetings that I attended as a minister during the foot-and-mouth crisis.
But this is only part of the re-evaluation required. The dilemma that government, but also the opposition and indeed the nation, will have to focus on now is how we may have to learn to live with or, to be more accurate, to coexist with the virus for some time. The dilemmas we are facing are not unique. Nearly all decisions in public life are balanced. Including in health, where NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) assessments on the value of medical procedures are underpinned by cost-benefit analysis. I question whether government decisions during the crisis have been subject to any such rigorous analysis.
Mankind has been living with, and attempting to manage, endemic diseases for centuries, millennia even, and many of these scourges still afflict the world. Malaria still kills about 435,000 a year worldwide, Tuberculosis (TB) 1.5m, Hepatitis C 700,000, even Influenza kills 290-650,000 according to the WHO. Less-noticed fungal conditions affect billions of people and kill an estimated 1.5 million a year. These diseases have hit societies with varying degrees of severity, sometimes disastrously. But throughout history, mankind has had to manage, mitigate and attempt to reduce and even eliminate them, with varying degrees of success. Even today, many parts of the world are still having to adapt to some or several of these and some, such as TB, are morphing into more virulent and treatment-resistant forms. Many of these exacted a high toll at the time and took a long time to control and marginalise and in some cases almost eradicate.
Sadly, there are no easy answers. Every choice made will result in people suffering and dying – but some choices may mean those numbers are reduced. Cuts to diagnosis and surgery costs lives. A broken economy and high unemployment crushes hopes and blights the dreams of young people, as does disrupted education. Loneliness, especially of older people, shortens lives and increases mental illness and suicide. A wrecked economy cannot pay decent wages or support proper public services. An emaciated entertainment and hospitality sector erodes the joys of life, as well as the livelihoods of millions. That is why we have to replace Matt Hancock’s erratic, reactive risk avoidance with well-informed and prudent risk management.
Closing down societies permanently until an effective vaccine is found is not a realistic option. Hopefully, the huge international effort to develop and manufacture a vaccine will be successful – but that is by no means certain. Even so, it will not be 100% effective, as is the case with the flu vaccine. The prudent course of action, therefore, is effective risk management rather than risk avoidance. There must be a clear policy with public education and public engagement.
None of this is to underestimate the heroic work of our health and care workers, nor the individual or family tragedies caused by our current pandemic. But our real challenge may be to work out how to minimise but, realistically, not eliminate the toll of Covid-19 on our lives. We have to face up to reality by acknowledging that for some years – potentially decades – we may have to live with this enemy.


labourlist--2020-09-23--Will the top 10% of earners take another look at Labour?

At an Institute for Public Policy Research ( IPPR ) conference fringe event over the weekend , James Morris reminded us of the party ’ s trashed brand and that a needed shift would come from speaking to the values at the forefront of people ’ s minds during this crisis .
He referred to a recent poll suggesting that the pandemic has reminded the public of the equal value of all human life , exposed that the government cares too much about the wealthy and that something has gone badly wrong with the link between effort and reward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ’ s top three priorities as the NHS ( which they think Labour shares as a priority ) , Covid and the economy – but that voters think Labour ’ s focus on welfare and poverty does not have any bearing on our economic recovery .
A new report , which has been published today and comprises two years ’ research by think tanks Compass , TASC , Fundación Alternativas and Arena Idé , goes some way to exploring this disconnect between Labour and the electorate by looking at one group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties might better engage them .
It concludes a two-year study into the attitudes of high-income earners in the UK , Spain , Sweden and Ireland .
The ‘ Inequality and the top 10 % in Europe ’ study finds that while the top 10 % of earners – everyone in the UK earning £55,000 and above – may embody a successful CV , they themselves do not feel successful .
Even though they still generally hold meritocratic views , they are beginning to worry about the growing distance with the top 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already felt precarious , worried about theirs and their children ’ s futures They feared increasing inequality .
While they did not want inequality to increase further , they showed little understanding of its wider impact .
On the one hand , they wanted more investment in public services .
On the other , they did not trust the state to deliver them and did not want their taxes raised .
Our study also shows that this politically influential group did not feel their political power , instead feeling alienated and isolated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to what they refer to as the ‘ centre ground ’ .
And while they have undoubtedly been insulated from the brunt of the crisis , more of them are likely to have experienced state help than before .
It will have been hard to ignore the exposure of our much-eroded safety net .
This could provide an opportunity , especially after Covid , to make them more likely to support a social safety net .
