labourlist--2020-07-09--Labour demands reversal of “secret £1bn giveaway to second homeowners”

Labour has demanded that the government reverse a “ secret £1bn giveaway to second homeowners and landlords ” that the party says had been “ snuck out by the Chancellor ” after his summer economic update .
The party has argued that the Treasury “ slipped out ” the announcement that buyers of buy-to-let properties , holiday homes and other second homes will benefit from a substantial discount from July 8th .
In a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government today , Labour ’ s Thangam Debbonaire asked the government to justify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchases from 8 % to 3 % .
In the correspondence , the Shadow Housing Secretary highlighted that the policy would cost the exchequer £1.3bn annually – at a time when the LGA has predicted an immediate gap in local government finances of £1.2bn by the end of this year .
She also pointed out that there are over one million people on council house waiting lists across the UK , and that the money could be put towards building “ truly affordable housing ” for sale or rent .
Commenting on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is unacceptable that the Chancellor tried to sneak out this huge bung to second homeowners and landlords while many are desperate for support .
“ He should be targeting support to those who need it , not helping people invest in buy-to-let properties and holiday homes .
An unnecessary subsidy for second home-owners will only worsen the housing crisis by reducing the supply of homes overall.
” “ She added : We need a credible plan from Tory ministers to build the homes our country needs and get people on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see that this week.
” The Chancellor made several policy announcements in his summer economic update to parliament earlier this week , but has been criticised by Labour for not adopting a more targeted approach .
Below is the full text of the letter sent by the Shadow Housing Secretary today .
I am writing to you after the Chancellor ’ s financial statement in the Commons yesterday .
Subsequent to the Chancellor ’ s statement , the Treasury has revealed that the stamp duty changes will also provide a tax break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that those looking to buy a second property or buying to let , will only have to pay stamp duty at 3 % up to £500,000 , rather than the 8 % from a quarter of a million up .
I ’ m seeking to clarify why your government is giving such a large tax break to owners of second homes at a time of an acute housing crisis .
If someone bought a second home yesterday for half a million pounds , they would have expected to pay £20,000 more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that in total , since its introduction in 2016 , around 29 % of all liable transactions have been subject to the Higher Rate ( of Stamp duty ) for Additional Dwellings .
The majority ( 88 % ) of HRAD transactions are on properties sold for under £500,000 .
In 2019/20 , 34 % of homes bought were second properties meaning this policy could cost the exchequer £1.3bn .
This could fund the immediate gap in local council finances , which the LGA predicts will be £1.2bn by the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have an acute local government funding crisis , I question how the government can justify giving a tax break to people already fortunate enough to own an existing property rather than giving councils the funding they need .
Over a million people are on council waiting lists whilst the number of new social homes has fallen by 80 % .
This money could be much better spent on truly affordable housing to buy or rent , rather than on a tax break for second homeowners .
The Chancellor had an opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy or rent .
But he failed to take it .
He talked about jobs but did little to address the skills shortage in construction sector .
Please urge the Chancellor reverse his decision to give a tax break to second homeowners .
We are calling for clear action in the spirit of constructive engagement .

Labour has demanded that the government reverse a “secret £1bn giveaway to second homeowners and landlords” that the party says has been “snuck out by the Chancellor” after his summer economic update.
The party argues that the Treasury “slipped out” the announcement that buyers of buy-to-let properties, holiday homes and other second homes will benefit from a substantial discount from July 8th.
In a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire asked the government to justify the reduction in stamp duty on second home purchases from 8% to 3%.
She highlighted that the policy would cost the exchequer £1.3bn annually – at a time when the Local Government Association has predicted an immediate gap in local government finances of £1.2bn by the end of this year.
Debbonaire also pointed out that there are over one million people on council house waiting lists across the UK, and that the money could instead be put towards building “truly affordable housing” for sale or rent.
Commenting on the policy announcement, the Shadow Housing Secretary said: “It is unacceptable that the Chancellor tried to sneak out this huge bung to second homeowners and landlords while many are desperate for support.
“He should be targeting support to those who need it, not helping people invest in buy-to-let properties and holiday homes. An unnecessary subsidy for second home-owners will only worsen the housing crisis by reducing the supply of homes overall.”
She added: “We need a credible plan from Tory ministers to build the homes our country needs and get people on to the housing ladder. We didn’t see that this week.”
The Chancellor made a number of big policy announcements in his summer economic update to parliament on Wednesday. He has been criticised by Labour for not adopting a more targeted approach.
Below is the full text of the letter sent by the Shadow Housing Secretary today.
Dear Robert,
I am writing to you after the Chancellor’s financial statement in the Commons yesterday.
Subsequent to the Chancellor’s statement, the Treasury has revealed that the stamp duty changes will also provide a tax break for second homeowners. The Treasury has confirmed that those looking to buy a second property or buying to let, will only have to pay stamp duty at 3% up to £500,000, rather than the 8% from a quarter of a million up.
I’m seeking to clarify why your government is giving such a large tax break to owners of second homes at a time of an acute housing crisis. If someone bought a second home yesterday for half a million pounds, they would have expected to pay £20,000 more than they would today.
You’ll know that in total, since its introduction in 2016, around 29% of all liable transactions have been subject to the Higher Rate (of Stamp duty) for Additional Dwellings. The majority (88%) of HRAD transactions are on properties sold for under £500,000.
In 2019/20, 34% of homes bought were second properties meaning this policy could cost the exchequer £1.3bn. This could fund the immediate gap in local council finances, which the LGA predicts will be £1.2bn by the end of the year.
At a time when we have an acute local government funding crisis, I question how the government can justify giving a tax break to people already fortunate enough to own an existing property rather than giving councils the funding they need.
Over a million people are on council waiting lists whilst the number of new social homes has fallen by 80%. This money could be much better spent on truly affordable housing to buy or rent, rather than on a tax break for second homeowners.
The Chancellor had an opportunity to rebuild and invest in truly affordable housing to buy or rent. But he failed to take it. He talked about jobs but did little to address the skills shortage in construction sector.
Please urge the Chancellor reverse his decision to give a tax break to second homeowners. We are calling for clear action in the spirit of constructive engagement.
Yours sincerely,
Thangam Debbonaire
Shadow Housing Secretary


labourlist--2020-07-09--Starmer offers Butler Labour’s “full support and solidarity” after racist abuse

