labourlist--2020-12-03--Unions join Covid-19 bereaved families in call to PM for urgent public inquiry

Trade unions including Unite , GMB and Usdaw have joined the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group in demanding that the Prime Minister call an immediate statutory public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic .
The organisations have come together to urge the government to initiative a rapid review that could “ report back within weeks ” and “ minimise further loss of life ” during the second coronavirus wave currently underway in the UK .
The letter organised by Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and signed by 23 other groups states that the review would need to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families an opportunity to participate .
Stressing that “ we have never been more in need of swift , evidence-based policy recommendations ” , the joint letter urges Boris Johnson to “ learn lessons and save lives ” by accepting that an inquiry “ can not be delayed any longer ” .
Commenting on the demands set out today , TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady said : “ Many working people have put their lives on the line in this pandemic , caring for the sick and keeping the nation running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their safety through the winter ahead .
And it must be part of a full judge-led inquiry that takes evidence from the key workers who have cared for the nation.
” Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice co-founder Jo Goodman said : “ We have been making the case for an urgent inquiry and rapid review since June .
If the Prime Minister met with us as we asked and listened to what we had to say then , we may not be in the situation we are now .
“ It is clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any longer .
It must be a statutory public inquiry and it must have a rapid review first stage like the Taylor Review after the Hillsborough Disaster .
No more people have to die .
It ’ s time to learn lessons and save lives.
” As well as gaining the support of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party , the letter has been signed by the British Medical Association , human rights organisation Amnesty International and charities such as Disability Rights UK .
The TUC called on the government in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry by the end of 2020 looking into the “ grotesque ” failure to provide frontline workers with adequate personal protective equipment .
The Labour Party has not so far backed the fresh demand for a rapid review .
Party leader Keir Starmer has supported the principle of a public Covid-19 inquiry being held but not specified when it should take place .
Johnson confirmed in July that there would “ certainly ” be an “ independent ” investigation into the coronavirus pandemic “ in the future ” .
Downing Street did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry or when it would start .
Asked about the letter today , the Prime Minister ’ s spokesperson said : “ In the fullness of time there will be an opportunity to reflect on all aspects of the pandemic but for now our focus remains on continuing to drive the infection rate down.
” The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group of more than 2,000 families is also calling for increased bereavement support services and government support for those experiencing financial insecurity as a result of Covid-19 bereavement .
Below is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister .
On 15th July you committed the government to holding an inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
As we exit the second national lockdown in under a year , we the undersigned are now demanding that you call an immediate statutory public inquiry with a rapid review first phase which would report back within weeks .
We believe this is paramount in order to minimise further loss of life .
Indeed , there is precedent for a rapid review – the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days and quickly identified important measures to ensure safety in football stadiums .
An inquiry must also satisfy the government ’ s legal responsibility to give bereaved families an opportunity to participate under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights .
Any government , particularly during an unprecedented public health crisis , should be guided by the evidence , and we have never been more in need of swift , evidence-based policy recommendations .
While it is not for us to determine the outcome of an inquiry , there are several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a matter of priority .
Firstly , it is essential that we assess the effectiveness of the UK ’ s test and trace programme in line with the WHO ’ s principal recommendation .
Secondly , we must review how the government has made decisions including how infection control measures are decided and how risk levels are communicated to the public .
Third , there is mounting research that Covid-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Black and ethnic minority communities .
It is critical that we identify why this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now to mitigate the impact of the virus on these communities .
Finally , the inquiry must also look at the functioning and capacity of the NHS to provide appropriate care to Covid-19 patients , including the effectiveness of 111 to identify those in need of medical intervention , and how to ensure the provision of other urgent NHS treatments .
This also includes the threat of Covid-19 in hospitals and care homes to prevent residents and health workers from contracting the virus .
The recent news that a vaccine has been approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As public life begins to return to normalcy , it is more important than ever that you make good on your promise and call an urgent statutory public inquiry now to learn lessons and save lives .
Unprecedented times call for an unprecedented response .
A Covid-19 inquiry can not be delayed any longer .
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice BMA GMB TUC Usdaw BASW England BASW Cymru Unite NEU UCU NUS Amnesty International UK Black Pride Race Equality Foundation Race on the Agenda The Monitoring Group Race Equality Matters Doctors Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Ubele Initiative Every Doctor Public Interest Law Centre

Trade unions including Unite, GMB and Usdaw have joined the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group in demanding that the Prime Minister call an immediate statutory public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic.
The organisations have come together to urge the government to initiative a rapid review that could “report back within weeks” and “minimise further loss of life” during the second coronavirus wave currently underway in the UK.
The letter organised by Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and signed by 23 other groups states that the review would need to have a fast turnaround while also giving bereaved families an opportunity to participate.
Stressing that “we have never been more in need of swift, evidence-based policy recommendations”, the joint letter urges Boris Johnson to “learn lessons and save lives” by accepting that an inquiry “cannot be delayed any longer”.
Commenting on the demands set out today, TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Many working people have put their lives on the line in this pandemic, caring for the sick and keeping the nation running.
“A rapid review could improve their safety through the winter ahead. And it must be part of a full judge-led inquiry that takes evidence from the key workers who have cared for the nation.”
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice co-founder Jo Goodman said: “We have been making the case for an urgent inquiry and rapid review since June. If the Prime Minister met with us as we asked and listened to what we had to say then, we may not be in the situation we are now.
“It is clear a Covid-19 inquiry cannot be delayed any longer. It must be a statutory public inquiry and it must have a rapid review first stage like the Taylor Review after the Hillsborough Disaster. No more people have to die. It’s time to learn lessons and save lives.”
As well as gaining the support of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party, the letter has been signed by the British Medical Association, human rights organisation Amnesty International and charities such as Disability Rights UK.
The TUC called on the government in April to set up an independent, judge-led inquiry by the end of 2020 looking into the “grotesque” failure to provide frontline workers with adequate personal protective equipment.
The Labour Party has not so far backed the fresh demand for a rapid review. Party leader Keir Starmer has supported the principle of a public Covid-19 inquiry being held but not specified when it should take place.
Update, December 4th: UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis has joined the call for a rapid inquiry “to protect vulnerable communities”, saying: “It’s vital the government holds its promised public inquiry as quickly as possible.”
Johnson confirmed in July that there would “certainly” be an “independent” investigation into the coronavirus pandemic “in the future”. Downing Street did not give details about the nature of the inquiry or when it would start.
Asked about the letter today, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “In the fullness of time there will be an opportunity to reflect on all aspects of the pandemic but for now our focus remains on continuing to drive the infection rate down.”
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group of more than 2,000 families is also calling for increased bereavement support services and government support for those experiencing financial insecurity as a result of Covid-19 bereavement.
Below is the full text of the letter to the Prime Minister.
Dear Prime Minister,
On 15th July you committed the government to holding an inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. As we exit the second national lockdown in under a year, we the undersigned are now demanding that you call an immediate statutory public inquiry with a rapid review first phase which would report back within weeks.
We believe this is paramount in order to minimise further loss of life. Indeed, there is precedent for a rapid review – the inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor after the Hillsborough Disaster reported back in just 31 days and quickly identified important measures to ensure safety in football stadiums. An inquiry must also satisfy the government’s legal responsibility to give bereaved families an opportunity to participate under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Any government, particularly during an unprecedented public health crisis, should be guided by the evidence, and we have never been more in need of swift, evidence-based policy recommendations. While it is not for us to determine the outcome of an inquiry, there are several areas which we believe should be addressed as a matter of priority.
Firstly, it is essential that we assess the effectiveness of the UK’s test and trace programme in line with the WHO’s principal recommendation.
Secondly, we must review how the government has made decisions including how infection control measures are decided and how risk levels are communicated to the public.
Third, there is mounting research that Covid-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Black and ethnic minority communities. It is critical that we identify why this is the case and what actions can be implemented now to mitigate the impact of the virus on these communities.
Finally, the inquiry must also look at the functioning and capacity of the NHS to provide appropriate care to Covid-19 patients, including the effectiveness of 111 to identify those in need of medical intervention, and how to ensure the provision of other urgent NHS treatments. This also includes the threat of Covid-19 in hospitals and care homes to prevent residents and health workers from contracting the virus.
The recent news that a vaccine has been approved is a step in the right direction. As public life begins to return to normalcy, it is more important than ever that you make good on your promise and call an urgent statutory public inquiry now to learn lessons and save lives.
Unprecedented times call for an unprecedented response. A Covid-19 inquiry cannot be delayed any longer.
Yours sincerely,
Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice
BMA
GMB
TUC
Usdaw
BASW England
BASW Cymru
Unite
NEU
UCU
NUS
Amnesty International
UK Black Pride
Race Equality Foundation
Race on the Agenda
The Monitoring Group
Race Equality Matters
Doctors Association UK
Disability Rights UK
Inquest
SUDEP Action
The Ubele Initiative
Every Doctor
Public Interest Law Centre


labourlist--2020-12-03--Tory Covid exam adjustments “bake in fundamental inequities”, says Labour

