labourlist--2020-06-24--Why the government should reverse its disastrous decision to scrap DfID

The announcement that the government plans to merge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Department for International Development has been met with widespread concern , from global aid organisations and poverty charities to former Prime Ministers .
And , as a member of the international development committee , my position is no different .
This move would almost certainly bring an end to Britain ’ s ring-fenced £15bn aid budget , not to mention the fact that it is incredibly poor timing , given we are in the middle of a global pandemic where such funding is essential to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most vulnerable people around the world .
And that ’ s before you even take into consideration the Whitehall redundancies that will inevitably result from such a merger , which – without any form of consultation – is completely unacceptable .
Perhaps most worryingly , the government is using the current crisis to railroad through its long-held plans to scrap DfID .
An integrated review has been paused until the autumn , but the question that remains is : why make this announcement now ?
There appears to have been no consultation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , and almost none in the days since its announcement .
The proposed merger would be catastrophic on many levels , leading to a reversal of the progress made by successive governments in the more than two decades since 1997 in everything from health , education and poverty .
Our aid not only helps to save lives , it also creates opportunities for people to improve their circumstances and life chances .
It has lifted millions of people out of poverty , educated them and saved millions more .
The UK is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation to spending 0.7 % of gross national income on international development – a target set by the United Nations – and it has long been a sense of pride for many people .
In recent years , our ratio of spending has only been bettered by a handful of countries – Sweden , Luxembourg , Norway , Denmark , the Netherlands .
And Britain is the world ’ s second-largest international development donor , behind only the US .
The ring-fenced historic spending commitment , which last year equated to £15.2bn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school between 2012 and 2017 .
Despite reassurances from the Prime Minister in parliament last week that his plans would see the UK retain its 0.7 % commitment , there has been little in the way of detail to show that that will happen .
Or , indeed , set out what will happen to DfID ’ s long-term programmes .
The PM also used his appearance in the House of Commons to state that he was committed to proper scrutiny of the work of both foreign policy and international aid , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to international development committee chair Sarah Champion to announce the Prime Minister ’ s intention to abolish the committee .
As Chris Bryant later pointed out when he challenged the minister , such a decision is in fact a matter for the House , as set out in the standing orders .
The objection to these plans hasn ’ t just come from MPs on the opposition benches .
It has come from former Prime Ministers who understand better than most the role Britain plays on the world stage with its aid commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back into politics since stepping down as PM , David Cameron was one of those to criticise his old friend Boris Johnson , stating that it was a “ mistake ” and would result in “ less expertise , less voice for development at the top table and ultimately less respect for the UK overseas ” .
This followed similar concerns raised by former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown .
The charity sector is outraged by this decision .
Appearing before the international development committee last week , Oxfam UK ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with half a billion people at risk of being pushed into poverty as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic , the move is “ scarcely believable ” .
Similar comments were expressed by Save The Children UK , Concern Worldwide and Christian Aid .
Turning to scrutiny , 75 % of last year ’ s £15.2bn spend on Official Development Assistance ( ODA ) came from DfID ’ s budget .
There must continue to be proper oversight of ODA spend going forward , not least given it is underpinned by four Acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be changed at the whim of the Prime Minister .
Independent bodies such as the international development committee are vital for ensuring that the government of the day secures the best possible deal for those who are in most need around the world .
That work can not just be handed over to the foreign affairs committee , given the demands already on their time and the specialisms involved in development work .
There are also concerns such as the cost and loss of skills from the resulting redundancies .
And all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backdrop of Brexit .
It is therefore vital that DfID be allowed to continue and that the scrutiny mechanisms existing alongside it are kept in place .
Their removal would mean that the process of distributing aid would become far less transparent , with little accountability .
And Britain would have even less say on global affairs .
As my Labour colleague and chair of the international development committee Sarah Champion said : “ In the long run , we will have shot ourselves in the foot on the world stage ” .

The announcement that the government plans to merge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Department for International Development has been met with widespread concern, from global aid organisations and poverty charities to former Prime Ministers. And, as a member of the international development committee, my position is no different.
This move would almost certainly bring an end to Britain’s ring-fenced £15bn aid budget, not to mention the fact that it is incredibly poor timing, given we are in the middle of a global pandemic where such funding is essential to help alleviate the impact on some of the most vulnerable people around the world. And that’s before you even take into consideration the Whitehall redundancies that will inevitably result from such a merger, which – without any form of consultation – is completely unacceptable.
Perhaps most worryingly, the government is using the current crisis to railroad through its long-held plans to scrap DfID. An integrated review has been paused until the autumn, but the question that remains is: why make this announcement now? There appears to have been no consultation with the sector prior to making this decision, and almost none in the days since its announcement.
The proposed merger would be catastrophic on many levels, leading to a reversal of the progress made by successive governments in the more than two decades since 1997 in everything from health, education and poverty. Our aid not only helps to save lives, it also creates opportunities for people to improve their circumstances and life chances. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty, educated them and saved millions more.
The UK is the only G7 country to commit in legislation to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development – a target set by the United Nations – and it has long been a sense of pride for many people. In recent years, our ratio of spending has only been bettered by a handful of countries – Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands. And Britain is the world’s second-largest international development donor, behind only the US.
The ring-fenced historic spending commitment, which last year equated to £15.2bn, helped to put 11 million children through school between 2012 and 2017. Despite reassurances from the Prime Minister in parliament last week that his plans would see the UK retain its 0.7% commitment, there has been little in the way of detail to show that that will happen. Or, indeed, set out what will happen to DfID’s long-term programmes.
The PM also used his appearance in the House of Commons to state that he was committed to proper scrutiny of the work of both foreign policy and international aid, but Dominic Raab and Anne-Marie Trevelyan subsequently wrote to international development committee chair Sarah Champion to announce the Prime Minister’s intention to abolish the committee. As Chris Bryant later pointed out when he challenged the minister, such a decision is in fact a matter for the House, as set out in the standing orders.
The objection to these plans hasn’t just come from MPs on the opposition benches. It has come from former Prime Ministers who understand better than most the role Britain plays on the world stage with its aid commitment. Significantly, in a rare foray back into politics since stepping down as PM, David Cameron was one of those to criticise his old friend Boris Johnson, stating that it was a “mistake” and would result in “less expertise, less voice for development at the top table and ultimately less respect for the UK overseas”. This followed similar concerns raised by former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
The charity sector is outraged by this decision. Appearing before the international development committee last week, Oxfam UK’s chief executive Danny Sriskandarajah said, with half a billion people at risk of being pushed into poverty as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the move is “scarcely believable”. Similar comments were expressed by Save The Children UK, Concern Worldwide and Christian Aid.
Turning to scrutiny, 75% of last year’s £15.2bn spend on Official Development Assistance (ODA) came from DfID’s budget. There must continue to be proper oversight of ODA spend going forward, not least given it is underpinned by four Acts of Parliament and therefore cannot simply be changed at the whim of the Prime Minister.
Independent bodies such as the international development committee are vital for ensuring that the government of the day secures the best possible deal for those who are in most need around the world. That work cannot just be handed over to the foreign affairs committee, given the demands already on their time and the specialisms involved in development work. There are also concerns such as the cost and loss of skills from the resulting redundancies. And all of this will take place amid the chaotic backdrop of Brexit.
It is therefore vital that DfID be allowed to continue and that the scrutiny mechanisms existing alongside it are kept in place. Their removal would mean that the process of distributing aid would become far less transparent, with little accountability. And Britain would have even less say on global affairs. As my Labour colleague and chair of the international development committee Sarah Champion said: “In the long run, we will have shot ourselves in the foot on the world stage”.


labourlist--2020-06-24--We cannot delay in taking action to save our planet and future generations