What might present a bigger challenge for Labour is showing this income group that individual effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving the security and health they want for themselves and their children .
That the future wellbeing and power of our country depends on renewed collective investment and participation .
As Sylvia Walby explained very clearly during the equal pay session at Labour ’ s women ’ s conference on Saturday , if women are less likely to be able to self-isolate , on less pay and have less access to furlough and sick pay , addressing the gender pay gap directly assists our strategy for managing Covid .
Fighting coronavirus is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-income earners .
That is the kind of joining the dots that we need more of if the top 10 % is to take another look at Labour any time soon .

At an Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) conference fringe event over the weekend, James Morris reminded us of the party’s trashed brand and that a needed shift would come from speaking to the values at the forefront of people’s minds during this crisis. He referred to a recent poll suggesting that the pandemic has reminded the public of the equal value of all human life, exposed that the government cares too much about the wealthy and that something has gone badly wrong with the link between effort and reward. Morris also pointed out that polls put the public’s top three priorities as the NHS (which they think Labour shares as a priority), Covid and the economy – but that voters think Labour’s focus on welfare and poverty does not have any bearing on our economic recovery.
A new report, which has been published today and comprises two years’ research by think tanks Compass, TASC, Fundación Alternativas and Arena Idé, goes some way to exploring this disconnect between Labour and the electorate by looking at one group of potential voters and suggesting how progressive parties might better engage them. It concludes a two-year study into the attitudes of high-income earners in the UK, Spain, Sweden and Ireland.
The ‘Inequality and the top 10% in Europe’ study finds that while the top 10% of earners – everyone in the UK earning £55,000 and above – may embody a successful CV, they themselves do not feel successful. Even though they still generally hold meritocratic views, they are beginning to worry about the growing distance with the top 1%. Before the pandemic, they already felt precarious, worried about theirs and their children’s futures They feared increasing inequality. While they did not want inequality to increase further, they showed little understanding of its wider impact. On the one hand, they wanted more investment in public services. On the other, they did not trust the state to deliver them and did not want their taxes raised.
Our study also shows that this politically influential group did not feel their political power, instead feeling alienated and isolated. They fear polarisation and long for a return to what they refer to as the ‘centre ground’. And while they have undoubtedly been insulated from the brunt of the crisis, more of them are likely to have experienced state help than before. It will have been hard to ignore the exposure of our much-eroded safety net. This could provide an opportunity, especially after Covid, to make them more likely to support a social safety net.
What might present a bigger challenge for Labour is showing this income group that individual effort will only take them so far in achieving the security and health they want for themselves and their children. That the future wellbeing and power of our country depends on renewed collective investment and participation. As Sylvia Walby explained very clearly during the equal pay session at Labour’s women’s conference on Saturday, if women are less likely to be able to self-isolate, on less pay and have less access to furlough and sick pay, addressing the gender pay gap directly assists our strategy for managing Covid. Fighting coronavirus is in the interests of us all – even high-income earners. That is the kind of joining the dots that we need more of if the top 10% is to take another look at Labour any time soon.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Labour welcomes “U-turn” as Sunak unveils post-furlough jobs support scheme

The Labour Party has welcomed a “ U-turn ” by the government after Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced today that a new jobs support scheme would replace the existing furlough scheme ending next month .
The economic update delivered by the Chancellor to parliament promised that the scheme , set to start in November and run for six months , would protect “ viable jobs ” in businesses facing lower demand due to Covid-19 .
It will see eligible employees – those working at least one third of their normal hours – have their hours worked paid by employers and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government and their employer .
For the time that workers are not working , the government will pay a third of the workers ’ usual pay and the employer will pay another third of their usual pay .
Those eligible will be paid 77 % of their usual pay in total .
Sunak said there was conditionality in the scheme , which will only be available for larger companies that are seeing a decline in revenues due to Covid , evidenced by whether their turnover has dropped by a third .
The Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant would be “ extended on similar terms and conditions to the new jobs support scheme ” – under which government support is capped at £697.92 a month .
But the self-employment income support scheme ( SEISS ) extension will only support “ viable traders ” by covering 20 % of average monthly trading profits via a government grant , according to the Treasury .
Responding to the Chancellor ’ s winter plan , Labour ’ s Anneliese Dodds said : “ I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been rebuffed by his government 20 times .
It ’ s a relief they have U-turned now .
“ But this comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs – because the businesses employing them believed there would be no wage support following the end of next month.