Keir Starmer has taken to social media to say that he has offered Dawn Butler “ the Labour Party ’ s full support and solidarity ” following her decision to close her constituency office .
The Labour leader tweeted this afternoon to voice his support for the Brent Central MP after she reported that threats against her and her staff had “ dramatically escalated ” recently .
He said that “ the racist abuse that Dawn and her staff have suffered is appalling ” , and added : “ Dawn ’ s voice is vital .
The racism that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our society.
” LabourList understands that the Labour leader had wanted to speaks to the north London MP directly about the matter before issuing comment .
Butler announced in a letter to constituents on Wednesday that she had decided to close her constituency office after threats against her and her staff had “ dramatically escalated ” .
In the statement , she stressed that “ whilst not the primary reason for its closure ” there was a “ continual security risk to everyone working within a very visible high street office ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ work “ extensively with police and security staff to simply try and create a safe working environment for my employees ” as the incidents have intesified .
The Brent MP told residents that her staff have been “ attacked in the office , verbally assaulted coming and going from work ” , and that “ bricks have been thrown through the windows and the frontage has been smashed ” .
Butler also explained that the office had “ become increasingly unaffordable ” on the budget provided by parliament , requiring requests for additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large enough to be compliant with Covid-19 social distancing rules .

Keir Starmer has taken to social media to say that he has offered Dawn Butler “the Labour Party’s full support and solidarity” following her decision to close her constituency office.
The Labour leader tweeted this afternoon to voice his support for the Brent Central MP after she reported that threats against her and her staff had “dramatically escalated” recently.
He said that “the racist abuse that Dawn and her staff have suffered is appalling”, and added: “Dawn’s voice is vital. The racism that our Black MPs face has no place in our society.”
LabourList understands that the Labour leader had wanted to speaks to the north London MP directly about the matter before issuing comment.
I have spoken to @DawnButlerBrent to offer the Labour Party's full support and solidarity. The racist abuse that Dawn and her staff have suffered is appalling. Dawn’s voice is vital. The racism that our Black MPs face has no place in our society. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 9, 2020
Butler announced in a letter to constituents on Wednesday that she had decided to close her constituency office after threats against her and her staff had “dramatically escalated”.
In the statement, she stressed that “whilst not the primary reason for its closure” there was a “continual security risk to everyone working within a very visible high street office”.
She revealed that she has had to work “extensively with police and security staff to simply try and create a safe working environment for my employees” as the incidents have intesified.
The Brent MP told residents that her staff have been “attacked in the office, verbally assaulted coming and going from work”, and that “bricks have been thrown through the windows and the frontage has been smashed”.
Butler also explained that the office had “become increasingly unaffordable” on the budget provided by parliament, requiring requests for additional funding, and that it was not large enough to be compliant with Covid-19 social distancing rules.


labourlist--2020-07-09--Labour pressures government over “value for money” of coronavirus scheme

Labour is applying pressure on the government over whether its coronavirus measures represent “ value for money ” , as the party under Keir Starmer ’ s leadership undertakes a notable shift in tone on the economy .
Both the Labour leader and the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury , Bridget Phillipson , have come out today with strong criticisms of the job retention bonus scheme announced by the Chancellor .
The plan unveiled by Rishi Sunak will see employers receive £1,000 for every furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January .
The workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month on average .
In the summer financial statement delivered in the Commons on Wednesday , the Chancellor noted that the scheme would cost over £9bn if all furloughed employees were brought back in this way .
It has since been revealed that the HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Jim Harra had raised concerns with the Chancellor about the “ value for money ” of the proposal before it was presented to MPs .
Phillipson has now written to Harra emphasising the importance of “ effective and efficient public spending ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis – including the publication of HMRC analysis .
“ It is so important that we see decisive and effective government action to support jobs , livelihoods , and companies in the months ahead , and value for money is critical , ” Phillipson ’ s letter reads .
“ Every penny given to those who don ’ t need it , when whole sectors of our economy are in trouble , is money not available to support jobs at risk , money not helping the families and firms in desperate need.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has asked the HMRC head to release estimates or modelling of the scheme and to give evidence to parliament before MPs consider the relevant legislation .
Commenting on the letter , the BBC ’ s Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted that Labour may be “ turning into spending hawks ” while The Times ‘ Patrick Maguire has suggested they are “ outflanking [ the Tories ] from the right ” .
Below is the full text of Bridget Phillipson ’ s letter to the head of HMRC .
First of all , I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Her Majesty ’ s Revenue and Customs ( HMRC ) staff in recent weeks and months .
I know many HMRC staff will have worked for long hours to put in place the systems which have seen the delivery of support we have welcomed , such as the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme .
Labour is proud to put on record its thanks to the HMRC staff who work to ensure that taxes are collected fairly and efficiently .
This morning there are press reports that you required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Job Retention Bonus scheme , because of concerns about value for money .
You will be aware that these are exactly the concerns that I and other Labour colleagues raised in debate yesterday .
This morning the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted on the radio the potential deadweight cost associated with the scheme .
Ministerial directions can be an important part of how government ensures fast and effective action in a crisis .
However , Parliament needs to understand when Ministers are overriding the advice of their own experienced and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge amount of public money involved and the immense importance of achieving value for money with government spending , I am requesting that HMRC : • immediately publish whatever information or analyses HMRC staff prepared such that you informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you were unable to support the scheme without a Ministerial Direction ; • immediately publish any estimates or modelling of the scheme you may have prepared , including any work you may have done on this with Treasury colleagues , on the expected uptake of the scheme , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyses ; • give evidence to Parliament before any legislation is considered which would give effect to the Job Retention Bonus Scheme , in respect of whether the scheme constitutes Value for Money .
It is so important that we see decisive and effective government action to support jobs , livelihoods , and companies in the months ahead , and value for money is critical .
Every penny given to those who don ’ t need it , when whole sectors of our economy are in trouble , is money not available to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping the families and firms in desperate need .
You will understand that given the amount of public money involved and the wider public interest in effective and efficient public spending , I am publishing this letter .
Yours sincerely , Bridget Phillipson MP Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Member of Parliament for Houghton & Sunderland South