As unpleasant as it is to think about , the fact is that an even more devastating crisis than Covid-19 is already here .
Europe had its hottest year on record in 2019 , and 11 of the continents ’ 12 warmest years have occurred in the past two decades .
Global grain yields have declined by 10 % from heatwaves and floods connected to climate change , unleashing mass hunger and displacement .
Over one million people living near coasts have been forced from their homes due to rising seas and stronger storms , and millions more are expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The devastation of Cyclone Idai in Mozambique last year demonstrates the real and present danger faced by communities across the world .
With the Arctic Circle reaching its highest ever recorded temperatures , we can not delay in taking action to save our planet and future generations .
Sadly , we can not rely on this government to take the urgent , radical action that is required to mitigate climate breakdown .
Not only is their commitment to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 perilously unambitious , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Conservative governments have continued to give oil companies further tax breaks as recently as in December 2018 .
It is up to the Labour Party to pressure the government into taking this life-or-death issue seriously .
To do that , we must ensure that our own climate justice policies are commensurate with the scale of the crisis we face .
As we emerge from the pandemic , Labour must argue for a new social settlement : a green new deal to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which public health always comes before private profit .
It must be the big polluters and corporate giants who bear the costs , not ordinary people .
A good start would be to continue to support the recommendations of Labour ’ s 2019 report ‘ Thirty by 2030 ‘ , with policies including a ban on fracking , welcoming climate refugees and ecological restoration .
The work of Labour for a Green New Deal is equally commendable in continuing to push for climate action to be at the heart of everything our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
Labour ’ s green recovery must include a call for one million green jobs , with a programme of investment in renewable energy , flood defences and a resilient health and care service .
The party must also reiterate its call for healthy and sustainable neighbourhoods with the Warm Homes for All programme to insulate 27 million houses and introduce full-fibre broadband free at the point of use .
The coronavirus crisis has showed the need for our communities to have access to clean air , green spaces and interconnectivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also call for a green , integrated public transport for the many .
Railways should be nationalised , electrified , expanded and affordable .
Regular zero-emission buses should serve every community , operated for the public good , not private profit .
Our streets must be clean , safe and cycle friendly .
It is vital that the protection of all workers and communities are guaranteed during the transition to renewable energies .
The required investment and job creation towards a green industrial revolution will also be vital in the necessary post-coronavirus mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must continue to champion the need to bailout workers and the planet – not big polluters .
We must consider a sector-wide aviation deal including public stakes in failing airlines to manage a just transition to renewable energy .
Labour should ensure that government bailouts through the Chancellor ’ s Project Birch are subject to stringent commitments to workers ’ rights , tax justice and rapid decarbonisation .
Without immediate government intervention , the urgent action required to preserve a habitable planet will be too slow .
This will cause unimaginable disruption and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately and sharply in Global South countries that have contributed the least to climate change .
To ensure a global green new deal , Labour must strongly consider calling for the cancellation of Global South debt to enable investment in public health .
The UK must take strong action against tax evasion , end international fossil fuel finance and rapidly step up financial support for a just global energy transition .
Moments of crises often shape the future .
From the horror of the Second World War , we created the welfare state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightly focus on tackling the coronavirus pandemic , the wellbeing of the entire planet relies on us also to take this opportunity to mitigate the existential threat of climate change .
Labour must not let this historical moment pass us by .

As unpleasant as it is to think about, the fact is that an even more devastating crisis than Covid-19 is already here. Europe had its hottest year on record in 2019, and 11 of the continents’ 12 warmest years have occurred in the past two decades. Global grain yields have declined by 10% from heatwaves and floods connected to climate change, unleashing mass hunger and displacement. Over one million people living near coasts have been forced from their homes due to rising seas and stronger storms, and millions more are expected to flee in the coming years. The devastation of Cyclone Idai in Mozambique last year demonstrates the real and present danger faced by communities across the world.
With the Arctic Circle reaching its highest ever recorded temperatures, we cannot delay in taking action to save our planet and future generations. Sadly, we cannot rely on this government to take the urgent, radical action that is required to mitigate climate breakdown. Not only is their commitment to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 perilously unambitious, they are not even on track to meet it. Conservative governments have continued to give oil companies further tax breaks as recently as in December 2018.
It is up to the Labour Party to pressure the government into taking this life-or-death issue seriously. To do that, we must ensure that our own climate justice policies are commensurate with the scale of the crisis we face. As we emerge from the pandemic, Labour must argue for a new social settlement: a green new deal to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy. Our party must fight for a society in which public health always comes before private profit. It must be the big polluters and corporate giants who bear the costs, not ordinary people.
A good start would be to continue to support the recommendations of Labour’s 2019 report ‘Thirty by 2030‘, with policies including a ban on fracking, welcoming climate refugees and ecological restoration. The work of Labour for a Green New Deal is equally commendable in continuing to push for climate action to be at the heart of everything our country does as we rebuild after the coronavirus pandemic.
Labour’s green recovery must include a call for one million green jobs, with a programme of investment in renewable energy, flood defences and a resilient health and care service. The party must also reiterate its call for healthy and sustainable neighbourhoods with the Warm Homes for All programme to insulate 27 million houses and introduce full-fibre broadband free at the point of use. The coronavirus crisis has showed the need for our communities to have access to clean air, green spaces and interconnectivity.
That’s why Labour must also call for a green, integrated public transport for the many. Railways should be nationalised, electrified, expanded and affordable. Regular zero-emission buses should serve every community, operated for the public good, not private profit. Our streets must be clean, safe and cycle friendly. It is vital that the protection of all workers and communities are guaranteed during the transition to renewable energies. The required investment and job creation towards a green industrial revolution will also be vital in the necessary post-coronavirus mass re-employment.
As we rebuild, Labour must continue to champion the need to bailout workers and the planet – not big polluters. We must consider a sector-wide aviation deal including public stakes in failing airlines to manage a just transition to renewable energy. Labour should ensure that government bailouts through the Chancellor’s Project Birch are subject to stringent commitments to workers’ rights, tax justice and rapid decarbonisation.
Without immediate government intervention, the urgent action required to preserve a habitable planet will be too slow. This will cause unimaginable disruption and could cost millions of lives, most immediately and sharply in Global South countries that have contributed the least to climate change. To ensure a global green new deal, Labour must strongly consider calling for the cancellation of Global South debt to enable investment in public health. The UK must take strong action against tax evasion, end international fossil fuel finance and rapidly step up financial support for a just global energy transition.
Moments of crises often shape the future. From the horror of the Second World War, we created the welfare state and our treasured NHS. Whilst we rightly focus on tackling the coronavirus pandemic, the wellbeing of the entire planet relies on us also to take this opportunity to mitigate the existential threat of climate change. Labour must not let this historical moment pass us by.


labourlist--2020-06-24--Why Young Labour elections should be going ahead despite Covid-19

With conferences cancelled and local parties unable to meet ( at least in the physical sense ) , we can only try our best as a collective to support each other and continue our activism .
While Millennials and Generation Z are the online generations , the shift from in-person to online communication from all generations can be seen by some as a burden .
But for young people in the Labour Party , it is an opportunity .
In the Labour Party , there is no good reason not to continue youth democracy , activism and engagement .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
These were already postponed months ago and currently have no set date to take place .
Why not have them now ?
There is nothing in the rulebook stopping us – nominations and voting are all done online .
There are fewer hoops to jump through for youth elections than there are for other kinds of internal party elections .
Might what we put in place be imperfect ?
Yes .
But impossible ?
No .
There is a growing danger that an inability to adapt party democracy to the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will mean that engagement with our members significantly withers .
Young members are the future of this party and we can ’ t afford to let this happen .
For these elections , Young Labour members and groups could hold online meetings to hear pitches from candidates and ask them questions .
This also removes any financial barrier for candidates who previously could not afford expensive travel costs to visit regional and local young labour groups across the country .
It can all be done online .
A survey this year revealed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a smartphone .
I ’ m guessing this is significantly higher than the percentage of young people who are able – with a perfect combination of time , money and accessibility needs met – to attend a physical meeting together in normal times , let alone during a pandemic .
Last year , Labour ’ s youth representatives organised a one-day ‘ political school ’ in Birmingham with a range of workshops , speakers and panel discussions .
If the party could provide our youth wing with sufficient funding and organisational help , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ political school ’ could not be put together for the party ’ s young members during lockdown , or weekly online activism training , or a crash course in community organising , in preparation for future UK elections .
We would do better to create more welcoming , inclusive and productive spaces online for young members .
Many have complained since lockdown started of the added pressure the pandemic has put on the mental health of individuals .
Some of the toxicity that already exists within Young Labour is exacerbating this problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all be making extra effort to be kind to ourselves and mindful of others , particularly on social media .
In Open Labour , we recently hosted a youth policy workshop and set up a Facebook group for our young members as a forum for sharing resources , campaign advice and supporting each other ’ s activism .
We want to get away from ‘ debating society politics ’ and towards organising for the future and formulating policy .
The Labour Party could support its youth wing in setting up similar ( albeit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young members for campaign activities and support .
This pandemic may roll on for many more months or even years .
We will adjust to new ways of working , socialising and conducting political activism .
But it is no use guessing that anything we postpone right now due to difficult external circumstances will suddenly be possible in six months ’ time in the hope that everything will be back to normal by then .
Many young member events and youth group AGMs have been cancelled , as has annual party conference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the few parts of Labour Party democracy that can continue as normal in this pandemic .