” The Shadow Chancellor argued that the plan was announced too late , questioned whether the new jobs scheme truly incentivises short-hours working , and highlighted the need for training and retraining of workers .
Dodds also urged her opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test and trace system , which she described as currently “ having a substantial negative impact on our economy ” due to its failures .
The TUC ’ s Frances O ’ Grady offered support to the Chancellor ’ s winter plan , along with the CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn , but trade unions expressed reservations about the new economic update .
GMB acting general secretary John Phillips said : “ Whether this is enough to stave off widespread redundancies depends very much on the detail , and it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s living standards and ability to pay the bills.
” He added : “ It ’ s incredibly disappointing not to see much bolder , forward thinking action.
” The GMB has called for “ investment in infrastructure , training and skills in sustainable jobs and industries ” in addition to job support .
Transport union TSSA leader Manuel Cortes described the new scheme as “ better late than never ” but added that the union remains “ concerned that six months is too short to really stabilise businesses and jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We are very disappointed that he made no mention of the deep difficulties the retail industry faces… High streets need radical and bold action to level the playing field between online retail and ‘ bricks and mortar ’ shops.
” While the TUC said it was “ pleased the Chancellor has listened and done the right thing ” on continued jobs support for working people , the federation added : “ But there ’ s still unfinished business .
“ Unworked hours under the scheme must not be wasted .
Ministers must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-quality retraining… And we ’ ll be looking closely at the details to make sure there are strings attached.
” The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed ( IPSE ) was most critical in its assessment of the new economic measures , described as “ woefully inadequate ” , with one in three self-employed people excluded .
IPSE ’ s policy director commented : “ Limited company freelancers and the newly self-employed almost entirely missed out on support in the last lockdown and have faced bleak months of financial devastation .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless the government does more for them .
Based on the drastic financial hit self-employed people took in the last lockdown , the new 20 % cap on support is likely to be nowhere near enough.
” The Treasury yesterday announced that the autumn Budget would be cancelled as “ now is not the right time to outline long-term plans ” , and the Chancellor instead delivered his statement to the Commons today .
Dodds set out earlier this week to Labour ’ s ‘ Connected ’ conference “ three steps to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alternative economic plan from the party to “ recover jobs , retrain workers and rebuild business ” .

The Labour Party has welcomed a “U-turn” by the government after Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced today that a new jobs support scheme would replace the existing furlough scheme ending next month.
The economic update delivered by the Chancellor to parliament promised that the scheme, set to start in November and run for six months, would protect “viable jobs” in businesses facing lower demand due to Covid-19.
It will see eligible employees – those working at least one third of their normal hours – have their hours worked paid by employers and their hours not worked paid jointly by the government and their employer.
For the time that workers are not working, the government will pay a third of the workers’ usual pay and the employer will pay another third of their usual pay. Those eligible will be paid 77% of their usual pay in total.
Sunak said there was conditionality in the scheme, which will only be available for larger companies that are seeing a decline in revenues due to Covid, evidenced by whether their turnover has dropped by a third.
The Chancellor claimed to MPs that the existing self-employed grant would be “extended on similar terms and conditions to the new jobs support scheme” – under which government support is capped at £697.92 a month.
But the self-employment income support scheme (SEISS) extension will only support “viable traders” by covering 20% of average monthly trading profits via a government grant, according to the Treasury.
Responding to the Chancellor’s winter plan, Labour’s Anneliese Dodds said: “I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted wage support 40 times. That call has been rebuffed by his government 20 times. It’s a relief they have U-turned now.
“But this comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs – because the businesses employing them believed there would be no wage support following the end of next month.”
The Shadow Chancellor argued that the plan was announced too late, questioned whether the new jobs scheme truly incentivises short-hours working, and highlighted the need for training and retraining of workers.
Dodds also urged her opposite to work with his colleagues on improving the test and trace system, which she described as currently “having a substantial negative impact on our economy” due to its failures.
The TUC’s Frances O’Grady offered support to the Chancellor’s winter plan, along with the CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn, but trade unions expressed reservations about the new economic update.
GMB acting general secretary John Phillips said: “Whether this is enough to stave off widespread redundancies depends very much on the detail, and it will be judged not just on jobs but on people’s living standards and ability to pay the bills.”
He added: “It’s incredibly disappointing not to see much bolder, forward thinking action.” The GMB has called for “investment in infrastructure, training and skills in sustainable jobs and industries” in addition to job support.
Unite’s Len McCluskey said: “The package of measures announced today by the chancellor will allow many workers and employers to breathe more easily. For some industries this will steady the very rocky floor beneath them.”