Kate Green has slammed the government over arrangements for 2021 A-Level and GCSE exams on the basis that the plan “ bakes in fundamental inequities between students who have suffered different levels of disruption ” in the pandemic .
Addressing parliament after a statement from Gavin Williamson this morning , the Shadow Education Secretary said the arrangements freshly outlined by the government “ fall short of the fair exams the Secretary of State promised ” .
Green said : “ I do welcome the decision to make the distribution of grades similar to last year ’ s… But we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board some pupils , particularly those in private schools , were more likely to see a sharp rise .
“ So , how is he going to ensure this year that the distribution of grades is spread evenly across schools and postcodes to ensure that the most disadvantaged pupils are treated fairly ?
” “ And is he not concerned that providing info in advance about subject content will benefit pupils at random , with those who happen to have already covered the assessed material benefitting at the expense of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will it not in fact mean that pupils who have faced the greatest disruption to their learning still lose out the most ?
” The minister has announced that students will be able to use exam aids , contingency papers will be available for those who miss exams , performance tables will be suspended and routine Ofsted inspections will not resume until the summer term .
Green asked the Education Secretary why “ greater optionality ” was not part of the announcement today , arguing that it would allow pupils to be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fewer pupils losing out at random ” .
She pressed the minister on what steps the government is taking to address the fact that almost one million pupils were out of school this week and highlighted that certain regions have faced disproportionate levels of disruption .
She also asked for details on the comments from Williamson regarding the establishment of an expert group to provide solutions to make sure that those children worst impacted by the pandemic are not unfairly disadvantaged .
Green urged the minister to confirm when the expert group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so late , with reports that it was only set up last week , and asked whether it will include school representatives and teachers .
She criticised the government for the delay in making the announcement : “ For months they will have heard school leaders , parents , and members… calling for a credible plan to address them .
It took them until December to provide one .
“ Why did he leave students in a horrible and uncertain limbo ?
The truth is that the delay has limited the department ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they could have done more to make the system fairer.
” The Labour education spokesperson concluded her statement this morning by telling parliament : “ After months of silence , these proposals fall short of the fair exams the Secretary of State promised .
This is at best a ‘ requires improvement ’ .
” The Shadow Education Secretary had urged Williamson in October to “ look at other possibilities ” after the government announced that A-Level and GCSE exams to take place in 2021 would be delayed by three weeks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring forward a “ credible plan ” for GCSE and A-Level exams taking place next year after data showed that over 8.7 million children faced entering Tier 2 or 3 Covid restrictions .
Labour also highlighted last week that while students have been forced to self-isolate due to the virus , the government has cut its previously pledged allocation of laptops and equipment to disadvantaged pupils by up to 80 % for some schools .
Below is the full text of the contribution made by Green today .
I thank the Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Schools Minister for discussing these proposals with me and colleagues yesterday .
I ’ m glad the Government have finally responded to the pleas of students , their parents and teachers who ’ ve been asking for months how next summer ’ s exams will be conducted fairly .
But while I welcome measures that will help mean pupils will be assessed on what they have learned , that reserve papers will be in place for pupils who might miss out , that performance tables will be suspended and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January – many of the measures that Labour called for – today ’ s announcement still bakes in fundamental inequities between students who ’ ve suffered different levels of disruption to their learning .
I also welcome his decision to suspend league tables this year .
Mr Speaker , the government have known since September that an ongoing pandemic would create huge challenges in schools , and for months they will have heard school leaders , parents , and Members on this side of the House calling for a credible plan to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide one .
So can the Secretary of State tell us what took him so long ?
Why did he leave students in a horrible and uncertain limbo ?
The truth is that dither and delay have limited the Department ’ s options .
Had they acted sooner they could have done more to make the system fairer .
I do welcome the decision to make the distribution of grades similar to last year ’ s , to ensure that pupils sitting their exams this year do not feel unfairly disadvantaged .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while grades rose across the board , some pupils – particularly those in private schools – were more likely to see a sharp rise .
So how is he going to ensure this year that the distribution of grades is spread evenly across not just subjects , but across schools and postcodes , to ensure that the most disadvantaged pupils are treated fairly ?
And is he not concerned that providing info in advance about subject content will benefit pupils at random , with those who happen to have already covered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who did not ?
At worst , will it not in fact mean that pupils who have faced the greatest disruption to their learning still lose out the most ?
He mentioned the government ’ s new expert group but can he tell us why , when changes were so clearly going to have to be made to exams , the government has been so late setting this up ?
And can he confirm exactly when this group will report , the suggestion this morning that it will report in spring he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils sitting exams this academic year ?
There was significant support for greater optionality in exams – an approach his Department took for some exams .
This would allow pupils to be assessed on what they ’ ve learned with fewer pupils losing out at random .
If it works for some objects , can the Secretary of State explain clearly why this is not part of today ’ s announcement ?
What is he doing to address the fact that over a million pupils were out of school this week ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have faced disproportionate levels of disruption .
I asked him two weeks ago how many pupils have been out of school two , three , or more times because of coronavirus .
He still hasn ’ t supplied me with the info – doesn ’ t he know it ?
What can he tell us about how different regions are affected ?
How many of those children who have been out of school have had full access to remote learning .
How many laptops have been delivered to students who need them ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of schools receiving laptops only after students isolate , wasting valuable time getting them set them up and delivered .
It is one thing to update guidance , it is quite another to actually support schools to deliver remote education to all who need it .
And why has the NTP now been stretched more thinly across two years – can he even guarantee that all students on FSM will have access to tutoring ?
We know that many students sitting exams next summer want to go on to university or college .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes – and I know the possibility of an asterisk by grades has been discussed – do not make pupils feel stigmatised ?
What discussions is he having with colleges and universities to ensure any additional support these students may need will be in place for them next September .
And does he believe any changes will be needed to the timings of university admissions ?
Does he acknowledge that there are likely to be more appeals than in a normal year ?
How will he ensure all students can access a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that there are the markers , with the time and resources needed to grade these papers in time , particularly in the second exam window ?
Can he tell us when pupils taking vocational and technical qualifications will receive greater clarity ?
And what steps are they taking to clear the logjam on the testing of apprentices ’ functional skills in maths and English ?
Mr Speaker , the government have finally acted , but they have been far too slow , and the measures announced today simply won ’ t address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve lost the most learning will suffer the greatest disadvantage when they take exams next summer .
I want students to have the chance to show what they ’ ve achieved in the most challenging of circumstances , but after months of silence , these proposals fall short of the fair exams process the Secretary of State promised .
This is at best a ‘ requires improvement ’ .