With conferences cancelled and local parties unable to meet (at least in the physical sense), we can only try our best as a collective to support each other and continue our activism. While Millennials and Generation Z are the online generations, the shift from in-person to online communication from all generations can be seen by some as a burden. But for young people in the Labour Party, it is an opportunity.
In the Labour Party, there is no good reason not to continue youth democracy, activism and engagement. A key aspect of this is Young Labour elections. These were already postponed months ago and currently have no set date to take place. Why not have them now? There is nothing in the rulebook stopping us – nominations and voting are all done online. There are fewer hoops to jump through for youth elections than there are for other kinds of internal party elections.
Might what we put in place be imperfect? Yes. But impossible? No. There is a growing danger that an inability to adapt party democracy to the reality of the restrictions imposed by a pandemic will mean that engagement with our members significantly withers. Young members are the future of this party and we can’t afford to let this happen.
For these elections, Young Labour members and groups could hold online meetings to hear pitches from candidates and ask them questions. This also removes any financial barrier for candidates who previously could not afford expensive travel costs to visit regional and local young labour groups across the country. It can all be done online.
A survey this year revealed that 99% of 16- to 24-year-olds own a smartphone. I’m guessing this is significantly higher than the percentage of young people who are able – with a perfect combination of time, money and accessibility needs met – to attend a physical meeting together in normal times, let alone during a pandemic.
Last year, Labour’s youth representatives organised a one-day ‘political school’ in Birmingham with a range of workshops, speakers and panel discussions. If the party could provide our youth wing with sufficient funding and organisational help, there is no reason than an online ‘political school’ could not be put together for the party’s young members during lockdown, or weekly online activism training, or a crash course in community organising, in preparation for future UK elections.
We would do better to create more welcoming, inclusive and productive spaces online for young members. Many have complained since lockdown started of the added pressure the pandemic has put on the mental health of individuals. Some of the toxicity that already exists within Young Labour is exacerbating this problem, at a time when we should all be making extra effort to be kind to ourselves and mindful of others, particularly on social media.
In Open Labour, we recently hosted a youth policy workshop and set up a Facebook group for our young members as a forum for sharing resources, campaign advice and supporting each other’s activism. We want to get away from ‘debating society politics’ and towards organising for the future and formulating policy. The Labour Party could support its youth wing in setting up similar (albeit larger scale) online forums for its young members for campaign activities and support.
This pandemic may roll on for many more months or even years. We will adjust to new ways of working, socialising and conducting political activism. But it is no use guessing that anything we postpone right now due to difficult external circumstances will suddenly be possible in six months’ time in the hope that everything will be back to normal by then. Many young member events and youth group AGMs have been cancelled, as has annual party conference. Young Labour elections may be one of the few parts of Labour Party democracy that can continue as normal in this pandemic.


labourlist--2020-06-24--Why the government is wrong to consider limiting jury trials

Robert Buckland has confirmed that the government is actively considering reducing the right for individuals to be tried by a jury .
Trials could instead be decided by a judge and two magistrates sitting alone .
His argument to the justice select committee was that the pandemic had caused such a backlog in criminal cases that drastic measures were required as otherwise trials would be delayed for years .
Responding to suggestions from the Lord Chief Justice , he stated that suspending jury trials for certain offences may need to take place due to the “ unprecedented ” situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ position does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny .
He is attempting to suggest Covid-19 is the cause of a problem that on any inspection developed over the last ten years of Conservative government .
The backlog is not the result of a global pandemic , but a political failure to reform and invest in our legal infrastructure – the courts , the CPS , the judiciary and legal aid .
Before the pandemic there was a backlog of 39,000 cases in the Crown Court , and now the number is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a slight exacerbation of a structural problem in the criminal justice system that is a result of political decisions .
Far from the situation being ‘ unprecedented ’ , the backlog was at 50,000 cases in 2014 – and this reform was never seriously considered then .
Buckland stated that such a change would be “ a last resort ” .
He argued that behind each number “ was an individual ” , a defendant or complainant waiting for their day in court to seek justice – and this meant he must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a broken justice system appears to be a revelation to the Justice Secretary .
Where was the concern previously , as courts were closed , spending was cut , and cases were waiting years to be heard ?
The proposed solution will not even solve the problem .
As set out by Sarah Vine , a Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers , none of the cases currently delayed and awaiting trial would be dealt with under the reformed regime in any event ( or be subject to severe legal challenge if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
There is also a distinct lack of magistrates to sit with a judge to undertake these trials – there is currently a 400,000-case backlog in the magistrates ’ court .
Where will these new judges appear from ?
The government is finding it increasingly difficult to retain and recruit sufficient numbers of judges – many have retired , exasperated at a broken system .
The change may also lead to disastrous unintended consequences .
As has been pointed out by criminal practitioners , no lawyer worth their salt would advise their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crown court trial , but would elect for a magistrates ’ trial and if convicted then appeal to the Crown Court .
In reality , the change would likely lead to more cases and appeals , clogging up the system further .
Instead of weakening a key constitutional right , the government should do the hard work .
They should begin by working with local authorities to use other public buildings for jury trials .
County courts – most of which are currently empty with remote hearings generally working well in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal trials .
The Ministry of Justice should reconsider spending £3.5bn on new prisons , and instead invest some of that money in our country ’ s legal infrastructure .
Some may wonder why Labour ’ s shadow justice team is being so insistent in their protection of jury trials .
The notion of a jury trial , developed over hundreds of years since the Magna Carta in 1215 , is a cornerstone of our democracy .
It acts as a last protective measure from unfair interference by the state to the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More broadly , it forms part of the contract of citizenship .
We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us .
To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act .
It would also lead to unfairness .
Whilst juries are randomly selected from the population , a judge and lay magistrates are not .
They are far from representative .
As the barrister Joanna Hardy has set out , only 3 circuit judges in the whole jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey ( 4 % were from ‘ BAME backgrounds ’ ) .
84 % of magistrates are over the age of 50 , when the vast majority of the defendants will be under that age .
And there is a socio-economic divide : judges often earn over £100,000 per year , and magistrates ’ are individuals who are able to work for free , and accordingly are often assumed to have a financial security not available to many individuals who are before them .
This reform would represent a regressive step in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position is disingenuous .
Robert Buckland , a former criminal barrister , must know that any argument for reforming jury trials is weak – and would be struck out in court .
It is time for him to stand up and take responsibility , and bring forward real methods of supporting the criminal justice system , not those that will fundamentally undermine it .

Robert Buckland has confirmed that the government is actively considering reducing the right for individuals to be tried by a jury. Trials could instead be decided by a judge and two magistrates sitting alone. His argument to the justice select committee was that the pandemic had caused such a backlog in criminal cases that drastic measures were required as otherwise trials would be delayed for years. Responding to suggestions from the Lord Chief Justice, he stated that suspending jury trials for certain offences may need to take place due to the “unprecedented” situation.
Unfortunately for the Justice Secretary, his position does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny. He is attempting to suggest Covid-19 is the cause of a problem that on any inspection developed over the last ten years of Conservative government. The backlog is not the result of a global pandemic, but a political failure to reform and invest in our legal infrastructure – the courts, the CPS, the judiciary and legal aid. Before the pandemic there was a backlog of 39,000 cases in the Crown Court, and now the number is 41,000. The lockdown has led to only a slight exacerbation of a structural problem in the criminal justice system that is a result of political decisions. Far from the situation being ‘unprecedented’, the backlog was at 50,000 cases in 2014 – and this reform was never seriously considered then.
Buckland stated that such a change would be “a last resort”. He argued that behind each number “was an individual”, a defendant or complainant waiting for their day in court to seek justice – and this meant he must consider radical reform. The human cost of a broken justice system appears to be a revelation to the Justice Secretary. Where was the concern previously, as courts were closed, spending was cut, and cases were waiting years to be heard?
The proposed solution will not even solve the problem. As set out by Sarah Vine, a Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, none of the cases currently delayed and awaiting trial would be dealt with under the reformed regime in any event (or be subject to severe legal challenge if the government attempted to implement a retrospective change). There is also a distinct lack of magistrates to sit with a judge to undertake these trials – there is currently a 400,000-case backlog in the magistrates’ court. Where will these new judges appear from? The government is finding it increasingly difficult to retain and recruit sufficient numbers of judges – many have retired, exasperated at a broken system.
The change may also lead to disastrous unintended consequences. As has been pointed out by criminal practitioners, no lawyer worth their salt would advise their client to elect to the new form of crown court trial, but would elect for a magistrates’ trial and if convicted then appeal to the Crown Court. In reality, the change would likely lead to more cases and appeals, clogging up the system further.
Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work. They should begin by working with local authorities to use other public buildings for jury trials. County courts – most of which are currently empty with remote hearings generally working well in the civil sphere – should be utilised for criminal trials. The Ministry of Justice should reconsider spending £3.5bn on new prisons, and instead invest some of that money in our country’s legal infrastructure.
Some may wonder why Labour’s shadow justice team is being so insistent in their protection of jury trials. The notion of a jury trial, developed over hundreds of years since the Magna Carta in 1215, is a cornerstone of our democracy. It acts as a last protective measure from unfair interference by the state to the most important individual right – our liberty. More broadly, it forms part of the contract of citizenship. We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.
It would also lead to unfairness. Whilst juries are randomly selected from the population, a judge and lay magistrates are not. They are far from representative. As the barrister Joanna Hardy has set out, only 3 circuit judges in the whole jurisdiction said they were black in a recent survey (4% were from ‘BAME backgrounds’). 84% of magistrates are over the age of 50, when the vast majority of the defendants will be under that age. And there is a socio-economic divide: judges often earn over £100,000 per year, and magistrates’ are individuals who are able to work for free, and accordingly are often assumed to have a financial security not available to many individuals who are before them. This reform would represent a regressive step in our justice system.
The government’s position is disingenuous. Robert Buckland, a former criminal barrister, must know that any argument for reforming jury trials is weak – and would be struck out in court. It is time for him to stand up and take responsibility, and bring forward real methods of supporting the criminal justice system, not those that will fundamentally undermine it.