But he added: “We urge the government to work with us as we put our collective shoulders to the wheel in the task of recovering the economy, because the spectre of mass unemployment still stalks our communities.”
Transport union TSSA leader Manuel Cortes described the new scheme as “better late than never” but also said the union remains “concerned that six months is too short to really stabilise businesses and jobs”.
Usdaw responded to the plan by saying: “We are very disappointed that he made no mention of the deep difficulties the retail industry faces… High streets need radical and bold action to level the playing field between online retail and ‘bricks and mortar’ shops.”
While the TUC said it was “pleased the Chancellor has listened and done the right thing” on continued jobs support for working people, the federation added: “But there’s still unfinished business.
“Unworked hours under the scheme must not be wasted. Ministers must work with business and unions to offer high-quality retraining… And we’ll be looking closely at the details to make sure there are strings attached.”
The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed (IPSE) was most critical in its assessment of the new economic measures, described as “woefully inadequate”, with one in three self-employed people excluded.
IPSE’s policy director commented: “Limited company freelancers and the newly self-employed almost entirely missed out on support in the last lockdown and have faced bleak months of financial devastation.
“Now they face a dark winter ahead unless the government does more for them. Based on the drastic financial hit self-employed people took in the last lockdown, the new 20% cap on support is likely to be nowhere near enough.”
UNISON was most positive, with Dave Prentis saying: “These measures show the Chancellor has been listening to unions and businesses. Supporting the wages of workers is an important first step in the battle to protect jobs across the UK.”
The Treasury yesterday announced that the autumn Budget would be cancelled as “now is not the right time to outline long-term plans”, and the Chancellor instead delivered his statement to the Commons today.
Dodds set out earlier this week to Labour’s ‘Connected’ conference “three steps to a better, more secure future” with an alternative economic plan from the party to “recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild business”.


labourlist--2020-09-24--“It’s a relief they have U-turned” – Dodds’ response to Chancellor

Below is the full text of the response offered by Anneliese Dodds to the Chancellor ’ s economic update in parliament today .
I would like to thank the Chancellor for his statement , and for advance copy of the announcement .
I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted wage support 40 times .
That call has been rebuffed by his government 20 times .
It ’ s a relief they have U-turned now .
But this comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs – because the businesses employing them believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of next month .
Indeed , the deadline for redundancy consultations by large firms before the end of the furlough scheme , came and went last week without a word from this government .
If the package of measures announced today can help people keep their jobs , and can help businesses through hard times , then Labour will of course support them- and there ’ s much in this statement that we do support .
But we must ensure measures are as effective as possible at keeping workers in employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and keeping viable businesses in operation .
As with many previous announcements by this government , we must wait for the detail to be announced , presumably following the press conference scheduled for later on today .
But workers and businesses will be hanging right now on the Chancellor ’ s every word – and they need to know what is promised here .
So can the Chancellor be clear .
Will this scheme of wage support actually keep more people in work ?
For that to happen , the scheme must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retain more staff , on reduced hours , than to retain some full-time and make others redundant .
So does his scheme actually incentivise short-hours working ?
What conditions – if any – will be applied to ensure value for public money ?
Will the scheme require commitments for continuing employment – unlike the existing furlough scheme where there have been abuses ?
And will it require those participating to provide decent , sustainable work ?
Will the scheme incentivise training and retraining ?
The German scheme does , and Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentives for training- but that ’ s missing from this government ’ s plan .
Indeed , while we welcome many of the elements the Chancellor has announced today , the lack of action on training and skills is worrying .
The government has already allocated £3bn for a National Skills Strategy – but it ’ s not being delivered on the ground .
So will the Chancellor work with businesses , trade unions , further and higher education and local authorities to get the training opportunities in place our country needs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs of the future ?
What will the Chancellor provide to help the self-employed struggling during this period – where again , Labour has argued for a targeted system of support ?
How can we avoid the gaps in coverage that have bedevilled existing schemes ?
And will the Chancellor do more to demand his colleagues get a grip on the UK ’ s public health crisis ?
Our country is suffering from a double tragedy : the highest excess death rate in Europe , and the deepest recession in the G7 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of additional restrictions this week .
The government ’ s messaging has been confused enough already- the last thing we want to do is add to that confusion .
But we are concerned that those restrictions have only been necessary because of continuing problems with test , trace and isolate .
When will he acknowledge that his government ’ s failures on test , trace and isolate are having a substantial negative impact on our economy – and what will he do to fix the system ?