Kate Green has slammed the government over arrangements for 2021 A-Level and GCSE exams on the basis that the plan “bakes in fundamental inequities between students who have suffered different levels of disruption” in the pandemic.
Addressing parliament after a statement from Gavin Williamson this morning, the Shadow Education Secretary said the arrangements freshly outlined by the government “fall short of the fair exams the Secretary of State promised”.
Green said: “I do welcome the decision to make the distribution of grades similar to last year’s… But we know that last year while grades rose across the board some pupils, particularly those in private schools, were more likely to see a sharp rise.
“So, how is he going to ensure this year that the distribution of grades is spread evenly across schools and postcodes to ensure that the most disadvantaged pupils are treated fairly?”
“And is he not concerned that providing info in advance about subject content will benefit pupils at random, with those who happen to have already covered the assessed material benefitting at the expense of those who did not?
“At worst, will it not in fact mean that pupils who have faced the greatest disruption to their learning still lose out the most?”
The minister has announced that students will be able to use exam aids, contingency papers will be available for those who miss exams, performance tables will be suspended and routine Ofsted inspections will not resume until the summer term.
Green asked the Education Secretary why “greater optionality” was not part of the announcement today, arguing that it would allow pupils to be “assessed on what they’ve learned with fewer pupils losing out at random”.
She pressed the minister on what steps the government is taking to address the fact that almost one million pupils were out of school this week and highlighted that certain regions have faced disproportionate levels of disruption.
She also asked for details on the comments from Williamson regarding the establishment of an expert group to provide solutions to make sure that those children worst impacted by the pandemic are not unfairly disadvantaged.
Green urged the minister to confirm when the expert group will report and why it was established so late, with reports that it was only set up last week, and asked whether it will include school representatives and teachers.
She criticised the government for the delay in making the announcement: “For months they will have heard school leaders, parents, and members… calling for a credible plan to address them. It took them until December to provide one.
“Why did he leave students in a horrible and uncertain limbo? The truth is that the delay has limited the department’s options. Had they acted sooner, they could have done more to make the system fairer.”
The Labour education spokesperson concluded her statement this morning by telling parliament: “After months of silence, these proposals fall short of the fair exams the Secretary of State promised. This is at best a ‘requires improvement’.”
The Shadow Education Secretary had urged Williamson in October to “look at other possibilities” after the government announced that A-Level and GCSE exams to take place in 2021 would be delayed by three weeks.
Labour last month demanded that the government bring forward a “credible plan” for GCSE and A-Level exams taking place next year after data showed that over 8.7 million children faced entering Tier 2 or 3 Covid restrictions.
Labour also highlighted last week that while students have been forced to self-isolate due to the virus, the government has cut its previously pledged allocation of laptops and equipment to disadvantaged pupils by up to 80% for some schools.
"Why did he leave students in a horrible and uncertain limbo?" Shadow education secretary Kate Green welcomes new measures but asks what took the government so long to make a plan for 2021's exams in Englandhttps://t.co/YfCPg4UulV pic.twitter.com/KHl4y0XMez — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 3, 2020
Below is the full text of the contribution made by Green today.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and the Schools Minister for discussing these proposals with me and colleagues yesterday. I’m glad the Government have finally responded to the pleas of students, their parents and teachers who’ve been asking for months how next summer’s exams will be conducted fairly.
But while I welcome measures that will help mean pupils will be assessed on what they have learned, that reserve papers will be in place for pupils who might miss out, that performance tables will be suspended and that routine Ofsted inspections will not resume in January – many of the measures that Labour called for – today’s announcement still bakes in fundamental inequities between students who’ve suffered different levels of disruption to their learning. I also welcome his decision to suspend league tables this year.
Mr Speaker, the government have known since September that an ongoing pandemic would create huge challenges in schools, and for months they will have heard school leaders, parents, and Members on this side of the House calling for a credible plan to address them. It took them until December to provide one. So can the Secretary of State tell us what took him so long? Why did he leave students in a horrible and uncertain limbo?
The truth is that dither and delay have limited the Department’s options. Had they acted sooner they could have done more to make the system fairer. I do welcome the decision to make the distribution of grades similar to last year’s, to ensure that pupils sitting their exams this year do not feel unfairly disadvantaged.
But we know that, last year, while grades rose across the board, some pupils – particularly those in private schools – were more likely to see a sharp rise. So how is he going to ensure this year that the distribution of grades is spread evenly across not just subjects, but across schools and postcodes, to ensure that the most disadvantaged pupils are treated fairly?
And is he not concerned that providing info in advance about subject content will benefit pupils at random, with those who happen to have already covered the assessed material benefitting at the expense of those who did not? At worst, will it not in fact mean that pupils who have faced the greatest disruption to their learning still lose out the most?
He mentioned the government’s new expert group but can he tell us why, when changes were so clearly going to have to be made to exams, the government has been so late setting this up? And can he confirm exactly when this group will report, the suggestion this morning that it will report in spring he must know far too late to help pupils sitting exams this academic year?
There was significant support for greater optionality in exams – an approach his Department took for some exams. This would allow pupils to be assessed on what they’ve learned with fewer pupils losing out at random. If it works for some objects, can the Secretary of State explain clearly why this is not part of today’s announcement?
What is he doing to address the fact that over a million pupils were out of school this week? We know that exam classes in some regions have faced disproportionate levels of disruption. I asked him two weeks ago how many pupils have been out of school two, three, or more times because of coronavirus. He still hasn’t supplied me with the info – doesn’t he know it? What can he tell us about how different regions are affected?
How many of those children who have been out of school have had full access to remote learning. How many laptops have been delivered to students who need them? Why are we continuing to hear reports of schools receiving laptops only after students isolate, wasting valuable time getting them set them up and delivered.
It is one thing to update guidance, it is quite another to actually support schools to deliver remote education to all who need it. And why has the NTP now been stretched more thinly across two years – can he even guarantee that all students on FSM will have access to tutoring?
We know that many students sitting exams next summer want to go on to university or college. Can he ensure that the approach he takes – and I know the possibility of an asterisk by grades has been discussed – do not make pupils feel stigmatised?
What discussions is he having with colleges and universities to ensure any additional support these students may need will be in place for them next September. And does he believe any changes will be needed to the timings of university admissions?
Does he acknowledge that there are likely to be more appeals than in a normal year? How will he ensure all students can access a fair appeals process? And how will he ensure that there are the markers, with the time and resources needed to grade these papers in time, particularly in the second exam window?
Can he tell us when pupils taking vocational and technical qualifications will receive greater clarity? And what steps are they taking to clear the logjam on the testing of apprentices’ functional skills in maths and English?
Mr Speaker, the government have finally acted, but they have been far too slow, and the measures announced today simply won’t address the inherent unfairness that students who’ve lost the most learning will suffer the greatest disadvantage when they take exams next summer.
I want students to have the chance to show what they’ve achieved in the most challenging of circumstances, but after months of silence, these proposals fall short of the fair exams process the Secretary of State promised. This is at best a ‘requires improvement’.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Williamson fails to say how Covid exam adjustments ensure a level playing field

Students sitting A-Levels and GCSEs in England next year will get advanced notice of topics and will be allowed to use exam aids , the government has revealed .
Contingency papers will be made available for those who miss an exam for Covid reasons and teacher-based assessments will be used only as a last resort .
The news follows the decision by the Welsh government to cancel its 2021 exams , arguing it is “ impossible to guarantee a level playing field ” .
On BBC Radio 4 ’ s Today programme this morning , Gavin Williamson singularly failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which applies to all pupils , will help ‘ level up ’ those kids worst affected by Covid when asked repeatedly .
The Education Secretary instead assured us a new expert group has been convened to work on the problem .
Labour slammed the government for its “ dither and delay ” over the arrangements , and has said the latest proposals do not go far enough .
The party has demanded the government urgently set out how it will make exams fair for pupils in the worst-hit regions .
Coronavirus vaccinations will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson in his latest Covid press conference .
And while everyone agreed on the good news about the jab , the PM and his deputy chief medical officer clashed over the prospect of a return to normal in a post-Covid utopia .
Jonathan Van-Tam told us there would be no “ big moment where we have a massive party and throw our masks and hand sanitiser ” .
To which Johnson chipped in : “ Yes , well maybe , but on the other hand we may want to get back to life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The PM does love to give good news .
Keir Starmer welcomed the news on the Pfizer/BioNTech jab .
He called for a plan to roll it out “ swiftly , safely and fairly ” and echoed concerns he voiced in PMQs on the logistical problems in deploying the vaccine .
Meanwhile , leaders of eight trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party have signed a joint statement expressing “ concerns ” over the unresolved situation regarding Jeremy Corbyn ’ s whip , LabourList can reveal .
The fresh statement explains that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week to call for the whip to be restored to the Islington MP and put forward concerns that the party has recently been “ distracted by internal wrangling ” .
A statement in October received the backing of left-wing unions Unite , CWU , FBU , ASLEF , TSSA , NUM and BFAWU but this latest one has also been signed by Community , which nominated Starmer in the leadership election earlier this year and did not nominate Corbyn in 2015 or 2016 .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Students sitting A-Levels and GCSEs in England next year will get advanced notice of topics and will be allowed to use exam aids, the government has revealed. Contingency papers will be made available for those who miss an exam for Covid reasons and teacher-based assessments will be used only as a last resort. The news follows the decision by the Welsh government to cancel its 2021 exams, arguing it is “impossible to guarantee a level playing field”. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, Gavin Williamson singularly failed to outline how the adjustment in England, which applies to all pupils, will help ‘level up’ those kids worst affected by Covid when asked repeatedly. The Education Secretary instead assured us a new expert group has been convened to work on the problem. Labour slammed the government for its “dither and delay” over the arrangements, and has said the latest proposals do not go far enough. The party has demanded the government urgently set out how it will make exams fair for pupils in the worst-hit regions.
Coronavirus vaccinations will begin next week, according to Boris Johnson in his latest Covid press conference. And while everyone agreed on the good news about the jab, the PM and his deputy chief medical officer clashed over the prospect of a return to normal in a post-Covid utopia. Jonathan Van-Tam told us there would be no “big moment where we have a massive party and throw our masks and hand sanitiser”. To which Johnson chipped in: “Yes, well maybe, but on the other hand we may want to get back to life pretty much as close as normal.” The PM does love to give good news. Keir Starmer welcomed the news on the Pfizer/BioNTech jab. He called for a plan to roll it out “swiftly, safely and fairly” and echoed concerns he voiced in PMQs on the logistical problems in deploying the vaccine.
Meanwhile, leaders of eight trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party have signed a joint statement expressing “concerns” over the unresolved situation regarding Jeremy Corbyn’s whip, LabourList can reveal. The fresh statement explains that the unions met with the Labour leader last week to call for the whip to be restored to the Islington MP and put forward concerns that the party has recently been “distracted by internal wrangling”. A statement in October received the backing of left-wing unions Unite, CWU, FBU, ASLEF, TSSA, NUM and BFAWU but this latest one has also been signed by Community, which nominated Starmer in the leadership election earlier this year and did not nominate Corbyn in 2015 or 2016. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Bookies found to have cried wolf over FOBTs as gambling review approaches