labourlist--2020-06-25--WATCH: Robert Jenrick case “far from closed”, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has declared that the ‘ cash-for-favours ’ case involving Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is “ far from closed ” and said that the “ Prime Minister ’ s judgement is in issue ” .
In an interview with BBC News , the Labour leader said that the party and the public want “ straight answers ” , and called for “ full disclosure ” with an investigation by the cabinet secretary .
Starmer said : “ The Prime Minister ’ s judgement is in issue – he says the matter is closed , but it ’ s far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrepancies .
They show that Jenrick initiated conversations… We want straight answers on this.
” The comments by the Labour leader follow the publication of documents relating to a decision by Jenrick to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor ’ s planning application for a development after admitting “ apparent bias ” .
129-pages of documents relating to the case were released on Wednesday , showing emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of the developer .
Jenrick has acknowledged that he had published his decision in time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m .
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced , Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m .
Business minister Nadhim Zahawi defended his colleague this morning – arguing that ordinary members of the public could “ interact ” with MPs in the same way the Richard Desmond had influenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 said : “ The Housing Secretary has set out his account in public and in parliament , including publishing the relevant documentation .
In light of this account the Prime Minister considers this matter closed.
” But Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed has called for the Housing Secretary to come to parliament to explain himself in light of the released documents “ as a matter of urgency ” .
He said : “ The public must be reassured that there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else .
”

Keir Starmer has declared that the ‘cash-for-favours’ case involving Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is “far from closed” and said that the “Prime Minister’s judgement is in issue”.
In an interview with BBC News, the Labour leader said that the party and the public want “straight answers”, and called for “full disclosure” with an investigation by the cabinet secretary.
Starmer said: “The Prime Minister’s judgement is in issue – he says the matter is closed, but it’s far from closed. The latest disclosures show discrepancies. They show that Jenrick initiated conversations… We want straight answers on this.”
The comments by the Labour leader follow the publication of documents relating to a decision by Jenrick to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor’s planning application for a development after admitting “apparent bias”.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says the Robert Jenrick row is "far from closed", despite what Boris Johnson says He adds he thinks the public "can tell there's something wrong here"https://t.co/BNJeCuPGri pic.twitter.com/kTcVj5TILs — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 25, 2020
129-pages of documents relating to the case were released on Wednesday, showing emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of the developer.
Jenrick has acknowledged that he had published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m.
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced, Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m.
Business minister Nadhim Zahawi defended his colleague this morning – arguing that ordinary members of the public could “interact” with MPs in the same way the Richard Desmond had influenced Jenrick.
A spokesperson for No. 10 said: “The Housing Secretary has set out his account in public and in parliament, including publishing the relevant documentation. In light of this account the Prime Minister considers this matter closed.”
But Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed has called for the Housing Secretary to come to parliament to explain himself in light of the released documents “as a matter of urgency”.
He said: “The public must be reassured that there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy donors and another rule for everyone else.”


labourlist--2020-06-25--Labour: Universal Credit claimants face “rigid, unbending, uncaring” system

Jonathan Reynolds has said that Universal Credit claimants face a “ rigid , unbending , uncaring response ” and described an “ overwhelming need to recognise the lived experiences ” of people in receipt of the benefit .
Labour tabled an urgent question to the Work and Pensions Secretary today , asking the government to make a statement on a recent court ruling that declared the rules around Universal Credit assessment periods to be unlawful .
Reynolds asked the minister : “ What on earth was the government doing , fighting this case for so many years , only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something which seems to most people a matter of basic common sense ?
“ If Universal Credit can not cope with the date people are paid and the impact of bank holidays and weekends on that payment date , then the solution should always have been to change how the system works.
” The benefit does not adjust for the fact that in some months , wages will be paid into a claimant ’ s account earlier than normal due to weekends or bank holidays – instead judging this as them earning twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said : “ This issue goes to the heart of problems with Universal Credit , which is that time and time again we are told by ministers that Universal Credit is more flexible , is more agile , that it can be adapted to meet new requirements and respond to problems that are identified.
” He added : “ When it comes to making seemingly simple changes such as these , claimants are faced with a rigid , unbending , uncaring response .
The government always seems unwilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who actually use the system.
” The case was initially brought by four single mums last year , and the court found in their favour – however , the government decided to appeal the decision .
Lady Justice Rose agreed with the original ruling .
She said that the situation faced by the women and others in their situation was “ perverse ” .
It is estimated that around 85,000 claimants are affected by the regulations relating to payment periods .

Jonathan Reynolds has said that Universal Credit claimants face a “rigid, unbending, uncaring response” and described an “overwhelming need to recognise the lived experiences” of people in receipt of the benefit.
Labour tabled an urgent question to the Work and Pensions Secretary today, asking the government to make a statement on a recent court ruling that declared the rules around Universal Credit assessment periods to be unlawful.
Reynolds asked the minister: “What on earth was the government doing, fighting this case for so many years, only to be told by the Court of Appeal something which seems to most people a matter of basic common sense?
“If Universal Credit cannot cope with the date people are paid and the impact of bank holidays and weekends on that payment date, then the solution should always have been to change how the system works.”
The benefit does not adjust for the fact that in some months, wages will be paid into a claimant’s account earlier than normal due to weekends or bank holidays – instead judging this as them earning twice as much in that month.
The Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said: “This issue goes to the heart of problems with Universal Credit, which is that time and time again we are told by ministers that Universal Credit is more flexible, is more agile, that it can be adapted to meet new requirements and respond to problems that are identified.”
He added: “When it comes to making seemingly simple changes such as these, claimants are faced with a rigid, unbending, uncaring response. The government always seems unwilling to listen to the experiences of the people who actually use the system.”
The case was initially brought by four single mums last year, and the court found in their favour – however, the government decided to appeal the decision. Lady Justice Rose agreed with the original ruling.
She said that the situation faced by the women and others in their situation was “perverse”. It is estimated that around 85,000 claimants are affected by the regulations relating to payment periods.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Minister suggests voters can become Tory donors to influence government

A Conservative minister has suggested that ordinary voters can influence the government by becoming Tory donors while defending Robert Jenrick over the ‘ cash-for-favours ’ scandal .
In an interview this morning with BBC Radio 4 ’ s Today programme , business minister Nadhim Zahawi argued that members of the public could “ interact ” with MPs in the same way the Richard Desmond did with Robert Jenrick .
The MP for Doncaster defended the Secretary of State ’ s controversial dealings with the property developer over a £1bn housing scheme in east London , and claimed that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decision ” .
Zahawi said : “ If people go to a fundraiser in their local area in Doncaster for the Conservative Party , they ’ d be sitting next to MPs and other people in their local authority .
People can interact with different parts of that authority.
” The comment by the Tory minister follows the decision by the Housing Secretary to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor ’ s planning application for a development after admitting “ apparent bias ” .
129-pages of documents relating to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of the developer .
Jenrick acknowledged previously that he had published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m .
The released correspondence supports this , with one official recorded as having said : “ On timing , my understanding is that SoS is/was insistent that decision issued this week ie tomorrow – as next week the viability of the scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London CIL regime.
” As well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced , Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m .
Commenting on the documents , Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed said : “ These explosive new revelations show clear discrepancies between what the Secretary of State told the House of Commons and what appears in the official documents .
“ The documents clearly show that Mr Jenrick did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr Desmond ; rather than “ closing down ” the discussion as he claims , he initiated contact with Mr Desmond by text message the following day ; and it confirms that he rushed through the decision specifically to help the developer avoid a £30-50m levy payable to the local council for infrastructure in one of the poorest local authorities in England .
“ The Housing Secretary needs to come to the House to explain these discrepancies as a matter of urgency : the public must be reassured that there is not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors and another rule for everyone else .
”