Before the summer recess , Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on jobs , jobs , jobs .
We didn ’ t get one .
We expected a Budget this autumn to address the major challenges our country faces .
It appears again- we ’ re not getting one .
And the Chancellor only announced he would make a statement to Parliament today , after I ’ d hauled him here with an Urgent Question , which I ’ m very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting .
We lagged behind on wage support ; we lagged behind on support for those having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind on green investment ; and for these and other reasons it looks like our recovery will be lagging behind .
So finally when will the Chancellor provide the Back to Work Budget this country needs ?

Below is the full text of the response offered by Anneliese Dodds to the Chancellor’s economic update in parliament today.
I would like to thank the Chancellor for his statement, and for advance copy of the announcement.
I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted wage support 40 times. That call has been rebuffed by his government 20 times. It’s a relief they have U-turned now.
But this comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs – because the businesses employing them believed there would be no wage support following the end of next month.
Indeed, the deadline for redundancy consultations by large firms before the end of the furlough scheme, came and went last week without a word from this government.
If the package of measures announced today can help people keep their jobs, and can help businesses through hard times, then Labour will of course support them- and there’s much in this statement that we do support.
But we must ensure measures are as effective as possible at keeping workers in employment, getting unemployed people back into work, and keeping viable businesses in operation.
As with many previous announcements by this government, we must wait for the detail to be announced, presumably following the press conference scheduled for later on today. But workers and businesses will be hanging right now on the Chancellor’s every word – and they need to know what is promised here.
So can the Chancellor be clear. Will this scheme of wage support actually keep more people in work? For that to happen, the scheme must make it more attractive to employers to retain more staff, on reduced hours, than to retain some full-time and make others redundant. So does his scheme actually incentivise short-hours working?
What conditions – if any – will be applied to ensure value for public money? Will the scheme require commitments for continuing employment – unlike the existing furlough scheme where there have been abuses? And will it require those participating to provide decent, sustainable work?
Will the scheme incentivise training and retraining? The German scheme does, and Labour’s called for a UK version to include incentives for training- but that’s missing from this government’s plan.
Indeed, while we welcome many of the elements the Chancellor has announced today, the lack of action on training and skills is worrying. The government has already allocated £3bn for a National Skills Strategy – but it’s not being delivered on the ground. So will the Chancellor work with businesses, trade unions, further and higher education and local authorities to get the training opportunities in place our country needs, so people can be ready for the jobs of the future?
What will the Chancellor provide to help the self-employed struggling during this period – where again, Labour has argued for a targeted system of support? How can we avoid the gaps in coverage that have bedevilled existing schemes?
And will the Chancellor do more to demand his colleagues get a grip on the UK’s public health crisis? Our country is suffering from a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe, and the deepest recession in the G7. Labour supports the government in its announcement of additional restrictions this week. The government’s messaging has been confused enough already- the last thing we want to do is add to that confusion. But we are concerned that those restrictions have only been necessary because of continuing problems with test, trace and isolate.
When will he acknowledge that his government’s failures on test, trace and isolate are having a substantial negative impact on our economy – and what will he do to fix the system?
Before the summer recess, Labour called for a Back to Work Budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. We didn’t get one. We expected a Budget this autumn to address the major challenges our country faces. It appears again- we’re not getting one. And the Chancellor only announced he would make a statement to Parliament today, after I’d hauled him here with an Urgent Question, which I’m very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting.
We lagged behind on wage support; we lagged behind on support for those having to self-isolate; we’re lagging behind on green investment; and for these and other reasons it looks like our recovery will be lagging behind. So finally when will the Chancellor provide the Back to Work Budget this country needs?


labourlist--2020-09-24--“I am sad to be stepped down” – Nadia Whittome’s statement

Below is the full text of Nadia Whittome ’ s statement , which was issued after she broke the Labour whip by voting against the overseas operations bill at second reading on Wednesday evening .
She was a member of Labour ’ s frontbench but has been stood down .
This morning the leader of the opposition ’ s office called me to confirm that I have been stood down from my role as parliamentary private secretary to the Shadow Health Secretary , Jonathan Ashworth following my vote against the overseas operations bill .
I opposed the bill because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for veterans to take legal action against the government or for war crimes to be investigated .
The decision to break the Labour whip is a difficult one and I understand many of my colleagues came to a different conclusion and decided to abstain on this bill in the sincere hope that the bill can be amended at later stages .
I hold out no such hope given the how flawed and damaging this bill is .