‘ Stop the FOBTs ’ was launched in early 2013 by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling , founded and funded by gambling expert Derek Webb , who brought me in as a campaign consultant and spokesperson .
The objective of FOBT stake reduction from £100 to £2 per spin was finally introduced in April 2019 .
Recently released Gambling Commission statistics show full year of data to March 2020 , with the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown spanning just 11 days of this timeframe .
In line with the trend , the number of betting shops declined 6 % from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shop gamblers to more profitable remote gambling with lower overall tax burden and lower employment costs .
Reality contrasts sharply with the Association of British Bookmakers ’ ( ABB ) KPMG report , used to lobby government , which forecast a decline to as few as 4,500 shops .
Did KPMG get its sums wrong or did the ABB steer it towards a fantasy ?
As reported in The Guardian , betting shop machine revenue declined 41 % to £1.075bn – down £751m from £1.826bn .
Over-the-counter betting on races and sports also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenues on games at stakes in excess of £2 by £1.142bn , but an increase in revenue at stakes of £2 and below by £390m .
By far the greatest crossover was players trading down stakes but staying on betting shop machines .
This confirms the notion that placing a restriction on a specific gambling product can have the desired impact of reducing losses at that activity and reducing losses in total .
All the evidence indicates that there was no consequential crossover from the £751m decline in betting shop machine revenue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaming machine revenues in casino , bingo and family entertainment centres remained constant , while an increase in adult gaming centre revenues continued the trend of the past several years .
All casino table game revenues declined , with a minor increase in electronic gaming failing to offset the resulting overall decline in casino revenues from £840m to £801m .
Remote gambling revenues for bingo and casino increased in line with previous years , and while betting revenues at first sight look like a large increase , this was only due to betting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful to the bookies than usual .
It is therefore consistent with the long-term trend of increased remote betting revenues .
National Gambling Treatment Service statistics show the activities that disordered gamblers refer to when presenting for treatment .
The ‘ betting shop machine ’ references decreased from 26.4 % in 2018 -2019 to 20.3 % in 2019-2020 , a relative decrease of 23 % — the most significant change in any activity .
This data clearly confirms the logic that loss reduction results in harm reduction .
Derek Webb continues to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clean Up Gambling .
Decreasing FOBT stakes was a sensible change to outdated legislation , and has had a hugely positive impact .
We look forward to the government ’ s comprehensive review of our outdated gambling laws – and , given the spurious assertions made in the past by gambling operators and their representatives , we hope more attention is paid to the evidence than to gambling industry claims .

SPONSORED POST
‘Stop the FOBTs’ was launched in early 2013 by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, founded and funded by gambling expert Derek Webb, who brought me in as a campaign consultant and spokesperson. The objective of FOBT stake reduction from £100 to £2 per spin was finally introduced in April 2019. Recently released Gambling Commission statistics show full year of data to March 2020, with the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown spanning just 11 days of this timeframe.
In line with the trend, the number of betting shops declined 6% from 8,320 to 7,681 due to bookmakers converting shop gamblers to more profitable remote gambling with lower overall tax burden and lower employment costs. Reality contrasts sharply with the Association of British Bookmakers’ (ABB) KPMG report, used to lobby government, which forecast a decline to as few as 4,500 shops. Did KPMG get its sums wrong or did the ABB steer it towards a fantasy?
As reported in The Guardian, betting shop machine revenue declined 41% to £1.075bn – down £751m from £1.826bn. Over-the-counter betting on races and sports also decreased. There was a decline in revenues on games at stakes in excess of £2 by £1.142bn, but an increase in revenue at stakes of £2 and below by £390m. By far the greatest crossover was players trading down stakes but staying on betting shop machines.
This confirms the notion that placing a restriction on a specific gambling product can have the desired impact of reducing losses at that activity and reducing losses in total.
All the evidence indicates that there was no consequential crossover from the £751m decline in betting shop machine revenue to any other land-based or remote sector.
Gaming machine revenues in casino, bingo and family entertainment centres remained constant, while an increase in adult gaming centre revenues continued the trend of the past several years. All casino table game revenues declined, with a minor increase in electronic gaming failing to offset the resulting overall decline in casino revenues from £840m to £801m.
Remote gambling revenues for bingo and casino increased in line with previous years, and while betting revenues at first sight look like a large increase, this was only due to betting result in the year prior being less helpful to the bookies than usual. It is therefore consistent with the long-term trend of increased remote betting revenues.
National Gambling Treatment Service statistics show the activities that disordered gamblers refer to when presenting for treatment. The ‘betting shop machine’ references decreased from 26.4% in 2018 -2019 to 20.3% in 2019-2020, a relative decrease of 23% — the most significant change in any activity. This data clearly confirms the logic that loss reduction results in harm reduction.
Derek Webb continues to support the gambling reform agenda, and funds Clean Up Gambling. Decreasing FOBT stakes was a sensible change to outdated legislation, and has had a hugely positive impact. We look forward to the government’s comprehensive review of our outdated gambling laws – and, given the spurious assertions made in the past by gambling operators and their representatives, we hope more attention is paid to the evidence than to gambling industry claims.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Small businesses “let down by shrinking government grants”, says Miliband

Ed Miliband has declared that small businesses have been “ let down by shrinking government grants ” during Covid as analysis shows that 390,000 small businesses are worried they will not survive the next three months .
Speaking ahead of ‘ Small Business Saturday ’ , the Shadow Business Secretary responded to new data from an Office for National Statistics survey that revealed over 520,000 small businesses have seen their turnover fall by more than half .
The research found that 15 % of very small and 9 % of small businesses have low or no confidence of surviving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % and 32 % respectively currently have cash reserves that will not last three months .
Miliband commented : “ Small businesses are the beating heart of towns and cities across the country – shops , pubs , manufacturers , salons , suppliers and all those that make up the vibrant fabric of our communities .
“ Small businesses have stepped up during this crisis , whether helping to manufacture personal protective equipment and ventilators , offering free meals for children during half term , or changing how they work to keep people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing a cash crisis and being let down by shrinking government grants which simply won ’ t cover their rents and overheads .
Unless ministers change course , we ’ ll see hardworking businesses go bust and high streets crumbling before winter is through.
” The call from Miliband follows Anneliese Dodds this week urging the government to use the £1.3bn business rates relief returned by supermarkets to support businesses and individuals to get through the winter .
Labour has repeatedly called on the Prime Minister and Chancellor to abandon what party figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach and pursue a more targeted attitude to business support in the pandemic .
It warned on Monday that the latest business grants schemes to be introduced by the government in the pandemic will “ level down ” the poorest areas and “ betrays some of the most deprived communities under the toughest restrictions ” .
The party highlighted that through the ‘ additional restrictions grant ’ , which makes a one-off £20-per-head payment to councils , some of the poorest areas will receive the same or less funding than the richest despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also pointed out that the £1,000 payment announced by the Prime Minister last week for ‘ wet-led ’ pubs in Tiers 2 and 3 does not make up the shortfall between the local restrictions support grant and the original small business grant .