A Conservative minister has suggested that ordinary voters can influence the government by becoming Tory donors while defending Robert Jenrick over the ‘cash-for-favours’ scandal.
In an interview this morning with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, business minister Nadhim Zahawi argued that members of the public could “interact” with MPs in the same way the Richard Desmond did with Robert Jenrick.
The MP for Doncaster defended the Secretary of State’s controversial dealings with the property developer over a £1bn housing scheme in east London, and claimed that “the access didn’t buy this billionaire a decision”.
Zahawi said: “If people go to a fundraiser in their local area in Doncaster for the Conservative Party, they’d be sitting next to MPs and other people in their local authority. People can interact with different parts of that authority.”
📻 LISTEN: Out-of-touch minister claims you too could have the influence enjoyed by billionaire Richard Desmond…if you just become a Tory donor. Extraordinary. pic.twitter.com/tlpMvG1Xqn — Labour Press (@labourpress) June 25, 2020
The comment by the Tory minister follows the decision by the Housing Secretary to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor’s planning application for a development after admitting “apparent bias”.
129-pages of documents relating to the case were released on Wednesday, showing emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of the developer.
Jenrick acknowledged previously that he had published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m.
The released correspondence supports this, with one official recorded as having said: “On timing, my understanding is that SoS is/was insistent that decision issued this week ie tomorrow – as next week the viability of the scheme is impacted by a change in the London CIL regime.”
As well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced, Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m.
Commenting on the documents, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed said: “These explosive new revelations show clear discrepancies between what the Secretary of State told the House of Commons and what appears in the official documents.
“The documents clearly show that Mr Jenrick did not notify officials immediately after his meeting with Mr Desmond; rather than “closing down” the discussion as he claims, he initiated contact with Mr Desmond by text message the following day; and it confirms that he rushed through the decision specifically to help the developer avoid a £30-50m levy payable to the local council for infrastructure in one of the poorest local authorities in England.
“The Housing Secretary needs to come to the House to explain these discrepancies as a matter of urgency: the public must be reassured that there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy donors and another rule for everyone else.”


labourlist--2020-06-25--At the heart of a heartless government

At the heart of a heartless government

Labour ’ s humble address motion – that old Keir Starmer trick used during the Brexit parliamentary chaos years – was successful in forcing the government to release documents relating to the Westferry Printworks scandal .
The text messages and emails subsequently disclosed are evidence of a pally relationship , and also an insight into how Tories think : paying a community infrastructure levy that will help improve the local area is to “ give the Marxists loads of doe for nothing !
” according to media mogul and Conservative donor Richard Desmond .
Most importantly , the published communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturning the Planning Inspectorate ’ s decision ( described , with disappointment , as “ very thoroughly argued and evidenced ” ) in order to help Desmond avoid the community charge of between £30m and £50m .
We ’ re talking about Tower Hamlets , one of the poorest areas of the country , with the highest rate of child poverty in the UK at 43 % .
The Secretary of State for Communities didn ’ t want a billionaire developer to pay a charge to that community .
Local mayor John Biggs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and called for Jenrick to resign .
The Prime Minister has vowed to stick by him , however , and ministers are defending him on the airwaves .
It is unclear just how badly you have to publicly mess up before deserving the sack under Boris Johnson ’ s leadership .
The heartless attitude that dominates the running of our country , on the other hand , is clearer than ever .
In internal Labour news , Progress and Labour First have now formally launched new organisation ‘ Labour to Win ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition of mainstream Labour activists ” that is striving to “ make Keir Starmer ’ s leadership a success ” .
On the other end of the factional spectrum , Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have joined a group of Labour MPs and party activists calling for the Starmer leadership to back a Green New Deal – including a path to net zero by 2030 .
I will be in conversation tonight with Ian Murray , Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Labour ’ s sole Scottish MP .
As ever , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please feel free to email them and I ’ ll include as many as possible I can during the interview .
Join us for the live broadcast on LabourList from 6pm .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Labour’s humble address motion – that old Keir Starmer trick used during the Brexit parliamentary chaos years – was successful in forcing the government to release documents relating to the Westferry Printworks scandal. The text messages and emails subsequently disclosed are evidence of a pally relationship, and also an insight into how Tories think: paying a community infrastructure levy that will help improve the local area is to “give the Marxists loads of doe for nothing!” according to media mogul and Conservative donor Richard Desmond.
Most importantly, the published communications offer evidence that Robert Jenrick rushed through overturning the Planning Inspectorate’s decision (described, with disappointment, as “very thoroughly argued and evidenced”) in order to help Desmond avoid the community charge of between £30m and £50m. We’re talking about Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest areas of the country, with the highest rate of child poverty in the UK at 43%. The Secretary of State for Communities didn’t want a billionaire developer to pay a charge to that community.
Local mayor John Biggs has said he is “astonishingly angry” and called for Jenrick to resign. The Prime Minister has vowed to stick by him, however, and ministers are defending him on the airwaves. It is unclear just how badly you have to publicly mess up before deserving the sack under Boris Johnson’s leadership. The heartless attitude that dominates the running of our country, on the other hand, is clearer than ever.
In internal Labour news, Progress and Labour First have now formally launched new organisation ‘Labour to Win’. They describe it as a “coalition of mainstream Labour activists” that is striving to “make Keir Starmer’s leadership a success”. On the other end of the factional spectrum, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have joined a group of Labour MPs and party activists calling for the Starmer leadership to back a Green New Deal – including a path to net zero by 2030.
I will be in conversation tonight with Ian Murray, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Labour’s sole Scottish MP. As ever, if you have any suggestions for questions, please feel free to email them and I’ll include as many as possible I can during the interview. Join us for the live broadcast on LabourList from 6pm. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-25--TSSA warns of national strike over change to social distancing rules

TSSA has warned of a national strike by its members unless the government gives reassurances that the two-metre social distancing rule will stay in place on public transport .
The Prime Minister announced earlier this week that the rule instructing people to stay two metres apart from one another amid the coronavirus crisis will be changed to ‘ one metre plus ’ .
While Labour has accepted the change to the distancing rule , party-affiliated shopworkers ’ union Usdaw has opposed it – warning that the adjustment could be “ disastrous ” for its members .
Usdaw general secretary Paddy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an unnecessary burden on business , compromise the safety of staff and customers and create confusion.
” Labour-affiliated transport trade union TSSA has now also come out against the change taking place from July 4th , pointing out that the government ’ s own review says “ public transport presents a high risk ” .
The 24th June report notes that transport involves “ prolonged indoor contact between a high number of users from different households ” , but recommends one-metre distancing with face coverings .
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic and on 24th June stressed the importance of two metre signage at stations .
Announcing the strike warning , TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes said : “ I will now be consulting our members over balloting for a national strike on public transport .
“ We must protect transport workers and the travelling public should the government proceed with this reckless attempt to cut physical distancing to one metre early next month .
I urge them to think again .
“ Grant Shapps was right to praise the efforts of transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supplied during the coronavirus health emergency .
As the Transport Secretary pointed out , we have seen far too many deaths already in the line of duty .
“ Yet it now appears that his words are hollow as the Tories are looking to use these heroic workers as nothing more than cannon fodder .
The government ’ s own review into social distancing makes clear the ‘ high risks ’ involved with public transport .
“ What is staggering is that in almost the same breath the review says increased capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words – the lives of passengers and our members are being put at risk so that fat cats can accumulate profits .
“ This is an outrageous admission by our government whose first duty must always be to protect lives .
We will not let that stand and do all we can to prevent more needless deaths across our transport network.
” The Transport Salaried Staffs ’ Association has around 22,300 members in the UK and Ireland .
It has recently campaigned for justice following the death of railway ticket @ @ @ @ @

TSSA has warned of a national strike by its members unless the government gives reassurances that the two-metre social distancing rule will stay in place on public transport.
The Prime Minister announced earlier this week that the rule instructing people to stay two metres apart from one another amid the coronavirus crisis will be changed to ‘one metre plus’.
While Labour has accepted the change to the distancing rule, party-affiliated shopworkers’ union Usdaw has opposed it – warning that the adjustment could be “disastrous” for its members.
Usdaw general secretary Paddy Lillis said: “Changing the rules would be an unnecessary burden on business, compromise the safety of staff and customers and create confusion.”
Labour-affiliated transport trade union TSSA has now also come out against the change taking place from July 4th, pointing out that the government’s own review says “public transport presents a high risk”.
The 24th June report notes that transport involves “prolonged indoor contact between a high number of users from different households”, but recommends one-metre distancing with face coverings.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has praised the efforts of transport workers during the pandemic and on 24th June stressed the importance of two metre signage at stations.
Announcing the strike warning, TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes said: “I will now be consulting our members over balloting for a national strike on public transport.
“We must protect transport workers and the travelling public should the government proceed with this reckless attempt to cut physical distancing to one metre early next month. I urge them to think again.
“Grant Shapps was right to praise the efforts of transport workers who are keeping our country moving and supplied during the coronavirus health emergency. As the Transport Secretary pointed out, we have seen far too many deaths already in the line of duty.
“Yet it now appears that his words are hollow as the Tories are looking to use these heroic workers as nothing more than cannon fodder. The government’s own review into social distancing makes clear the ‘high risks’ involved with public transport.
“What is staggering is that in almost the same breath the review says increased capacity is ‘necessary for economic growth’. In other words – the lives of passengers and our members are being put at risk so that fat cats can accumulate profits.
“This is an outrageous admission by our government whose first duty must always be to protect lives. We will not let that stand and do all we can to prevent more needless deaths across our transport network.”
The Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association has around 22,300 members in the UK and Ireland. It has recently campaigned for justice following the death of railway ticket office clerk Belly Mujinga.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Corbyn among Labour MPs telling new leadership to back Green New Deal