Labour is applying pressure on the government over whether its coronavirus measures represent “value for money”, as the party under Keir Starmer’s leadership undertakes a notable shift in tone on the economy.
Both the Labour leader and the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Bridget Phillipson, have come out today with strong criticisms of the job retention bonus scheme announced by the Chancellor.
The plan unveiled by Rishi Sunak will see employers receive £1,000 for every furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January. The workers must be paid at least £520 each month on average.
In the summer financial statement delivered in the Commons on Wednesday, the Chancellor noted that the scheme would cost over £9bn if all furloughed employees were brought back in this way.
It has since been revealed that the HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Jim Harra had raised concerns with the Chancellor about the “value for money” of the proposal before it was presented to MPs.
Phillipson has now written to Harra emphasising the importance of “effective and efficient public spending” and making a number of demands on this basis – including the publication of HMRC analysis.
“It is so important that we see decisive and effective government action to support jobs, livelihoods, and companies in the months ahead, and value for money is critical,” Phillipson’s letter reads.
“Every penny given to those who don’t need it, when whole sectors of our economy are in trouble, is money not available to support jobs at risk, money not helping the families and firms in desperate need.”
The Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has asked the HMRC head to release estimates or modelling of the scheme and to give evidence to parliament before MPs consider the relevant legislation.
Commenting on the letter, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted that Labour may be “turning into spending hawks” while The Times‘ Patrick Maguire has suggested they are “outflanking [the Tories] from the right”.
Below is the full text of Bridget Phillipson’s letter to the head of HMRC.
Dear Jim,
First of all, I want to pay tribute to the impressive work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) staff in recent weeks and months. I know many HMRC staff will have worked for long hours to put in place the systems which have seen the delivery of support we have welcomed, such as the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. Labour is proud to put on record its thanks to the HMRC staff who work to ensure that taxes are collected fairly and efficiently.
This morning there are press reports that you required a Ministerial Direction before implementing the Chancellor’s Job Retention Bonus scheme, because of concerns about value for money. You will be aware that these are exactly the concerns that I and other Labour colleagues raised in debate yesterday. This morning the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted on the radio the potential deadweight cost associated with the scheme.
Ministerial directions can be an important part of how government ensures fast and effective action in a crisis. However, Parliament needs to understand when Ministers are overriding the advice of their own experienced and knowledgeable civil servants. Given both the huge amount of public money involved and the immense importance of achieving value for money with government spending, I am requesting that HMRC:
immediately publish whatever information or analyses HMRC staff prepared such that you informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that you were unable to support the scheme without a Ministerial Direction;
immediately publish any estimates or modelling of the scheme you may have prepared, including any work you may have done on this with Treasury colleagues, on the expected uptake of the scheme, including distributional, sectoral, and regional analyses;
give evidence to Parliament before any legislation is considered which would give effect to the Job Retention Bonus Scheme, in respect of whether the scheme constitutes Value for Money.
It is so important that we see decisive and effective government action to support jobs, livelihoods, and companies in the months ahead, and value for money is critical. Every penny given to those who don’t need it, when whole sectors of our economy are in trouble, is money not available to support jobs at risk, money not helping the families and firms in desperate need.
You will understand that given the amount of public money involved and the wider public interest in effective and efficient public spending, I am publishing this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Bridget Phillipson MP
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Member of Parliament for Houghton & Sunderland South