Ed Miliband has declared that small businesses have been “let down by shrinking government grants” during Covid as analysis shows that 390,000 small businesses are worried they will not survive the next three months.
Speaking ahead of ‘Small Business Saturday’, the Shadow Business Secretary responded to new data from an Office for National Statistics survey that revealed over 520,000 small businesses have seen their turnover fall by more than half.
The research found that 15% of very small and 9% of small businesses have low or no confidence of surviving the next three months, and that 28% and 32% respectively currently have cash reserves that will not last three months.
Miliband commented: “Small businesses are the beating heart of towns and cities across the country – shops, pubs, manufacturers, salons, suppliers and all those that make up the vibrant fabric of our communities.
“Small businesses have stepped up during this crisis, whether helping to manufacture personal protective equipment and ventilators, offering free meals for children during half term, or changing how they work to keep people safe.
“But they’re facing a cash crisis and being let down by shrinking government grants which simply won’t cover their rents and overheads. Unless ministers change course, we’ll see hardworking businesses go bust and high streets crumbling before winter is through.”
The call from Miliband follows Anneliese Dodds this week urging the government to use the £1.3bn business rates relief returned by supermarkets to support businesses and individuals to get through the winter.
Labour has repeatedly called on the Prime Minister and Chancellor to abandon what party figures have described as a “one-size-fits-all” approach and pursue a more targeted attitude to business support in the pandemic.
It warned on Monday that the latest business grants schemes to be introduced by the government in the pandemic will “level down” the poorest areas and “betrays some of the most deprived communities under the toughest restrictions”.
The party highlighted that through the ‘additional restrictions grant’, which makes a one-off £20-per-head payment to councils, some of the poorest areas will receive the same or less funding than the richest despite being set to go into higher tiers.
It also pointed out that the £1,000 payment announced by the Prime Minister last week for ‘wet-led’ pubs in Tiers 2 and 3 does not make up the shortfall between the local restrictions support grant and the original small business grant.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Labour: Strengthened 2030 emissions target is “minimum we should aim for”

Ed Miliband has welcomed the newly strengthened 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target for the UK announced by the government – but declared that the 68 % reduction is the “ minimum we should aim for ” in the fight against climate change .
The Prime Minister has set a new goal for 2030 of at least 68 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – up from 53 % – by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels .
The government says this will ensure the UK meets net zero by 2050 .
Responding to the announcement , Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Industrial Strategy Secretary reiterated the demand to bring forward £30bn of capital investment in low-carbon industries over the next 18 months .
Miliband said : “ Our goal should be to go further and faster , cutting the significant majority of emissions in this decisive decade , which is the right way to lead in creating the climate jobs of the future and keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees .
“ As we move to this higher target , it is clear there is now a yawning gap between the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The government didn ’ t have the policies to meet their previous target and the chasm will be even greater now .
“ So , now we urgently need a plan with the policies to tackle the climate emergency and to do so in a way that creates jobs and is fair .
That should start with a £30bn stimulus to be invested in a green recovery over the next 18 months ” .
The new 2030 goal , which determines the UK ’ s nationally determined contribution ( NDC ) under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the recommendation issued by experts at the independent climate change committee who advise the government .
Responding to the news of a more ambitious 2030 target , a Labour for a Green New Deal campaign group spokesperson said : “ Once again we ’ re seeing a failed Tory tribute act to Labour ’ s Green Industrial Revolution of 2019 .
“ Ed Miliband is right to point out the enormous gap between the Tories ’ carbon pledges and their paltry spending promises .
But for Labour to regain its role as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must go beyond pointing holes and voice the alternative .
“ A radical Green New Deal which invests at least £250bn and takes key industries into public ownership .
Crucially , as mandated by Labour members and trade unions in a historic motion at party conference last year , it must mean full decarbonisation by 2030.
” The government announcement follows a new report on ‘ achieving net zero ’ by the National Audit Office ( NAO ) today , which suggests that meeting the 2050 net-zero greenhouse emissions goal represents a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the independent public spending watchdog highlighted a lack of any process for monitoring progress towards net zero emissions , other than annual reports and forecasts from the BEIS department .
It also pointed out that there is no mechanism for escalating problems identified by monitoring information , and that neither BEIS nor the Treasury gather information on the overall costs and benefits of government policies in this area .
The NAO reported that departments have reduced emissions from their buildings and operations by an estimated 46 % since 2009 , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant impact outside of government , such as schools and the NHS .
It also found that public sector buildings emitted eight million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2018 , 9 % of all emissions in the buildings sector .
The NAO said “ there is more work to be done ” to ensure public sector bodies reduce their emissions .
Responding to the new report , chair of the public accounts committee Labour MP Meg Hillier said the government must “ lead by example ” in efforts to reach its 2050 target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its efforts up a gear ” .
The independent watchdog said the costs of achieving net zero are “ highly uncertain ” .
The climate change committee estimated in 2019 that the annual costs of achieving net zero could increase over time to around 1-2 % of GDP in 2050 .
But the NAO warned that the cost of inaction would be far greater due to the need to adapt to substantial climate change , including building flood defences and managing the health implications associated with higher temperatures .
Positive Money executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of room for the government to increase public investment , and this should be a priority in ensuring we have a truly green and fair recovery from the Covid crisis .
“ But , as the NAO points out , we also need much more action to align private finance , which is currently supporting temperature rises of more than 3.5 degrees , with the government ’ s climate targets.
” The NAO stressed that while BEIS has developed a plan for engaging the private sector , “ risks remain to securing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommended monitoring arrangements to track progress in securing the investment .
Fran Boait advised : “ One of the most important things the Chancellor could do is updating the mandate of the Bank of England , which underpins and oversees our financial system , to help it support a fair transition to net zero .
“ This could empower our central bank to make changes to its existing toolkit , to ensure it maximises green investment and jobs , but to also bring in new tools to steer the lenders it regulates away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The NAO has recommended that the government develop and monitor clear , relevant and consistent data on progress on net-zero policies across departments other bodies and gathers information on how much it has committed and spent .
Its paper also concluded that the government has not clearly set out the roles of public bodies outside central departments , despite many including local authorities playing critical roles in the drive towards net zero by 2050 .
The announcement from Johnson today comes ahead of the climate ambition summit this month , coinciding with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and calling for countries to submit NDCs ahead of the COP26 climate talks in 2021 .
The Prime Minister set out his long-delayed climate change plan last month .
The £12bn proposals were criticised by Labour and others for both failing to match the scale of the investment required and for repeating existing pledges .
Labour slammed the ten points announced by Johnson as “ rebadged funding pots and reheated pledges ” and stressed the need for an “ ambitious plan ” .
The party highlighted that only £4bn represented new spending commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research recently calculated that the UK needs an additional £33bn in annual investment to reach its 2050 goal .
The £4bn in Johnson ’ s plan represents just 12 % of what the organisation has argued is needed .
Labour published its own green economic recovery plan earlier last month , developed following a consultation launched in June this year .
The party has challenged the government to support the creation of 400,000 new jobs in a green Covid recovery .