It is important that MPs are able to vote in line with their conscience in consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith – all of which I am confident that I have done .
This bill flatly contradicts the UN Committee Against Torture ( UNCAT ) – a treaty which the UK has ratified – which states that all victims of torture or ill-treatment , regardless of when the violation occurred , must be able to access their rights to remedy and to obtain redress .
It often takes years , or even decades , to properly process and come to terms with abusive and traumatic experiences and to then find the courage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , in good conscience , vote in a way that would make this process even harder for someone in such a terrible situation .
It strikes me that if a piece of legislation has had concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission , the British Legion , Amnesty International and other organisations on the front line of supporting veterans and defending human rights , we need to stop and ask ourselves why .
This Bill flatly contradicts the UN Committee Against Torture ( UNCAT ) – a treaty which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all victims of torture or ill-treatment , regardless of when the violation occurred , must be able to access their rights to remedy and to obtain redress .
I am sad to be stepped down as Jon Ashworth ’ s PPS .
Jon has held the government to account with rigour and courage on its myriad failures in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic – from being slow to lockdown , slow to provide PPE to health and social care workers , and failing to give us the functioning test and trace system we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a privilege to serve as Jon ’ s PPS and both he and Keir will continue to have my loyalty and support .
We must unite to bring about the genuine alternative so desperately needed to this reckless and dangerously incompetent Conservative government .
It is my heartfelt belief that a Labour government rooted in integrity , defence of human rights and the rule of law is the best way to achieve this for my constituents and the country .

Below is the full text of Nadia Whittome’s statement, which was issued after she broke the Labour whip by voting against the overseas operations bill at second reading on Wednesday evening. She was a member of Labour’s frontbench but has been stood down.
This morning the leader of the opposition’s office called me to confirm that I have been stood down from my role as parliamentary private secretary to the Shadow Health Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth following my vote against the overseas operations bill. I opposed the bill because it effectively decriminalises torture and makes it harder for veterans to take legal action against the government or for war crimes to be investigated.
The decision to break the Labour whip is a difficult one and I understand many of my colleagues came to a different conclusion and decided to abstain on this bill in the sincere hope that the bill can be amended at later stages. I hold out no such hope given the how flawed and damaging this bill is.
It is important that MPs are able to vote in line with their conscience in consideration of all the facts and in good faith – all of which I am confident that I have done.
This bill flatly contradicts the UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) – a treaty which the UK has ratified – which states that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred, must be able to access their rights to remedy and to obtain redress.
It often takes years, or even decades, to properly process and come to terms with abusive and traumatic experiences and to then find the courage and resource to come forward. I cannot, in good conscience, vote in a way that would make this process even harder for someone in such a terrible situation.
It strikes me that if a piece of legislation has had concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the British Legion, Amnesty International and other organisations on the front line of supporting veterans and defending human rights, we need to stop and ask ourselves why.
This Bill flatly contradicts the UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) – a treaty which the UK has ratified – which states that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred, must be able to access their rights to remedy and to obtain redress.
I am sad to be stepped down as Jon Ashworth’s PPS. Jon has held the government to account with rigour and courage on its myriad failures in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic – from being slow to lockdown, slow to provide PPE to health and social care workers, and failing to give us the functioning test and trace system we need to beat the virus. It has been a privilege to serve as Jon’s PPS and both he and Keir will continue to have my loyalty and support.
We must unite to bring about the genuine alternative so desperately needed to this reckless and dangerously incompetent Conservative government. It is my heartfelt belief that a Labour government rooted in integrity, defence of human rights and the rule of law is the best way to achieve this for my constituents and the country.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Starmer’s introduction to the country – and a controversial whip to abstain

Keir Starmer has made huge strides in the mission to introduce himself to the country this week .
Following his quasi-conference speech , the usual Prime Minister ’ s Questions session saw the opposition leader highlight the internal contradictions in government Covid messaging and effectively rebut the claim that his testing criticisms could be an attack on NHS staff ( “ My wife works in the NHS .
My mother worked for the NHS .
My sister works for the NHS .
I ’ m not going to take lectures on supporting the NHS ” ) .
As our review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the technical aspects of Tory failures , but also in the NHS pride overwhelmingly shared by voters .
Next up on telly was Starmer ’ s first Labour party political broadcast , ‘ A New Leadership ’ , which again emphasised his “ values ” and love for Britain .