labourlist--2020-07-09--A pub landlady’s guide to post-lockdown drinking

Pubs have been working flat out to get everything sorted and welcome people back .
Guidelines cover everything from how to organise queues for the toilet to stopping people chanting if we show football matches .
There are new ways of working that we ’ ve had to do our best to get in place in a ridiculously short period of time .
Customers will need to be patient with publicans to help us get everything up and working safely .
Here are a landlady ’ s top tips to post-lockdown pubs… • Don ’ t order a yard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re a twit .
• Find an independent or a tenant pub to visit .
As readers of LabourList know , they will have been struggling to keep going during lockdown so they may not have the most expensive screens , but they need your support .
• Kettles don ’ t hold beer , so don ’ t bother doing a Rishi Sunak and signalling to them , ask your server instead .
• Drink the local ale .
Small , independent brewers have also struggled to access government funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper local beer instead .
• Don ’ t go on a pub crawl .
Apart from the obvious increase in risk of spreading the virus , it ’ s not fair on the people who are working .
Staff will be trying to serve you , patrol the toilets , clean , restock and manage how many customers are allowed in , all while keeping distant from each other .
It ’ s a massive challenge , so don ’ t turn up already drunk .
• Wait patiently to be shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient .
Service may be slow .
Bars are not built to be spacious and most require staff to cross over each other under normal service .
As this will not be possible , bars will be running with less staff than normal .
Bear with us , the beer is coming .
• Don ’ t have long conversations with servers about what they have on and which particular combination of gin and tonic you want .
Order something simple and order in rounds to make payment simple .
• Pubs will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff will hate you if you order one .
They take ages to make and they ’ ll have other customers who want beer .
• If you want to eat , check before you go whether food is available .
Due to short timescales and new ways of working , not all pubs will be opening the kitchen while new work and safety procedures are put in place .
• If you spot something that you don ’ t like , then have a friendly chat with the publican .
Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rude and obstructive .
• Don ’ t take bottles of hand sanitiser .
I ’ ve had all sorts taken from my pub , even the bog brush isn ’ t safe .
New salt and pepper pots last for a matter of weeks .
Hand sanitiser is expensive and will be in short supply .
Leave the sanitiser be .
• Pubs are for life , not just for July 4th .
Return for a drink when the pub will be less busy .
Pub capacity is down even under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread out the custom we have left .

Pubs have been working flat out to get everything sorted and welcome people back. Guidelines cover everything from how to organise queues for the toilet to stopping people chanting if we show football matches.
There are new ways of working that we’ve had to do our best to get in place in a ridiculously short period of time. Customers will need to be patient with publicans to help us get everything up and working safely.
Here are a landlady’s top tips to post-lockdown pubs…


labourlist--2020-07-09--Eat Out to Help Out. Is this the Chancellor’s ‘let them eat cake’ moment?

“ We can all eat out to help out , ” said Rishi Sunak , announcing his initiative to subsidise restaurant-goers to the tune of maximum £10 per head through the first half of each week in August .
Coming just hours after he posed for a photo with a £180 coffee mug on his desk , this policy shows an insensitivity to the realities of people ’ s lives reminiscent of Marie Antoinette .
Bankrolling people to eat out while refusing to modify the welfare reforms that are driving millions , including working people , to food banks is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this government had to be forced to backtrack on feeding children from low-income families over the summer holidays – a spending commitment of a mere £120m in contrast to the £500m pledged to pick up the tab on restaurant meals .
It ’ s only right that initiatives are put in place to help hard-hit industries cope with the fallout of coronavirus .
But a soundbite-friendly , short-term gimmick that privileges those who can afford to eat out is not going to solve the problems faced by the restaurant trade .
Nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitality employees trying to get by on insecure contracts and low-paid seasonal work .
And bribing people to eat in restaurants is no substitute for the confidence that it is safe to do so – something that , after months of pandemic mismanagement , ministers have failed to provide .
Sunak is proving proficient at eye-catching initiatives and enjoys a reputation as a radical Chancellor .
But his focus is on businesses , not people , with the IPPR calculating that up to 45 % of the net cost of the job retention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of landlords , banks and other lenders .
Sunak ’ s approach , the IPPR suggests , will result in “ insulating creditors and asset-owners from the worst effects of the pandemic while driving many of the most financially vulnerable deeper into debt ” .
Instead of “ putting his arms around ” workers during the crisis , the Chancellor has enforced a clear divide between those he considers economically useful and those he has abandoned to fend for themselves – something the three million-plus applicants for Universal Credit since March are discovering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ unencumbered by dogma “ , Sunak subscribes to that most enduring of Tory narratives : the deserving and undeserving poor .
While some workers are furloughed on 80 % of their pay , those with no recourse to public funds are left destitute .
While homeowners enjoy a stamp duty break , those who rent get nothing .
And while restaurant customers are treated to a cut-price meal , low-income families are increasingly forced to fall back on food banks .
Independent food banks report a 177 % increase in need during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – with the biggest reason given being that benefits are insufficient to be able to afford food .
As Sabine Goodwin of the Independent Food Aid Network said : “ While millions of people can not afford to buy food at all , the Chancellor ’ s voucher scheme for restaurant diners is particularly ill-considered.
” Coronavirus has offered us a chance to put a different narrative in place , one that reduces inequalities rather than exacerbating them .
A genuinely radical Chancellor would give us a functioning welfare state , affordable housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for decent local services – rather than a bung to get us into restaurants .
A genuinely radical Chancellor would invest in income-enhancement measures , such as the increase in child benefit that the Labour Hunger Campaign is lobbying for , and make the VAT cut universal – as Alastair Darling did in 2008 – in order to stimulate the economy by increasing everyone ’ s spending power .
The sheer crassness of announcing subsidised restaurant meals while almost simultaneously reinstating benefits sanctions is a graphic illustration of the UK ’ s culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sunak doesn ’ t appear even to have considered that there are many people who can barely afford to eat is a symbol of the casual cruelty of this government .
Rather than channelling Marie Antoinette , the Chancellor would do well to skip a couple of centuries further back to a very different French ruler .
Henri IV was determined to bring prosperity to everyone after the country had been torn in two by religious wars , vowing that even the poorest labourer would be able to afford a poule au @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – every Sunday .
He understood what our Chancellor does not : if you want to get the economy moving , you have to ensure it works for everyone , not just the privileged few .