Labour left MPs including Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have joined party activists in calling for the new leadership to support the ‘ Green New Deal ’ policy programme .
Members of the Socialist Campaign Group , which represents the parliamentary party ’ s left , have signed a letter demanding that the climate programme put forward by Labour in 2019 is not dropped .
The push comes from members of the previous leadership team – Diane Abbott , Ian Lavery , Richard Burgon – and from new intake MPs such as Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Zarah Sultana .
The letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Socialist Green New Deal ’ motion , party policy includes commitments to a path to net-zero by 2030 and public ownership of the energy sector .
The conference push was led by campaign group Labour for a Green New Deal , which is now encouraging party members to use its model submission for Labour ’ s consultation on a green recovery .
Ed Miliband and Anneliese Dodds launched a consultation on the creation of an ambitious green and just economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis at the start of the month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours more than 350 party members had sent their template describing a “ new social settlement ” to the policy consultation .
It concludes at the end of June .
The policy proposal includes public ownership of key industries and utilities , a Warm Homes for All programme , full-fibre broadband free at the point of use and the cancellation of Global South debt .
Asked whether Labour backs a 2030 net-zero target , Keir Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ The last manifesto made a number of really important commitments on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we lost the election and Labour lost five years in government to tackle climate change .
“ The next manifesto , the next target , will be written in four or five years ’ time and we ’ ll have to deal with the circumstances we are in then.
” Responding to those comments , Angus Satow of Labour for a Green New Deal said : “ We strongly oppose the suggestion that Labour should abandon its vital , popular and groundbreaking climate programme because of our election defeat .
“ With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Green New Deal has never been more urgent .
It ’ s not enough for Keir Starmer to delay this question until 2024 – he must fight for our programme , and our planet , now.
” Below is the full text of the letter and signatories .
The recovery from Covid-19 must tackle the urgent climate crisis facing our planet .
With the highest ever temperatures recorded in the Arctic Circle , we can not delay in taking action to save our planet and future generations .
We believe that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the historic responsibility of the UK in greenhouse gas emissions , but also the need for a just transition for workers employed in the energy industry .
Thanks to work of campaigners , trade union representatives of energy workers and others , since conference 2019 Labour Party policy includes : International exchange of technology and expertise to support other countries ’ transitions • A path to net zero by 2030 • A just transition , based on public ownership of an integrated , democratic energy sector • Building and retrofitting social and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the recommendations of Labour ’ s 2019 report ‘ Thirty by 2030 ’ , and the work of Labour for a Green New Deal in continuing to push for Labour conference policy to be made a reality , to save our planet for our children , and to fight for climate action to be at the heart of everything our country does as we rebuild after the coronavirus pandemic .

Labour left MPs including Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have joined party activists in calling for the new leadership to support the ‘Green New Deal’ policy programme.
Members of the Socialist Campaign Group, which represents the parliamentary party’s left, have signed a letter demanding that the climate programme put forward by Labour in 2019 is not dropped.
The push comes from members of the previous leadership team – Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery, Richard Burgon – and from new intake MPs such as Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Zarah Sultana.
The letter states that after Labour conference approved a ‘Socialist Green New Deal’ motion, party policy includes commitments to a path to net-zero by 2030 and public ownership of the energy sector.
The conference push was led by campaign group Labour for a Green New Deal, which is now encouraging party members to use its model submission for Labour’s consultation on a green recovery.
Ed Miliband and Anneliese Dodds launched a consultation on the creation of an ambitious green and just economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis at the start of the month.
According to Labour GND, within 24 hours more than 350 party members had sent their template describing a “new social settlement” to the policy consultation. It concludes at the end of June.
The policy proposal includes public ownership of key industries and utilities, a Warm Homes for All programme, full-fibre broadband free at the point of use and the cancellation of Global South debt.
Asked whether Labour backs a 2030 net-zero target, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said: “The last manifesto made a number of really important commitments on this, which Keir supported, but we lost the election and Labour lost five years in government to tackle climate change.
“The next manifesto, the next target, will be written in four or five years’ time and we’ll have to deal with the circumstances we are in then.”
Responding to those comments, Angus Satow of Labour for a Green New Deal said: “We strongly oppose the suggestion that Labour should abandon its vital, popular and groundbreaking climate programme because of our election defeat.
“With the Arctic on fire and unemployment soaring, the Green New Deal has never been more urgent. It’s not enough for Keir Starmer to delay this question until 2024 – he must fight for our programme, and our planet, now.”
Below is the full text of the letter and signatories.
The recovery from Covid-19 must tackle the urgent climate crisis facing our planet. With the highest ever temperatures recorded in the Arctic Circle, we cannot delay in taking action to save our planet and future generations.
We believe that the necessary and urgent action must consider not only the historic responsibility of the UK in greenhouse gas emissions, but also the need for a just transition for workers employed in the energy industry.
Thanks to work of campaigners, trade union representatives of energy workers and others, since conference 2019 Labour Party policy includes:
International exchange of technology and expertise to support other countries’ transitions
A path to net zero by 2030
A ban on fracking
A just transition, based on public ownership of an integrated, democratic energy sector
Free or affordable green public transport
Ecological restoration to increase biodiversity
Welcoming climate refugees
Building and retrofitting social and council housing with low embedded carbon
We support the recommendations of Labour’s 2019 report ‘Thirty by 2030’, and the work of Labour for a Green New Deal in continuing to push for Labour conference policy to be made a reality, to save our planet for our children, and to fight for climate action to be at the heart of everything our country does as we rebuild after the coronavirus pandemic.
Diane Abbott MP
Tahir Ali MP
Paula Barker MP
Apsana Begum MP
Christine Blower
Pauline Bryan
Richard Burgon MP
Ian Byrne MP
Shami Chakrabarti
Jeremy Corbyn MP
John Hendy
Ian Lavery MP
Clive Lewis MP
John McDonnell MP
Ian Mearns MP
Graeme Morris MP
Kate Osamor MP
Kate Osborne MP
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP
Zarah Sultana MP
Jon Trickett MP
Claudia Webbe MP
Mick Whitley MP
Nadia Whittome MP


labourlist--2020-06-25--‘Labour to Win’ launches as “new coalition of mainstream Labour activists”

The organisation ‘ Labour to Win ’ – a joint project by Progress and Labour First – has now officially launched , described as a “ new coalition of mainstream Labour activists ” .
The new coalition lists its objectives as : • Building diverse networks of new and existing Labour activists • Training and educating the next generation of Labour candidates , activists and campaigners • Campaigning for Labour candidates across England , Scotland and Wales • Ensuring a strong , Labour voice at all levels of government The initiative of ‘ moderates ’ was first announced the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour leader in April , and the founders said it was a response to his call for party unity .
It brings together Blairite group Progress and ‘ old right ’ Labour First , which represent different traditions in the party but have both been home to Corbynsceptics over recent years .
The umbrella group is intended to be a show of unity by the so-called ‘ moderate ’ wing of the party – and also to help highlight Starmer ’ s key messages of electability and competence .
Labour to Win now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the party must change radically if we are to return to being election winners ” can sign up to support the new group .
Commenting on the launch , co-directors Luke Akehurst and Nathan Yeowell said : “ Keir Starmer is already making great progress in turning round Labour ’ s organisation , with the election of a dynamic new general secretary , and its standing with the public through his competent and articulate leadership .
“ But he can ’ t do it by himself .
He needs a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members behind him , as committed as he is to changing Labour at every level and in every CLP to make it electable again .
We urge Labour members to join Labour to Win and be part of that movement.
” Shadow cabinet member Rachel Reeves tweeted : “ A great initiative .
To back @ Keir_Starmer and to get Labour back where we need to be : in government to transform our country , end child poverty and build a fairer and more equal society.
” Labour First , led by its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1980 before being relaunched by Labour MP John Spellar in 1988 .
It is associated with the party ’ s ‘ old right ’ .
Progress started in 1996 to support New Labour and the leadership of Tony Blair .
Its chairperson is Labour MP Alison McGovern , and its director since August 2019 has been Nathan Yeowell .