Ed Miliband has welcomed the newly strengthened 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target for the UK announced by the government – but declared that the 68% reduction is the “minimum we should aim for” in the fight against climate change.
The Prime Minister has set a new goal for 2030 of at least 68% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – up from 53% – by the end of the decade compared to 1990 levels. The government says this will ensure the UK meets net zero by 2050.
Responding to the announcement, the Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary reiterated Labour’s demand to bring forward £30bn of capital investment in low-carbon industries over the next 18 months.
Miliband said: “Our goal should be to go further and faster, cutting the significant majority of emissions in this decisive decade, which is the right way to lead in creating the climate jobs of the future and keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees.
“As we move to this higher target, it is clear there is now a yawning gap between the government’s aspirations and its policies to deliver them. The government didn’t have the policies to meet their previous target and the chasm will be even greater now.
“So, now we urgently need a plan with the policies to tackle the climate emergency and to do so in a way that creates jobs and is fair. That should start with a £30bn stimulus to be invested in a green recovery over the next 18 months”.
The new 2030 goal, which determines the UK’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris agreement, is in line with the recommendation issued by experts at the independent climate change committee who advise the government.
Responding to the news of a more ambitious 2030 target, a Labour for a Green New Deal campaign group spokesperson said: “Once again we’re seeing a failed Tory tribute act to Labour’s Green Industrial Revolution of 2019.
“Ed Miliband is right to point out the enormous gap between the Tories’ carbon pledges and their paltry spending promises. But for Labour to regain its role as the party of climate, the party must go beyond pointing out holes and voice the alternative.
“A radical Green New Deal which invests at least £250bn and takes key industries into public ownership. Crucially, as mandated by Labour members and trade unions in a historic motion at party conference last year, it must mean full decarbonisation by 2030.”
The government announcement follows a new report on ‘achieving net zero’ by the National Audit Office (NAO) today, which suggests that meeting the 2050 net-zero greenhouse emissions goal represents a “colossal challenge”.
The paper released by the independent public spending watchdog highlighted a lack of any process for monitoring progress towards net zero emissions, other than annual reports and forecasts from the BEIS department.
It also pointed out that there is no mechanism for escalating problems identified by monitoring information, and that neither BEIS nor the Treasury gather information on the overall costs and benefits of government policies in this area.
The NAO reported that departments have reduced emissions from their buildings and operations by an estimated 46% since 2009, but that this does not include those with a significant impact outside of government, such as schools and the NHS.
It also found that public sector buildings emitted eight million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2018, 9% of all emissions in the buildings sector. The NAO said “there is more work to be done” to ensure public sector bodies reduce their emissions.
Responding to the new report, chair of the public accounts committee Labour MP Meg Hillier said the government must “lead by example” in efforts to reach its 2050 target and told the administration to “shift its efforts up a gear”.
The independent watchdog said the costs of achieving net zero are “highly uncertain”. The climate change committee estimated in 2019 that the annual costs of achieving net zero could increase over time to around 1-2% of GDP in 2050.
But the NAO warned that the cost of inaction would be far greater due to the need to adapt to substantial climate change, including building flood defences and managing the health implications associated with higher temperatures.
Positive Money executive director Fran Boait said: “There is plenty of room for the government to increase public investment, and this should be a priority in ensuring we have a truly green and fair recovery from the Covid crisis.
“But, as the NAO points out, we also need much more action to align private finance, which is currently supporting temperature rises of more than 3.5 degrees, with the government’s climate targets.”
The NAO stressed that while BEIS has developed a plan for engaging the private sector, “risks remain to securing the investment required”. It has recommended monitoring arrangements to track progress in securing the investment.
Fran Boait advised: “One of the most important things the Chancellor could do is updating the mandate of the Bank of England, which underpins and oversees our financial system, to help it support a fair transition to net zero.
“This could empower our central bank to make changes to its existing toolkit, to ensure it maximises green investment and jobs, but to also bring in new tools to steer the lenders it regulates away from fossil fuels and towards greener alternatives.”
The NAO has recommended that the government develop and monitor clear, relevant and consistent data on progress on net-zero policies across departments other bodies and gathers information on how much it has committed and spent.
Its paper also concluded that the government has not clearly set out the roles of public bodies outside central departments, despite many including local authorities playing critical roles in the drive towards net zero by 2050.
The announcement from Johnson today comes ahead of the climate ambition summit this month, coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the Paris agreement and calling for countries to submit NDCs ahead of the COP26 climate talks in 2021.
The Prime Minister set out his long-delayed climate change plan last month. The £12bn proposals were criticised by Labour and others for both failing to match the scale of the investment required and for repeating existing pledges.
Labour slammed the ten points announced by Johnson as “rebadged funding pots and reheated pledges” and stressed the need for an “ambitious plan”. The party highlighted that only £4bn represented new spending commitments.
Think tank Institute for Public Policy Research recently calculated that the UK needs an additional £33bn in annual investment to reach its 2050 goal. The £4bn in Johnson’s plan represents just 12% of what the organisation has argued is needed.
Labour published its own green economic recovery plan earlier last month, developed following a consultation launched in June this year. The party has challenged the government to support the creation of 400,000 new jobs in a green Covid recovery.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Tories struggling to keep hold of ‘Red Wall’ support won in 2019, new poll finds

Boris Johnson ’ s Conservative Party is struggling to keep hold of the support won at the 2019 general election among so-called ‘ Red Wall ’ voters , while the Labour Party has taken a lead in these seats , a new survey has found .
Research by J.L .
Partners for Channel 4 News suggests voters in previously Labour-held seats that turned blue last year – some for the first time – are now turning away from the Tories over the government ’ s handling of the Covid crisis .
Analysis estimates that Keir Starmer ’ s party could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost in the last election if the current voting intentions were played out in an election on a uniform swing today .
This would see the Tories hold on to only nine of those constituencies .
The polling indicates that Johnson has a negative rating of -3 % in the ‘ Red Wall ’ and Starmer is on +18 % , and it is suggested that this is partly due to confusing messaging over Covid and the Dominic Cummings trip to Barnard Castle .
16 % of 2019 Conservative voters said they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general election now , while 7 % said they would switch to Labour .
The Tories still have better ratings on issues including the economy and defence , however .
In less positive news for Labour , the research also supports other polling on Rishi Sunak as the Chancellor emerged as the most popular politician in ‘ Red Wall ’ seats .
But Labour sources say this could change amid a jobs crisis .
J.L .
Partners co-founder James Johnson commented that “ there are signs the Red Wall is going cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party “ only retaining 70 % of its 2019 vote ” due to “ values and fears about the ‘ same old Tories ’ ” .
The results show the Tories are “ now seen as more out of touch than Labour in these seats ” , the J.L .
Partners pollster has said , and this is fuelled by both a lack of clarity around Covid and the restrictions and the Cummings trip .
“ When asked what their main hesitations are about voting Conservative , Red Wall voters , these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a concern the party does not represent ordinary people , and Boris Johnson ’ s leadership… “ But Labour are in no way home and dry .
Asked about their hesitations for voting Labour , Red Wall voters express doubts about their management of the economy , being too left-wing , and their stance on immigration , ” James Johnson added .
YouGov polling has shown government approval rise until May 2020 but overall decline over the course of the pandemic .
Its last figures in the weekly tracker show 52 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 20 % do not know .
Sunak has a net approval rating of 20 % according to YouGov , while Johnson is on -24 % and Starmer is on +16 % .
The Labour leader is the third most popular politician of his party , behind ex-MP Ed Balls and mayor Sadiq Khan .

Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is struggling to keep hold of the support won at the 2019 general election among so-called ‘Red Wall’ voters, while the Labour Party has taken a lead in these seats, a new survey has found.
Research by J.L. Partners for Channel 4 News suggests voters in previously Labour-held seats that turned blue last year – some for the first time – are now turning away from the Tories over the government’s handling of the Covid crisis.
Analysis estimates that Keir Starmer’s party could win back 36 out of 45 seats lost in the last election if the current voting intentions were played out in an election on a uniform swing today. This would see the Tories hold on to only nine of those constituencies.
The polling indicates that Johnson has a negative rating of -3% in the ‘Red Wall’ and Starmer is on +18%, and it is suggested that this is partly due to confusing messaging over Covid and the Dominic Cummings trip to Barnard Castle.
16% of 2019 Conservative voters said they do not know how they would vote in a general election now, while 7% said they would switch to Labour. The Tories still have better ratings on issues including the economy and defence, however.
In less positive news for Labour, the research also supports other polling on Rishi Sunak as the Chancellor emerged as the most popular politician in ‘Red Wall’ seats. But Labour sources say this could change amid a jobs crisis.
J.L. Partners co-founder James Johnson commented that “there are signs the Red Wall is going cold on the Conservatives” with the Conservative Party “only retaining 70% of its 2019 vote” due to “values and fears about the ‘same old Tories’”.
The results show the Tories are “now seen as more out of touch than Labour in these seats”, the J.L. Partners pollster has said, and this is fuelled by both a lack of clarity around Covid and the restrictions and the Cummings trip.
“When asked what their main hesitations are about voting Conservative, Red Wall voters, these are the main things that come through: a concern the party does not represent ordinary people, and Boris Johnson’s leadership…
“But Labour are in no way home and dry. Asked about their hesitations for voting Labour, Red Wall voters express doubts about their management of the economy, being too left-wing, and their stance on immigration,” James Johnson added.
YouGov polling has shown government approval rise until May 2020 but overall decline over the course of the pandemic. Its last figures in the weekly tracker show 52% of the public disapprove, 28% approve and 20% do not know.
Sunak has a net approval rating of 20% according to YouGov, while Johnson is on -24% and Starmer is on +16%. The Labour leader is the third most popular politician of his party, behind ex-MP Ed Balls and mayor Sadiq Khan.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Digital skills are crucial to our economy. We can’t afford inaction on inequalities