“We can all eat out to help out,” said Rishi Sunak, announcing his initiative to subsidise restaurant-goers to the tune of maximum £10 per head through the first half of each week in August. Coming just hours after he posed for a photo with a £180 coffee mug on his desk, this policy shows an insensitivity to the realities of people’s lives reminiscent of Marie Antoinette. Bankrolling people to eat out while refusing to modify the welfare reforms that are driving millions, including working people, to food banks is obscene. And let us not forget that this government had to be forced to backtrack on feeding children from low-income families over the summer holidays – a spending commitment of a mere £120m in contrast to the £500m pledged to pick up the tab on restaurant meals.
It’s only right that initiatives are put in place to help hard-hit industries cope with the fallout of coronavirus. But a soundbite-friendly, short-term gimmick that privileges those who can afford to eat out is not going to solve the problems faced by the restaurant trade. Nor will it do much for the many hospitality employees trying to get by on insecure contracts and low-paid seasonal work. And bribing people to eat in restaurants is no substitute for the confidence that it is safe to do so – something that, after months of pandemic mismanagement, ministers have failed to provide.
Sunak is proving proficient at eye-catching initiatives and enjoys a reputation as a radical Chancellor. But his focus is on businesses, not people, with the IPPR calculating that up to 45% of the net cost of the job retention scheme will end up in the pockets of landlords, banks and other lenders. Sunak’s approach, the IPPR suggests, will result in “insulating creditors and asset-owners from the worst effects of the pandemic while driving many of the most financially vulnerable deeper into debt”. Instead of “putting his arms around” workers during the crisis, the Chancellor has enforced a clear divide between those he considers economically useful and those he has abandoned to fend for themselves – something the three million-plus applicants for Universal Credit since March are discovering to their cost.
Far from being “unencumbered by dogma“, Sunak subscribes to that most enduring of Tory narratives: the deserving and undeserving poor. While some workers are furloughed on 80% of their pay, those with no recourse to public funds are left destitute. While homeowners enjoy a stamp duty break, those who rent get nothing. And while restaurant customers are treated to a cut-price meal, low-income families are increasingly forced to fall back on food banks. Independent food banks report a 177% increase in need during May this year compared to May 2019 – with the biggest reason given being that benefits are insufficient to be able to afford food. As Sabine Goodwin of the Independent Food Aid Network said: “While millions of people cannot afford to buy food at all, the Chancellor’s voucher scheme for restaurant diners is particularly ill-considered.”
Coronavirus has offered us a chance to put a different narrative in place, one that reduces inequalities rather than exacerbating them. A genuinely radical Chancellor would give us a functioning welfare state, affordable housing, a real Living Wage, provision for decent local services – rather than a bung to get us into restaurants. A genuinely radical Chancellor would invest in income-enhancement measures, such as the increase in child benefit that the Labour Hunger Campaign is lobbying for, and make the VAT cut universal – as Alastair Darling did in 2008 – in order to stimulate the economy by increasing everyone’s spending power.
The sheer crassness of announcing subsidised restaurant meals while almost simultaneously reinstating benefits sanctions is a graphic illustration of the UK’s culture of haves and have-nots; the fact that Sunak doesn’t appear even to have considered that there are many people who can barely afford to eat is a symbol of the casual cruelty of this government. Rather than channelling Marie Antoinette, the Chancellor would do well to skip a couple of centuries further back to a very different French ruler. Henri IV was determined to bring prosperity to everyone after the country had been torn in two by religious wars, vowing that even the poorest labourer would be able to afford a poule au pot – or chicken in the pot – every Sunday. He understood what our Chancellor does not: if you want to get the economy moving, you have to ensure it works for everyone, not just the privileged few.


labourlist--2020-07-10--Why the UK should consider a guaranteed income floor

Support for the ancient idea of a basic income for all has been gathering pace during the Covid-19 crisis .
Recent additions to the growing list of names calling for a recovery scheme include Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan .
To date , the Labour leadership has been cautious while accepting that the existing mean and patchy benefit system needs fundamental reform .
One of the strengths of a basic income scheme is that it would fill many of the holes in the existing social security system and meet many of the goals of a more robust social security system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of basic income is that it would , for the first time , introduce a guaranteed , no-questions-asked income floor .
Such a floor has been advocated over centuries by a long line of leading thinkers .
William Beveridge and Clem Attlee always saw the post-war reforms as creating such a floor through a mix of measures : National Insurance , family allowances , full employment and national assistance .
In the event , the plan was never fully implemented , while the principle of universalism has been greatly weakened by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system of means-testing .
Britain has never come close to creating a robust income floor , and even before the pandemic , millions fell through what is one of the least generous and most punitive social security systems across rich nations , contributing to near record post-war levels of poverty .
Work-related conditionality requirements , enforced through a punitive system of sanctions – suspended during lockdown but now reinstated – have been greatly tightened over time .
While critics of a basic income have dismissed the proposal as unworkable , constructing a floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feasible , affordable and straightforward to implement .
Starting rates of £60 for working-age adults ( under 65 ) , and £40 for children would pay a significant , no-questions-asked £10,400 a year for a family of four .
These levels could be raised over time .
The scheme would create an income ‘ Plimsoll line ’ , boost the incomes of the poorest families , cut poverty levels , reduce inequality , strengthen universalism and cut means-testing .
Implementing a scheme would need a series of tax adjustments to pay for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive .
Such a reform would mean a modest income for the small army of carers and volunteers , mostly women .
As the coronavirus pandemic has revealed , their contribution – unpaid and largely unrecognised , along with that of a parallel army of the low-paid , from cleaners to supermarket workers – is crucial to the functioning of society .
By providing all with more choice over work , education , training , leisure and caring , it would also lay the foundation for greater personal empowerment – a springboard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a scheme would be a powerful new instrument for mitigating , at speed , the economic fallout from external shocks , from pandemics to recessions .
If a basic income scheme had been in place at the start of this crisis , it would have provided an automatic mechanism for providing comprehensive income top ups .
Despite these strengths , the idea divides opinion .
There is nothing new about progressive ideas provoking controversy .
Some of our most cherished institutions , from the NHS to the national minimum wage , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were finally implemented .
Yet no government would dare reject these universally popular ideas today .
The calls for an income floor have now been underpinned by a cross-party parliamentary working group .
Such a floor would build an automatic , anti-poverty force into the existing system , boost security in an increasingly fragile and turbulent age , and give a clear sign of the kind of society that should emerge as the crisis subsides .