The organisation ‘Labour to Win’ – a joint project by Progress and Labour First – has now officially launched, described as a “new coalition of mainstream Labour activists”.
The new coalition lists its objectives as:
Standing up for social democratic values
Working together to make Keir Starmer’s leadership a success
Building diverse networks of new and existing Labour activists
Training and educating the next generation of Labour candidates, activists and campaigners
Campaigning for Labour candidates across England, Scotland and Wales
Ensuring a strong, Labour voice at all levels of government
The initiative of ‘moderates’ was first announced the day after Keir Starmer’s election as Labour leader in April, and the founders said it was a response to his call for party unity.
It brings together Blairite group Progress and ‘old right’ Labour First, which represent different traditions in the party but have both been home to Corbynsceptics over recent years.
The umbrella group is intended to be a show of unity by the so-called ‘moderate’ wing of the party – and also to help highlight Starmer’s key messages of electability and competence.
Labour to Win now has a website where members who believes that “the party must change radically if we are to return to being election winners” can sign up to support the new group.
Commenting on the launch, co-directors Luke Akehurst and Nathan Yeowell said: “Keir Starmer is already making great progress in turning round Labour’s organisation, with the election of a dynamic new general secretary, and its standing with the public through his competent and articulate leadership.
“But he can’t do it by himself. He needs a strong, broad, mass movement of grassroots members behind him, as committed as he is to changing Labour at every level and in every CLP to make it electable again. We urge Labour members to join Labour to Win and be part of that movement.”
Shadow cabinet member Rachel Reeves tweeted: “A great initiative. To back @Keir_Starmer and to get Labour back where we need to be: in government to transform our country, end child poverty and build a fairer and more equal society.”
Labour First, led by its secretary Luke Akehurst, was originally founded in 1980 before being relaunched by Labour MP John Spellar in 1988. It is associated with the party’s ‘old right’.
Progress started in 1996 to support New Labour and the leadership of Tony Blair. Its chairperson is Labour MP Alison McGovern, and its director since August 2019 has been Nathan Yeowell.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Want to help Keir Starmer transform the party? Join Labour to Win

Keir Starmer has got off to a cracking start , in the most difficult of circumstances due to coronavirus , in rebuilding Labour after our catastrophic and traumatic defeat at the 2019 general election .
His calm and forensic approach to holding the government to account for its lamentable performance is already winning him the trust of the public , the highest personal ratings for any Labour leader for decades , and opinion poll ratings touching 40 % for the party .
The history of the 2015-2019 era is being recorded forensically .
Already by the Labour Together review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EHRC report on antisemitism in the party .
It ’ s a sorry tale of staggering incompetence , vicious sectarianism , and tolerance or participation in anti-Jewish racism .
No wonder the membership and the public wanted Labour to change .
Inside the party , the narrow victory for Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan in the national executive committee ( NEC ) by-elections , held alongside the leadership contests , meant that rather than being faced by a hostile NEC , Keir starts with an NEC where he can usually narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NEC led him to the bold choice of David Evans as his preferred candidate for the new general secretary , who went on to win .
Thorough-going reform of Labour ’ s party machinery to turn it back into an election winning force is now on the cards .
Within two months , Keir had seized control of all three of the main nodal points of power in the party – the leader ’ s office , the NEC and the general secretary .
This trifecta took Jeremy Corbyn ’ s supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The shock of the general election result created a new coalition within Labour that backed Keir , or in some cases Lisa Nandy , for leader , because it is desperate to return Labour to electability and to put the bullying and factionalism of the 2015-2019 period behind us .
It wants a return to decency and unity .
It is a coalition of goodwill , stretching deep into the left of the party and including former supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who came to the realisation that the party needed to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for Keir or Lisa or Jess , taking Labour to its highest ever membership .
Their voices were heard in the leadership ballot but not in the NEC by-elections , from which they were disenfranchised as the cut-off date for eligibility was set earlier .
We need to hear who they want representing them on the NEC in a fresh set of elections .
Seven of the current NEC CLP reps – one of them suspended due to antisemitism allegations – are on a mandate from a different political era and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need these new members to be integrated into the party ’ s structures and campaigning as soon as coronavirus restrictions allow .
Whilst a sea change has happened in the composition and attitudes of the party membership , the worst elements of the Corbyn era haven ’ t gone away .
On the NEC , they have tried to obstruct Keir on every vote .
On social media , they incessantly snipe at everything Keir does .
In CLPs , once meetings restart , they will try to crush the enthusiasm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-leadership motions , procedural nit-picking and general negativity .
Whilst the top level of the party is changing for the better , Labour is a vast voluntary network .
Changing it can ’ t be done by one leader or one general secretary – it needs a movement .
That ’ s why Labour First and Progress are coming together to create a new and broader coalition , Labour to Win .
From today , party members can sign up to be part of Labour to Win at its website labourtowin.org .
Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who share the belief that the party must change radically if we are to return to being election winners .
It is committed to building the broadest possible coalition with everyone of goodwill who believes a better future is possible for Labour and the country .
• Standing up for social democratic and democratic socialist values • Building diverse networks of new and existing Labour activists • Training and educating the next generation of Labour candidates , activists and campaigners • Campaigning for Labour candidates across England , Scotland and Wales • Ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of government Keir Starmer needs a strong , broad , mass movement of grassroots members behind him , as committed as he is to changing Labour at every level and in every CLP to make it electable again .
I urge Labour members to join Labour To Win and be part of that movement .
I would particularly appeal to members and organisations who self-define as being on the soft left to work with us .
You have a leader and a frontbench who are in a similar place to you ideologically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise your politics – you just need to be willing to work with us in helping that new leadership return Labour to government .
This may be Labour ’ s last chance to turn round the years of decline evidenced in the Labour Together report .
We owe it to our party and our country not to waste it .

Keir Starmer has got off to a cracking start, in the most difficult of circumstances due to coronavirus, in rebuilding Labour after our catastrophic and traumatic defeat at the 2019 general election. His calm and forensic approach to holding the government to account for its lamentable performance is already winning him the trust of the public, the highest personal ratings for any Labour leader for decades, and opinion poll ratings touching 40% for the party.
The history of the 2015-2019 era is being recorded forensically. Already by the Labour Together review of the election defeat, and soon by the EHRC report on antisemitism in the party. It’s a sorry tale of staggering incompetence, vicious sectarianism, and tolerance or participation in anti-Jewish racism. No wonder the membership and the public wanted Labour to change.
Inside the party, the narrow victory for Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Singh Josan in the national executive committee (NEC) by-elections, held alongside the leadership contests, meant that rather than being faced by a hostile NEC, Keir starts with an NEC where he can usually narrowly win key votes.
This rebalancing of the NEC led him to the bold choice of David Evans as his preferred candidate for the new general secretary, who went on to win. Thorough-going reform of Labour’s party machinery to turn it back into an election winning force is now on the cards.
Within two months, Keir had seized control of all three of the main nodal points of power in the party – the leader’s office, the NEC and the general secretary. This trifecta took Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters two and a half years to achieve.
The shock of the general election result created a new coalition within Labour that backed Keir, or in some cases Lisa Nandy, for leader, because it is desperate to return Labour to electability and to put the bullying and factionalism of the 2015-2019 period behind us. It wants a return to decency and unity. It is a coalition of goodwill, stretching deep into the left of the party and including former supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who came to the realisation that the party needed to change direction.
Over 100,000 new members joined to vote for Keir or Lisa or Jess, taking Labour to its highest ever membership. Their voices were heard in the leadership ballot but not in the NEC by-elections, from which they were disenfranchised as the cut-off date for eligibility was set earlier.
We need to hear who they want representing them on the NEC in a fresh set of elections. Seven of the current NEC CLP reps – one of them suspended due to antisemitism allegations – are on a mandate from a different political era and a different membership in 2018. And we need these new members to be integrated into the party’s structures and campaigning as soon as coronavirus restrictions allow.
Whilst a sea change has happened in the composition and attitudes of the party membership, the worst elements of the Corbyn era haven’t gone away. On the NEC, they have tried to obstruct Keir on every vote. On social media, they incessantly snipe at everything Keir does. In CLPs, once meetings restart, they will try to crush the enthusiasm of the new members under a landslide of anti-leadership motions, procedural nit-picking and general negativity.
Whilst the top level of the party is changing for the better, Labour is a vast voluntary network. Changing it can’t be done by one leader or one general secretary – it needs a movement. That’s why Labour First and Progress are coming together to create a new and broader coalition, Labour to Win. From today, party members can sign up to be part of Labour to Win at its website labourtowin.org.
Labour to Win aims to bring members together who share the belief that the party must change radically if we are to return to being election winners. It is committed to building the broadest possible coalition with everyone of goodwill who believes a better future is possible for Labour and the country.
Our objectives are:
Standing up for social democratic and democratic socialist values
Working together to make Keir Starmer’s leadership a success
Building diverse networks of new and existing Labour activists
Training and educating the next generation of Labour candidates, activists and campaigners
Campaigning for Labour candidates across England, Scotland and Wales
Ensuring a strong, Labour voice at all levels of government
Keir Starmer needs a strong, broad, mass movement of grassroots members behind him, as committed as he is to changing Labour at every level and in every CLP to make it electable again. I urge Labour members to join Labour To Win and be part of that movement.
I would particularly appeal to members and organisations who self-define as being on the soft left to work with us. You have a leader and a frontbench who are in a similar place to you ideologically. You don’t have to compromise your politics – you just need to be willing to work with us in helping that new leadership return Labour to government.
This may be Labour’s last chance to turn round the years of decline evidenced in the Labour Together report. We owe it to our party and our country not to waste it.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Labour welcomes “overhaul” of family courts to protect domestic abuse victims