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of today ’ s backbench debate on digital infrastructure , connectivity and accessibility .
Digital inequalities , which consist of unequal access to devices to connect to the internet , of insufficient internet connections , and of a lack of skills to make the most of those connections , drives many more elements of inequality .
It furthers existing educational and health inequalities , it affects our employment and our prospects of employment , and in turn it holds back our economy .
During the pandemic , as face-to-face connections became less possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught many by surprise .
Offices rushed to order equipment for their workforce to work from home , services moved online to still try and serve customers , and classrooms moved to Zoom or Google Classroom .
This opened up a multitude of digital difficulties to a much wider audience than before , but the problems were not new .
Those who were digitally capable and digitally literate were able to adapt , and those that were not , could not .
Houses that may have been deemed digitally connected before , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly found themselves in a situation where the four members of the household were forced to share one laptop for all their education and work purposes .
Many services moved online , too .
Whereas normally one would be able to go to the job centre , the community centre , the libraries or even into schools to use their internet to access such services as Universal Credit or bill payments , they suddenly found this access impossible .
I had one constituent very recently who was contacted by her energy company with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ links in order to access it .
Though this was eventually sorted by a phone call , it is an example of digital exclusion that is repeated up and down the country .
The Good Things Foundation , a charity that supports socially excluded people , found that around nine million people in the UK are not able to use the internet independently , and more than one in ten people in the UK do not have internet access .
Whilst it is a problem nationwide , it is also an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the South East of England are able to use the internet fully compared with just one in five in the North East .
For Sunderland , where I represent and its neighbouring constituencies , this means that just under 150,000 adults are limited or non-users of the internet .
This simply must change .
As the world of work changes , our workforce needs to be able to move with it , or we risk leaving communities behind .
As many as eight in ten jobs currently now require digital skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but less than half of people have the digital skills required .
This is why , as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital skills , I joined the Good Things Foundation in their call for a Great Digital Catch Up .
It is essential that we give those out of work the chance to upskill themselves , those in work the chance to develop their skills , and teachers the skills they need to pass on to our young people .
In Sunderland , like many places , we had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allowing people to drop-in to training courses , and organisations like BT and City and Guilds offer accessible training to those already online to improve their skills .
But we simply must see a combined , cross-departmental approach from government , making use of the already extensive resources that are out in communities , to ensure everyone has equal access to such training .
The economic benefit to this is clear .
Every £1 invested in digital skills and inclusion sees a return of £15 of growth .
In a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the government must help people rather than freeze their pay , this is an investment opportunity that simply must be taken up .
Whilst we now may be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel with Covid restrictions , these inequalities will still persist well into the future .
Investment in physical broadband infrastructure is welcome – although it is alarming that it has been slowed down by the government in its latest spending review – but if it is not combined with widened access to skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speed up internet for those who already have access , widening the gap from those who do not .
The government simply must do better .

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of today’s backbench debate on digital infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility. Digital inequalities, which consist of unequal access to devices to connect to the internet, of insufficient internet connections, and of a lack of skills to make the most of those connections, drives many more elements of inequality. It furthers existing educational and health inequalities, it affects our employment and our prospects of employment, and in turn it holds back our economy.
During the pandemic, as face-to-face connections became less possible, the move online was quick and caught many by surprise. Offices rushed to order equipment for their workforce to work from home, services moved online to still try and serve customers, and classrooms moved to Zoom or Google Classroom.
This opened up a multitude of digital difficulties to a much wider audience than before, but the problems were not new. Those who were digitally capable and digitally literate were able to adapt, and those that were not, could not. Houses that may have been deemed digitally connected before, given they had broadband and a laptop, suddenly found themselves in a situation where the four members of the household were forced to share one laptop for all their education and work purposes.
Many services moved online, too. Whereas normally one would be able to go to the job centre, the community centre, the libraries or even into schools to use their internet to access such services as Universal Credit or bill payments, they suddenly found this access impossible. I had one constituent very recently who was contacted by her energy company with bills to pay, but only web links in order to access it. Though this was eventually sorted by a phone call, it is an example of digital exclusion that is repeated up and down the country.
The Good Things Foundation, a charity that supports socially excluded people, found that around nine million people in the UK are not able to use the internet independently, and more than one in ten people in the UK do not have internet access.
Whilst it is a problem nationwide, it is also an example of the North-South divide. Almost half of people in the South East of England are able to use the internet fully compared with just one in five in the North East. For Sunderland, where I represent and its neighbouring constituencies, this means that just under 150,000 adults are limited or non-users of the internet.
This simply must change. As the world of work changes, our workforce needs to be able to move with it, or we risk leaving communities behind. As many as eight in ten jobs currently now require digital skills in order to do the job, but less than half of people have the digital skills required.
This is why, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital skills, I joined the Good Things Foundation in their call for a Great Digital Catch Up. It is essential that we give those out of work the chance to upskill themselves, those in work the chance to develop their skills, and teachers the skills they need to pass on to our young people.
In Sunderland, like many places, we had a successful visit of the Google Digital Garage, allowing people to drop-in to training courses, and organisations like BT and City and Guilds offer accessible training to those already online to improve their skills. But we simply must see a combined, cross-departmental approach from government, making use of the already extensive resources that are out in communities, to ensure everyone has equal access to such training.
The economic benefit to this is clear. Every £1 invested in digital skills and inclusion sees a return of £15 of growth. In a time when the government must invest rather than cut, where the government must help people rather than freeze their pay, this is an investment opportunity that simply must be taken up.
Whilst we now may be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel with Covid restrictions, these inequalities will still persist well into the future. Investment in physical broadband infrastructure is welcome – although it is alarming that it has been slowed down by the government in its latest spending review – but if it is not combined with widened access to skills and connections, it only serves to speed up internet for those who already have access, widening the gap from those who do not. The government simply must do better.


labourlist--2020-12-03--We cannot allow Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal to go unexamined

Brexit is the opportunity to create a brighter future for the country .
It is the opportunity to give back to communities that have been neglected for too long .
This requires the terms of our future relationship and trade with the EU to be appropriate to our sovereign status and of benefit to the UK .
It will also mean that the country , approaching five years after the initial vote to Leave the EU , should finally have left .
But it is not certain that the terms of the deal that Boris Johnson brings back will actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and give us what we voted for in 2016 .
To that end , the Centre for Brexit Policy , of which I am a director , has produced a series of tests , a scorecard if you will , to determine whether Johnson and his Conservative government have truly delivered on the Brexit referendum and decided to grasp the opportunity that Brexit affords us .
Importantly , it reflects the promises that the Tories made in their 2019 manifesto with regard to leaving the EU .
Firstly , one of the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to negotiate new trade deals around the world and set new tariffs on goods entering the country .
This will allow the country to tailor its requirements and deals in a way that specifically benefits the UK rather than the wider EU .
This should in turn open up the UK ’ s access to cheaper commercial goods such as food , footwear and clothing .
In this time of crisis and pandemic , where hardworking people up and down this country are facing the squeeze through no fault of their own , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold this government to account so that they deliver a Brexit deal that will make everyday essentials more affordable .
Any future deal that comes back to parliament must also not be contingent on any future payments or continued financial contributions to the EU budget .
The UK economy is currently on a downward course , and the government has been required to step in to help those who have suffered in the lockdowns during the pandemic .
If the government needs to continue paying the EU , that is less money that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get by in the UK .
The trade deal that Boris brings back must also deliver upon a central theme of the referendum : returning sovereignty to the UK .
This means the UK can not remain tied into any EU stricture or structure that ensures the country remains subservient to the EU ’ s system of laws and courts .
It was this lack of control that led many of us to vote to the Leave the EU – and we can not allow the government to simply ignore this purpose .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU was undemocratic , just consider what it would mean if Boris signed us up to continued oversight by the European Court of Justice or being bound by EU law after we have left .
We would have no representation in Brussels – at least before we had representation , however ineffectual .
We must also leave as a single UK , with no part left dangling as a de-facto part of the EU such as Northern Ireland .
This would be a fundamental betrayal of our sovereignty and breach the Acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
Finally , fishing communities have been one of the most deprived areas of our nation for many years .
A good trade deal that delivers on the promise of regaining our full control of our fishing waters might provide the impetus to finally get a handle on this situation and reverse the decline of these hard done by communities .
We can not allow Boris ’ deal to go unexamined .
He must not be allowed to try and pull a fast one over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatigue and the ongoing Covid pandemic to rush a bad deal through parliament and then pretend that it is far better than it actually is .