Support for the ancient idea of a basic income for all has been gathering pace during the Covid-19 crisis. Recent additions to the growing list of names calling for a recovery scheme include Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan. To date, the Labour leadership has been cautious while accepting that the existing mean and patchy benefit system needs fundamental reform. One of the strengths of a basic income scheme is that it would fill many of the holes in the existing social security system and meet many of the goals of a more robust social security system.
An alternative way of looking at the idea of basic income is that it would, for the first time, introduce a guaranteed, no-questions-asked income floor. Such a floor has been advocated over centuries by a long line of leading thinkers. William Beveridge and Clem Attlee always saw the post-war reforms as creating such a floor through a mix of measures: National Insurance, family allowances, full employment and national assistance. In the event, the plan was never fully implemented, while the principle of universalism has been greatly weakened by increasing reliance on a complex and intrusive system of means-testing.
Britain has never come close to creating a robust income floor, and even before the pandemic, millions fell through what is one of the least generous and most punitive social security systems across rich nations, contributing to near record post-war levels of poverty. Work-related conditionality requirements, enforced through a punitive system of sanctions – suspended during lockdown but now reinstated – have been greatly tightened over time.
While critics of a basic income have dismissed the proposal as unworkable, constructing a floor below the existing benefit system would be feasible, affordable and straightforward to implement. Starting rates of £60 for working-age adults (under 65), and £40 for children would pay a significant, no-questions-asked £10,400 a year for a family of four. These levels could be raised over time. The scheme would create an income ‘Plimsoll line’, boost the incomes of the poorest families, cut poverty levels, reduce inequality, strengthen universalism and cut means-testing. Implementing a scheme would need a series of tax adjustments to pay for the floor, making the tax system more progressive.
Such a reform would mean a modest income for the small army of carers and volunteers, mostly women. As the coronavirus pandemic has revealed, their contribution – unpaid and largely unrecognised, along with that of a parallel army of the low-paid, from cleaners to supermarket workers – is crucial to the functioning of society. By providing all with more choice over work, education, training, leisure and caring, it would also lay the foundation for greater personal empowerment – a springboard for more stable and fulfilling lives. And such a scheme would be a powerful new instrument for mitigating, at speed, the economic fallout from external shocks, from pandemics to recessions. If a basic income scheme had been in place at the start of this crisis, it would have provided an automatic mechanism for providing comprehensive income top ups.
Despite these strengths, the idea divides opinion. There is nothing new about progressive ideas provoking controversy. Some of our most cherished institutions, from the NHS to the national minimum wage, were preceded by years of bitter dispute before they were finally implemented. Yet no government would dare reject these universally popular ideas today. The calls for an income floor have now been underpinned by a cross-party parliamentary working group. Such a floor would build an automatic, anti-poverty force into the existing system, boost security in an increasingly fragile and turbulent age, and give a clear sign of the kind of society that should emerge as the crisis subsides.


labourlist--2020-07-10--The challenges of opposing government economic policy during the crisis