The film is very different from the style pioneered by Simon Baker during the Jeremy Corbyn era – not gritty , but pretty and green – a reflection of Starmer ’ s Labour targeting rural areas , and the hope of presenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with an optimistic and trustworthy glow .
Rather than explore policy detail and successes in opposition , as Corbyn ’ s first PPB did , this video featured Starmer outside his childhood home , talking about his background and principles .
And then the country could see Starmer again as he addressed the nation on coronavirus , demanding a “ ‘ Plan B ’ for the economy ” .
From an insider perspective , however , the standout event yesterday was not any of Starmer ’ s TV appearances but the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey presented fantastically strong arguments against the government bill during the debate , saying it “ creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished ” and “ calls into question Britain ’ s proud commitment to the Geneva Convention ” .
But Labour whipped its MPs to abstain at second reading last night .
18 Labour MPs defied that order , including parliamentary private secretaries Olivia Blake , Nadia Whittome and Beth Winter , who are now on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she considered the bill to be a “ matter of conscience ” and did not intend to resign , Labour did impose a one-line whip and no frontbencher can expect to stay if they break the whip .
The rules are clear .
The outcome is , nonetheless , ridiculous .
Labour argued vociferously against the bill , then forced the resignations of MPs who could not in good conscience play parliamentary politics with a proposal that the relevant shadow cabinet member called “ unconscionable ” .
As with the infamous welfare bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid sending the wrong message : then , that it was on the side of so-called ‘ scroungers ’ ; now , that it doesn ’ t care about protecting our troops .
But it ’ s not as if the abstention stopped the Conservative Party from sending out attack lines .
The Labour leadership agrees with Bell Ribeiro-Addy and other rebels that this bill is not patriotic , and has said so .
With Rishi Sunak delivering an economic update today – including a wage subsidy scheme , rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – stay tuned for lots of news and analysis coming up on LabourList .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Keir Starmer has made huge strides in the mission to introduce himself to the country this week. Following his quasi-conference speech, the usual Prime Minister’s Questions session saw the opposition leader highlight the internal contradictions in government Covid messaging and effectively rebut the claim that his testing criticisms could be an attack on NHS staff (“My wife works in the NHS. My mother worked for the NHS. My sister works for the NHS. I’m not going to take lectures on supporting the NHS”). As our review concluded, the focus was not just on the technical aspects of Tory failures, but also in the NHS pride overwhelmingly shared by voters.
Next up on telly was Starmer’s first Labour party political broadcast, ‘A New Leadership’, which again emphasised his “values” and love for Britain. The film is very different from the style pioneered by Simon Baker during the Jeremy Corbyn era – not gritty, but pretty and green – a reflection of Starmer’s Labour targeting rural areas, and the hope of presenting the new leader in a positive light, with an optimistic and trustworthy glow. Rather than explore policy detail and successes in opposition, as Corbyn’s first PPB did, this video featured Starmer outside his childhood home, talking about his background and principles. And then the country could see Starmer again as he addressed the nation on coronavirus, demanding a “‘Plan B’ for the economy”.
From an insider perspective, however, the standout event yesterday was not any of Starmer’s TV appearances but the party losing three frontbenchers over the overseas operations bill. Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey presented fantastically strong arguments against the government bill during the debate, saying it “creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished” and “calls into question Britain’s proud commitment to the Geneva Convention”. But Labour whipped its MPs to abstain at second reading last night. 18 Labour MPs defied that order, including parliamentary private secretaries Olivia Blake, Nadia Whittome and Beth Winter, who are now on the backbenches.
Although Whittome told Peston that she considered the bill to be a “matter of conscience” and did not intend to resign, Labour did impose a one-line whip and no frontbencher can expect to stay if they break the whip. The rules are clear. The outcome is, nonetheless, ridiculous. Labour argued vociferously against the bill, then forced the resignations of MPs who could not in good conscience play parliamentary politics with a proposal that the relevant shadow cabinet member called “unconscionable”. As with the infamous welfare bill vote in 2015, Labour may want to avoid sending the wrong message: then, that it was on the side of so-called ‘scroungers’; now, that it doesn’t care about protecting our troops. But it’s not as if the abstention stopped the Conservative Party from sending out attack lines. The Labour leadership agrees with Bell Ribeiro-Addy and other rebels that this bill is not patriotic, and has said so.
With Rishi Sunak delivering an economic update today – including a wage subsidy scheme, rather than the targeted extension of furlough demanded by Labour – stay tuned for lots of news and analysis coming up on LabourList. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Labour: Government has “failed” BAME people hit by Covid economic downturn

Marsha de Cordova has argued that the government has “ failed to act to protect Black , Asian and minority ethnic communities ” after a new report has shown BAME people are almost three times as likely to have lost their job as a result of Covid .