Brexit is the opportunity to create a brighter future for the country. It is the opportunity to give back to communities that have been neglected for too long. This requires the terms of our future relationship and trade with the EU to be appropriate to our sovereign status and of benefit to the UK. It will also mean that the country, approaching five years after the initial vote to Leave the EU, should finally have left. But it is not certain that the terms of the deal that Boris Johnson brings back will actually deliver on the result of the referendum and give us what we voted for in 2016.
To that end, the Centre for Brexit Policy, of which I am a director, has produced a series of tests, a scorecard if you will, to determine whether Johnson and his Conservative government have truly delivered on the Brexit referendum and decided to grasp the opportunity that Brexit affords us. Importantly, it reflects the promises that the Tories made in their 2019 manifesto with regard to leaving the EU.
Firstly, one of the primary benefits of Brexit will be the opportunity to negotiate new trade deals around the world and set new tariffs on goods entering the country. This will allow the country to tailor its requirements and deals in a way that specifically benefits the UK rather than the wider EU. This should in turn open up the UK’s access to cheaper commercial goods such as food, footwear and clothing.
In this time of crisis and pandemic, where hardworking people up and down this country are facing the squeeze through no fault of their own, it is only right that we must hold this government to account so that they deliver a Brexit deal that will make everyday essentials more affordable.
Any future deal that comes back to parliament must also not be contingent on any future payments or continued financial contributions to the EU budget. The UK economy is currently on a downward course, and the government has been required to step in to help those who have suffered in the lockdowns during the pandemic. If the government needs to continue paying the EU, that is less money that should be spent on those struggling to get by in the UK.
The trade deal that Boris brings back must also deliver upon a central theme of the referendum: returning sovereignty to the UK. This means the UK cannot remain tied into any EU stricture or structure that ensures the country remains subservient to the EU’s system of laws and courts. It was this lack of control that led many of us to vote to the Leave the EU – and we cannot allow the government to simply ignore this purpose.
If you thought that remaining part of the EU was undemocratic, just consider what it would mean if Boris signed us up to continued oversight by the European Court of Justice or being bound by EU law after we have left. We would have no representation in Brussels – at least before we had representation, however ineffectual.
We must also leave as a single UK, with no part left dangling as a de-facto part of the EU such as Northern Ireland. This would be a fundamental betrayal of our sovereignty and breach the Acts of Union 1800, which guarantee free trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Finally, fishing communities have been one of the most deprived areas of our nation for many years. A good trade deal that delivers on the promise of regaining our full control of our fishing waters might provide the impetus to finally get a handle on this situation and reverse the decline of these hard done by communities.
We cannot allow Boris’ deal to go unexamined. He must not be allowed to try and pull a fast one over the country, to seek to exploit Brexit fatigue and the ongoing Covid pandemic to rush a bad deal through parliament and then pretend that it is far better than it actually is.


labourlist--2020-12-03--Starmer on Labour differences over Brexit: “We’ll pull together and be united”

Keir Starmer has declared that “ we ’ ll put together ” and “ be united ” amid reports that there are differences of opinion between the leader and the Shadow Chancellor on how the party should approach a vote on Brexit .
It has been reported by The Financial Times that Anneliese Dodds is among the shadow cabinet members arguing for Labour to abstain on any vote , ensuring that it can not be blamed for the economic impact of Brexit .
According to the FT , those backing Dodds ’ stance include Emily Thornberry , Bridget Phillipson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong advocates of a fresh public vote on Brexit ahead of the 2019 general election .
Asked about the splits , Starmer told Sky News today : “ Labour is absolutely united .
We ’ ve pulled together incredibly over the last few months through difficult decision and we ’ ll do so on this decision again.
” He added : “ Of course there are different opinions as you would expect , but we ’ ll pull together , discuss it as a team and be united.
” The leader said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal is in the national interest ” .
If the government strikes a post-Brexit deal with the European Union , the government could put it to a vote in parliament – though this could also be dispensed with if a minister cites “ exceptional ” circumstances .
Labour is holding discussions to decide whether its MPs should be whipped to vote in favour of a deal or to abstain if such a vote takes place .
Starmer has ruled out the possibility of telling Labour MPs to vote against .
The Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think there ’ s a much of a case for voting against it when that would be effectively to vote for no deal.
” The final decision will be made once Labour has seen a deal .
LabourList understands that the leadership is currently leaning towards voting in favour of a Brexit deal , rather than abstaining , partly because Labour has long argued that no deal would be the worst possible scenario .
Rachel Reeves told a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting last week : “ Keir and I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being bounced into this decision.
” But she made the case that a deal would be a platform for building on .
The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and shadow minister for the Cabinet Office is understood to have argued that voting for a deal would not hold Labour back from criticising the government .
While it is thought a Tory Brexit deal will be bad for jobs and business , Labour frontbenchers agree that no deal would be worse – and those who agree with Starmer ’ s position say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on such a critical issue .
Support for this line of thinking was expressed by MPs Hilary Benn , Liam Byrne , Harriet Harman , Yvette Cooper and Sarah Owen , who wrote a piece for LabourList saying “ even a bad Tory deal is better than no deal ” .
Those who have come out publicly against Labour voting for a deal include backbencher Catherine McKinnell , who wrote for LabourList to warn against “ rubber-stamping ” the Tory plan and falling into a “ trap ” .
Anna Turley , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has expressed similar concerns .
She wrote : “ It seems utterly bizarre for Labour to consider giving Johnson the triumph of a huge majority for his deal.
” Asked about the differences on Brexit between Starmer and Dodds , shadow minister Anna McMorrin told Politics Live today : “ I would say neither of them have come up with a decision because neither of them have seen the deal.
” She added : “ It is absolutely right that the shadow cabinet is having those robust discussions… What it is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and that needs to be looking forward at what sort of relationship we want across the world with trading partners but also our closest neighbours and allies .
”

Keir Starmer has declared that “we’ll pull together” and “be united” amid reports that there are differences of opinion between the leader and the Shadow Chancellor on how the party should approach a vote on Brexit.
It has been reported by The Financial Times that Anneliese Dodds is among the shadow cabinet members arguing for Labour to abstain on any vote, ensuring that it cannot be blamed for the economic impact of Brexit.
According to the FT, those backing Dodds’ stance include Emily Thornberry, Bridget Phillipson and David Lammy, all of whom were strong advocates of a fresh public vote on Brexit ahead of the 2019 general election.
Asked about the splits, Starmer told Sky News today: “Labour is absolutely united. We’ve pulled together incredibly over the last few months through difficult decisions and we’ll do so on this decision again.”
He added: “Of course there are different opinions as you would expect, but we’ll pull together, discuss it as a team and be united.” The leader said he “can’t emphasise enough how a deal is in the national interest”.
If the government strikes a post-Brexit deal with the European Union, the government could put it to a vote in parliament – though this could also be dispensed with if a minister cites “exceptional” circumstances.
Labour is holding discussions to decide whether its MPs should be whipped to vote in favour of a deal or to abstain if such a vote takes place. Starmer has ruled out the possibility of telling Labour MPs to vote against.
The Labour leader has publicly confirmed: “I don’t think there’s a much of a case for voting against it when that would be effectively to vote for no deal.” The final decision will be made once Labour has seen a deal.
LabourList understands that the leadership is currently leaning towards voting in favour of a Brexit deal, rather than abstaining, partly because Labour has long argued that no deal would be the worst possible scenario.
Rachel Reeves told a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting last week: “Keir and I will read the deal. We are not being bounced into this decision.” But she made the case that a deal would be a platform for building on.
The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and shadow minister for the Cabinet Office is understood to have argued that voting for a deal would not hold Labour back from criticising the government.
While it is thought a Tory Brexit deal will be bad for jobs and business, Labour frontbenchers agree that no deal would be worse – and those who agree with Starmer’s position say the party must take a clear line on such a critical issue.
Support for this line of thinking was expressed by MPs Hilary Benn, Liam Byrne, Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper and Sarah Owen, who wrote a piece for LabourList saying “even a bad Tory deal is better than no deal”.
Those who have come out publicly against Labour voting for a deal include backbencher Catherine McKinnell, who wrote for LabourList to warn against “rubber-stamping” the Tory plan and falling into a “trap”.
Anna Turley, the anti-Brexit former Labour MP for Redcar, has expressed similar concerns. She wrote: “It seems utterly bizarre for Labour to consider giving Johnson the triumph of a huge majority for his deal.”
Asked about the differences on Brexit between Starmer and Dodds, shadow minister Anna McMorrin told Politics Live today: “I would say neither of them have come up with a decision because neither of them have seen the deal.”
She added: “It is absolutely right that the shadow cabinet is having those robust discussions… What it is in the national interest will be our driving force – and that needs to be looking forward at what sort of relationship we want across the world with trading partners but also our closest neighbours and allies.”