Labour has welcomed new plans to provide domestic abuse victims with stronger protections in the family justice system , as the government announced an “ overhaul of how family courts deal with the horrific crime ” .
Reacting to the news today , the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding Jess Phillips tweeted that “ some days my job makes my heart sing , days when change feels possible & work pays off ” .
A number of the changes will be brought forward in the domestic abuse bill currently progressing through the House of Commons .
The reforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Entitlement to separate waiting rooms , entrances and screens in court for victims of domestic abuse ; • Powers for judges in “ barring orders ” that will allow them to stop perpetrators from repeatedly taking ex-partners back to court ; • A review of the balance between risk of harm to children and victims in the presumption of “ parental involvement ” ; • A trial of a new approach with a domestic violence court where the judge examines the evidence , instead of the traditional British adversarial format with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A commitment to improving training for professionals in the family court system .
Commenting on the announcement , Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds tweeted : “ Excellent to see progress on an issue so many campaigners have worked incredibly hard on .
I ’ m proud to work with Jess Phillips on this .
“ Addressing domestic abuse – in whatever form it manifests itself – will always be a top priority for Labour.
” The reforms follow a review led by experts from charities , the judiciary , family law practitioners and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public .
The body found that contributions highlighted a “ feeling that abuse is systematically minimised ” , of “ children ’ s voices not being heard ” and “ allegations being ignored and dismissed .
It also found that an “ adversarial system ” in family courts often functioned to worsen conflict between parents and could re-traumatise victims and their children .

Labour has welcomed new plans to provide domestic abuse victims with stronger protections in the family justice system, as the government announced an “overhaul of how family courts deal with the horrific crime”.
Reacting to the news today, the shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding Jess Phillips tweeted that “some days my job makes my heart sing, days when change feels possible & work pays off”.
A number of the changes will be brought forward in the domestic abuse bill currently progressing through the House of Commons. The reforms outlined by the Ministry of Justice include:
Entitlement to separate waiting rooms, entrances and screens in court for victims of domestic abuse;
Powers for judges in “barring orders” that will allow them to stop perpetrators from repeatedly taking ex-partners back to court;
A review of the balance between risk of harm to children and victims in the presumption of “parental involvement”;
A trial of a new approach with a domestic violence court where the judge examines the evidence, instead of the traditional British adversarial format with parents presenting their case; and
A commitment to improving training for professionals in the family court system.
Commenting on the announcement, Phillips said: “Labour welcomes this long-awaited review and its aims to better protect victims of domestic abuse and their children in the family courts system. The introduction of ‘special measures’ is a protection for victims giving evidence in family court cases that I, and many others, have been calling to be included in the domestic abuse bill from the beginning.
“The key now is action – no delay or dithering, the government needs to implement these recommendations urgently. The presumption of ‘parental involvement’ with children, when there has been domestic abuse, has resulted in unsafe contact arrangements between children and abusive parents. In some cases, this has led to tragedy. The review into this presumption is welcome but it must be swift; survivors and their children need better protection right now.”
Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds tweeted: “Excellent to see progress on an issue so many campaigners have worked incredibly hard on. I’m proud to work with Jess Phillips on this.
“Addressing domestic abuse – in whatever form it manifests itself – will always be a top priority for Labour.”
The reforms follow a review led by experts from charities, the judiciary, family law practitioners and academia that heard from 1,200 members of the public.
The body found that contributions highlighted a “feeling that abuse is systematically minimised”, of “children’s voices not being heard” and “allegations being ignored and dismissed.
It also found that an “adversarial system” in family courts often functioned to worsen conflict between parents and could re-traumatise victims and their children.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Starmer makes case for focus on Covid-19 over Scottish independence

Keir Starmer made the case for focusing on the consequences of Covid-19 and its economic impact rather than on Scottish independence in a call with voters this afternoon .
In his latest ‘ Call Keir ’ online video conference chat with voters in Lanarkshire today , the UK Labour leader discussed how the party might win back support after falling behind at the last election .
He agreed with a participant that “ the constitutional independence question dominates in Scotland ” , but said : “ Talking about the constitutional position isn ’ t really the most important thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Frankly , I think we should focus on that.
” He stressed that an economic crisis was on its way and that many had so far been “ shielded ” by the economic impact of Covid .
“ My strong feeling is that we should be focusing on that , ” he said .
“ That ’ s what is going to hit people really hard in the next weeks , months , years.
” The UK Labour leader admitted that the “ independence question isn ’ t going away ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break up the UK and thought the “ primary focus should be limiting that economic crisis ” .
On Labour ’ s approach to Scotland , he said more power ought to be devolved from Westminster to Scottish councils and communities , reiterating : “ What I don ’ t want to see is the UK broken up.
” But Starmer emphasised the importance of pride , saying : “ Pride in Scotland and pride in our local towns and villages is huge , and there ’ s absolutely nothing wrong with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t understand the pride that people have in the place they come from .
I think we need to turn that on its head really and recognise that and celebrate that in many ways .
“ But I don ’ t think that means you break up the UK , particularly at a time like this when I fear – genuinely fear , and I hope I ’ m wrong – that we ’ ve got an awful economic crisis about to come down on us.
” Starmer was also asked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 , in response to which he said : “ I think the GRA was in the right direction but it obviously doesn ’ t go far enough .
“ We should be open to a discussion about how we can improve on that .
When you talk to trans people about the process they have to go through , it ’ s obvious that it ’ s not right and that we need to amend the legislation .
“ Personally , I think we need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because there are concerns from different parts of the Labour Party and labour movement , and actually the public , as to where you draw the balance and where you keep safe spaces , et cetera .
“ I think it is perfectly possible to have that in a grown up way… This can get very heated very quickly .
Everybody gets deeply entrenched on one side or the other , and that ’ s just the wrong way of doing it .
“ It must be possible to improve the human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way which most people think is about right .
We need to stop thinking of this as a political football , and actually have a mature debate about it .
And that ’ s the spirit in which I would enter this .
“ I am worried .
It ’ s only been briefed , but deliberately briefed , by the government that they ’ re not going to bother doing anything about the legislation .
That means that certainly in Westminster we could be stuck for four years when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this area and I think that ’ s a big mistake .
”

Keir Starmer made the case for focusing on the consequences of Covid-19 and its economic impact rather than on Scottish independence in a call with voters this afternoon.
In his latest ‘Call Keir’ online video conference chat with voters in Lanarkshire today, the UK Labour leader discussed how the party might win back support after falling behind at the last election.
He agreed with a participant that “the constitutional independence question dominates in Scotland”, but said: “Talking about the constitutional position isn’t really the most important thing.
“Lots of people have lost their lives. Frankly, I think we should focus on that.” He stressed that an economic crisis was on its way and that many had so far been “shielded” by the economic impact of Covid.
“My strong feeling is that we should be focusing on that,” he said. “That’s what is going to hit people really hard in the next weeks, months, years.”
The UK Labour leader admitted that the “independence question isn’t going away” but said he didn’t want to break up the UK and thought the “primary focus should be limiting that economic crisis”.
On Labour’s approach to Scotland, he said more power ought to be devolved from Westminster to Scottish councils and communities, reiterating: “What I don’t want to see is the UK broken up.”
But Starmer emphasised the importance of pride, saying: “Pride in Scotland and pride in our local towns and villages is huge, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
“People I think don’t understand the pride that people have in the place they come from. I think we need to turn that on its head really and recognise that and celebrate that in many ways.
“But I don’t think that means you break up the UK, particularly at a time like this when I fear – genuinely fear, and I hope I’m wrong – that we’ve got an awful economic crisis about to come down on us.”
Starmer was also asked by an SNP voter about Labour’s view of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, in response to which he said: “I think the GRA was in the right direction but it obviously doesn’t go far enough.
“We should be open to a discussion about how we can improve on that. When you talk to trans people about the process they have to go through, it’s obvious that it’s not right and that we need to amend the legislation.
“Personally, I think we need to have a grown up discussion about that, because there are concerns from different parts of the Labour Party and labour movement, and actually the public, as to where you draw the balance and where you keep safe spaces, et cetera.
“I think it is perfectly possible to have that in a grown up way… This can get very heated very quickly. Everybody gets deeply entrenched on one side or the other, and that’s just the wrong way of doing it.
“It must be possible to improve the human rights and protections of the trans community in a way which most people think is about right. We need to stop thinking of this as a political football, and actually have a mature debate about it. And that’s the spirit in which I would enter this.
“I am worried. It’s only been briefed, but deliberately briefed, by the government that they’re not going to bother doing anything about the legislation. That means that certainly in Westminster we could be stuck for four years when there can’t be any movement in this area and I think that’s a big mistake.”