Reacting to the research by the Institute for Public Policy Research ( IPPR ) published today , the Shadow Equalities Secretary said it was another example of how the government ’ s current economic policy “ isn ’ t working ” .
The IPPR study found that of all the people from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-employed at the start of the crisis , 13 % had lost their job by June – compared to 5 % of the overall population .
Commenting on the report , de Cordova said : “ This government has failed to act to protect Black , Asian and minority ethnic communities since this health crisis began six months ago .
The government ’ s one-size-fits-all approach just isn ’ t working .
“ They must introduce a job recovery scheme to replace furlough , so businesses in key sectors can bring back staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality impact assessment of the financial and social measures it has taken so far to protect and support people through the pandemic.
” The IPPR analysis suggested BAME people are most at risk from the economic impacts of Covid , describing the problem as a “ double whammy ” for a group previously found to be more at risk of dying from the virus .
BAME people were found to possess 50 % more debt on average than the rest of the population and were twice as likely to have been unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being more likely to lose their job .
The report mirrors comments made by Gordon Brown at a conference event on Tuesday .
The former Prime Minister said : “ Black jobs don ’ t seem to matter to this government , as BAME unemployment heads up to 20 % .
” IPPR economist and report author Shreya Nanda said : “ Without further intervention , we are on course for a new debt crisis , from which Black , Asian and other minority ethnic people are particularly at risk .
“ Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial difficulty in the months ahead and to be vulnerable to eviction as a result of rent arrears .
“ Such economic insecurity risks compounding the already disproportionate health impacts borne by people with minority ethnic backgrounds during this crisis – effectively a double whammy.
” The study also found that BAME people were almost 50 % more likely to be renters than the wider population , meaning they will likely be more affected by the withdrawal of the government ’ s evictions ban that happened on Sunday .
Labour ’ s Thangam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extend the ban that was put in place to protect renters in the coronavirus pandemic , but Downing Street is yet to offer any further support .
Charities and campaign groups have estimated that more than 220,000 private renters have fallen into arrears and an estimated 60,000 eviction notices have been served to tenants during the crisis .

Marsha de Cordova has argued that the government has “failed to act to protect Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities” after a new report has shown BAME people are almost three times as likely to have lost their job as a result of Covid.
Reacting to the research by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published today, the Shadow Equalities Secretary said it was another example of how the government’s current economic policy “isn’t working”.
The IPPR study found that of all the people from minority ethnic groups who were employed or self-employed at the start of the crisis, 13% had lost their job by June – compared to 5% of the overall population.
Commenting on the report, de Cordova said: “This government has failed to act to protect Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities since this health crisis began six months ago. The government’s one-size-fits-all approach just isn’t working.
“They must introduce a job recovery scheme to replace furlough, so businesses in key sectors can bring back staff on reduced hours, and publish an equality impact assessment of the financial and social measures it has taken so far to protect and support people through the pandemic.”
The IPPR analysis suggested BAME people are most at risk from the economic impacts of Covid, describing the problem as a “double whammy” for a group previously found to be more at risk of dying from the virus.
BAME people were found to possess 50% more debt on average than the rest of the population and were twice as likely to have been unable to pay their bills since June, alongside being more likely to lose their job.
The report mirrors comments made by Gordon Brown at a conference event on Tuesday. The former Prime Minister said: “Black jobs don’t seem to matter to this government, as BAME unemployment heads up to 20%.”
IPPR economist and report author Shreya Nanda said: “Without further intervention, we are on course for a new debt crisis, from which Black, Asian and other minority ethnic people are particularly at risk.
“Many in these communities are likely to experience financial difficulty in the months ahead and to be vulnerable to eviction as a result of rent arrears.
“Such economic insecurity risks compounding the already disproportionate health impacts borne by people with minority ethnic backgrounds during this crisis – effectively a double whammy.”
The study also found that BAME people were almost 50% more likely to be renters than the wider population, meaning they will likely be more affected by the withdrawal of the government’s evictions ban that happened on Sunday.
Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire called on the government last week to extend the ban that was put in place to protect renters in the coronavirus pandemic, but Downing Street is yet to offer any further support.
Charities and campaign groups have estimated that more than 220,000 private renters have fallen into arrears and an estimated 60,000 eviction notices have been served to tenants during the crisis.