Labour is still working out its response to the Chancellor ’ s summer statement on Wednesday .
The party came up with a sound bite to criticise the meal discount scheme , comparing the promised “ New Deal ” to the delivered “ meal deal ” .
The founder of the Labour Hunger Campaign has written for LabourList on why it ’ s a “ let them eat cake ” moment for Rishi Sunak .
And Keir Starmer ’ s party is focusing today on the “ secret £1bn giveaway to second homeowners ” that was later “ snuck out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stamp duty on second homes has been reduced from 8 % to 3 % – benefiting the most well-off , while renters have not had one bit of help during the crisis .
But the opposition party centred its criticisms yesterday on the job retention bonus scheme .
This was Sunak ’ s plan for making sure that employers bring back furloughed workers rather than simply laying them off after the job retention scheme ends in October .
It will see employers given £1,000 per employee that is retained until at least January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted that there was “ dead weight ” involved in the £9bn initiative , as a number of employers receiving the bonus will have already planned to bring back their staff .
Some commentators found Sunak ’ s honesty about the flaws in the scheme refreshing .
But Keir Starmer leapt on the comment , declaring that “ we can ’ t afford dead weight ” .
Bridget Phillipson as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury followed this up with a letter to the head of HMRC , piggybacking on reports that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for money ” of the proposal and it went through via a ministerial direction ( when ministers instruct senior civil servants to go ahead with a use of public money even if it hasn ’ t met their tests , a tool that has been used frequently for Covid-19 measures ) .
Labour is absolutely right to be picking apart this scheme .
A one-off £1,000 bonus probably isn ’ t enough to persuade employers who weren ’ t already going to retain furloughed staff to start doing so , which means it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that does little to reduce unemployment .
As former John McDonnell aide James Meadway has set out , it is an example of corporate welfare : a handout for bosses , not a support for jobs .
What scares many Labour members , however , is the language of affordability being used by the leadership .
They are talking of “ efficient public spending ” at a time of crisis , and when the normal rules have been thrown out of the window – something that Labour should surely celebrate .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a return to the austerity-lite days of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls .
It is ground on which Labour can not win , many have argued .
There are clearly tensions over the response to the government ’ s current approach to the economy : last night , left-wing shadow Treasury team member Dan Carden rejected a Times story that described Labour backtracking from supporting a wealth tax in principle , though the story is accurate .
This all goes to the need for Labour to find a way of criticising the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to spend more , but doesn ’ t call for a targeted approach in a way that might limit the parameters of future policy-making either .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Labour is still working out its response to the Chancellor’s summer statement on Wednesday. The party came up with a sound bite to criticise the meal discount scheme, comparing the promised “New Deal” to the delivered “meal deal”. The founder of the Labour Hunger Campaign has written for LabourList on why it’s a “let them eat cake” moment for Rishi Sunak. And Keir Starmer’s party is focusing today on the “secret £1bn giveaway to second homeowners” that was later “snuck out”. Thangam Debbonaire is highlighting that stamp duty on second homes has been reduced from 8% to 3% – benefiting the most well-off, while renters have not had one bit of help during the crisis.
But the opposition party centred its criticisms yesterday on the job retention bonus scheme. This was Sunak’s plan for making sure that employers bring back furloughed workers rather than simply laying them off after the job retention scheme ends in October. It will see employers given £1,000 per employee that is retained until at least January. On Thursday morning, the Chancellor admitted that there was “dead weight” involved in the £9bn initiative, as a number of employers receiving the bonus will have already planned to bring back their staff.
Some commentators found Sunak’s honesty about the flaws in the scheme refreshing. But Keir Starmer leapt on the comment, declaring that “we can’t afford dead weight”. Bridget Phillipson as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury followed this up with a letter to the head of HMRC, piggybacking on reports that he had expressed concern over the “value for money” of the proposal and it went through via a ministerial direction (when ministers instruct senior civil servants to go ahead with a use of public money even if it hasn’t met their tests, a tool that has been used frequently for Covid-19 measures).
Labour is absolutely right to be picking apart this scheme. A one-off £1,000 bonus probably isn’t enough to persuade employers who weren’t already going to retain furloughed staff to start doing so, which means it will mostly serve a nice little bonus that does little to reduce unemployment. As former John McDonnell aide James Meadway has set out, it is an example of corporate welfare: a handout for bosses, not a support for jobs. What scares many Labour members, however, is the language of affordability being used by the leadership. They are talking of “efficient public spending” at a time of crisis, and when the normal rules have been thrown out of the window – something that Labour should surely celebrate.
There are fears on the left that this could be a return to the austerity-lite days of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. It is ground on which Labour cannot win, many have argued. There are clearly tensions over the response to the government’s current approach to the economy: last night, left-wing shadow Treasury team member Dan Carden rejected a Times story that described Labour backtracking from supporting a wealth tax in principle, though the story is accurate. This all goes to the need for Labour to find a way of criticising the government that doesn’t simply urge it to spend more, but doesn’t call for a targeted approach in a way that might limit the parameters of future policy-making either. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-10--This government is weaponising its own incompetence against Labour councils

Britain ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been atrocious .
Our country has almost the highest number of per capita deaths in the world .
From the start of this criris , we have failed to deliver on clear guidelines , personal protective equipment and on test and trace – our key policy responses to the virus .
Predictably , the blame game has begun in earnest , and the Tories are insidiously weaponising their own incompetence to scapegoat local Labour councils and public sector workers .
In recent weeks and months , we have been witness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 positive patients to care homes ( despite government guidance stipulating such discharges ) , outrageous attacks on Leicester Council over the localised lockdown enacted across the city , attacks by the Prime Minister on care home managers and a lack of any meaningful engagement with local authorities who are being held responsible for delivering local coronavirus responses .
In Leicester , the government waited 11 days after announcing their proposed lockdown before handing over vital information the council needed to implement it .
The council still has not received the information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that wait .
For months , local directors of public health ( DPHs ) have been lobbying government over the lack of data they have received and associated information governance to implement local testing schemes , track and trace and the management policy on hospital discharges and care homes – to no avail .
Ministers have continually reminded DPHs of their responsibilities , which we ’ re well aware of in local government given that DPH statutory responsibilities are enshrined in Section 73A ( 1 ) of the NHS Act 2006 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act 2012 .
Meanwhile , ministeres have ignored their requests for the tools they need to carry out their jobs .
I recently wrote to Matt Hancock about the statements he made on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 5th July .
It was claimed by the Health Secretary that councils had access to all the Covid-19 data we need , but this is a patently untrue statement , rejected by DPHs and local authority leaders up and down the country .
Since March this year , when Covid-19 was formally introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a legal requirement under the Health Protection ( Notification ) Regulations 2010 for all labs and clinicians to report all coronavirus cases to Public Health England , alongside a duty to inform the ‘ proper officer ’ in local authorities ( the DPH ) .
The minimum amount of information needed by a DPH to effectively deal with any notifiable disease is patient-identifiable data every 24 hours , seven days a week ; the same methodology used to clean ( or rationalise ) data from different sequences of testing , and patient-identifiable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests and results .
None of this is currently being provided .
In Salford , we only received information on confirmed cases on July 2nd .
We have still not received information on the number of tests , the types of tests , the setting for those tests , information on suspected cases ( not just positive results ) , occupations of those tested , workplaces , or workplace postcode .
Personal postcodes are included with no personalised information – making tracking and tracing impossible .
Unbelievably , information on ethnicity is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our understanding of the increased risk faced by our Black , Asian and Minority Ethnic communities .
This was highlighted by the recent review undertaken by PHE , which confirmed that the risk of death from Covid-19 is higher amongst ethnic minorities .
Similarly , ethnicity isn ’ t routinely being recorded as standard on death certificates in England and Wales , which has implications for the robustness of data being reported and any intersectional analysis we ’ re able to undertake .
Also , there is one week ’ s delay between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locally – acting against timely intervention and prevention actions locally .
In Salford , this information has been so unhelpful that we have built our own localised track and trace programme running out of a local sports stadium .
It ensures that our DPH has access to the knowledge she needs .
Meanwhile , the government has allocated over £10bn of public spending on a privatised testing scheme – worth more than three times the entire local government current budget deficit .
From workplace closures to schools reopening , from support for businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public transport and PPE , the government has been communicating with local authorities by press release since day one .
Meanwhile , it relies on us at the frontline to implement these coronavirus measures .
The cynical attempt to shift blame from clearly deficient , overly centralised and incompetent decision-making in Whitehall on to care home owners , teachers , NHS staff , Councils and DPHs must be resisted by Labour .
The Tories are weaponising their own incompetence , and scapegoating the same services that they have attacked in government consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2010 .
Labour can ’ t allow them to get away with it .

Britain’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been atrocious. Our country has almost the highest number of per capita deaths in the world. From the start of this criris, we have failed to deliver on clear guidelines, personal protective equipment and on test and trace – our key policy responses to the virus. Predictably, the blame game has begun in earnest, and the Tories are insidiously weaponising their own incompetence to scapegoat local Labour councils and public sector workers.
In recent weeks and months, we have been witness to the commissioning of investigations into hospital discharges of Covid-19 positive patients to care homes (despite government guidance stipulating such discharges), outrageous attacks on Leicester Council over the localised lockdown enacted across the city, attacks by the Prime Minister on care home managers and a lack of any meaningful engagement with local authorities who are being held responsible for delivering local coronavirus responses.
In Leicester, the government waited 11 days after announcing their proposed lockdown before handing over vital information the council needed to implement it. The council still has not received the information it needs – and is not alone in that wait.
For months, local directors of public health (DPHs) have been lobbying government over the lack of data they have received and associated information governance to implement local testing schemes, track and trace and the management policy on hospital discharges and care homes – to no avail. Ministers have continually reminded DPHs of their responsibilities, which we’re well aware of in local government given that DPH statutory responsibilities are enshrined in Section 73A(1) of the NHS Act 2006 and Section 30 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Meanwhile, ministeres have ignored their requests for the tools they need to carry out their jobs.
I recently wrote to Matt Hancock about the statements he made on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 5th July. It was claimed by the Health Secretary that councils had access to all the Covid-19 data we need, but this is a patently untrue statement, rejected by DPHs and local authority leaders up and down the country.
Since March this year, when Covid-19 was formally introduced as a notifiable disease, there has been a legal requirement under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 for all labs and clinicians to report all coronavirus cases to Public Health England, alongside a duty to inform the ‘proper officer’ in local authorities (the DPH).
The minimum amount of information needed by a DPH to effectively deal with any notifiable disease is patient-identifiable data every 24 hours, seven days a week; the same methodology used to clean (or rationalise) data from different sequences of testing, and patient-identifiable data for both positive and negative test requests and results. None of this is currently being provided.
In Salford, we only received information on confirmed cases on July 2nd. We have still not received information on the number of tests, the types of tests, the setting for those tests, information on suspected cases (not just positive results), occupations of those tested, workplaces, or workplace postcode. Personal postcodes are included with no personalised information – making tracking and tracing impossible.
Unbelievably, information on ethnicity is not routinely provided, which is inexcusable given our understanding of the increased risk faced by our Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities. This was highlighted by the recent review undertaken by PHE, which confirmed that the risk of death from Covid-19 is higher amongst ethnic minorities.
Similarly, ethnicity isn’t routinely being recorded as standard on death certificates in England and Wales, which has implications for the robustness of data being reported and any intersectional analysis we’re able to undertake. Also, there is one week’s delay between the test result and information reaching us locally – acting against timely intervention and prevention actions locally.
In Salford, this information has been so unhelpful that we have built our own localised track and trace programme running out of a local sports stadium. It ensures that our DPH has access to the knowledge she needs. Meanwhile, the government has allocated over £10bn of public spending on a privatised testing scheme – worth more than three times the entire local government current budget deficit.
From workplace closures to schools reopening, from support for businesses to policies on parks and public spaces, public transport and PPE, the government has been communicating with local authorities by press release since day one. Meanwhile, it relies on us at the frontline to implement these coronavirus measures.
The cynical attempt to shift blame from clearly deficient, overly centralised and incompetent decision-making in Whitehall on to care home owners, teachers, NHS staff, Councils and DPHs must be resisted by Labour. The Tories are weaponising their own incompetence, and scapegoating the same services that they have attacked in government consistently since the coalition government’s victory in 2010. Labour can’t allow them to get away with it.


labourlist--2020-07-10--How will Labour’s national executive committee elections work?

Elections are being held over the next four months – yes , really , four months – for 18 seats on Labour ’ s ruling body , which is soon to be made up of 39 members .
The results of these contests will help to shape the party ’ s future .
The national executive committee ( NEC ) has oversight of compliance , audit procedures , policy development and party rules .
It currently plays a major role in dealing with internal complaints , though this is expected to change soon with the introduction of an independent process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of parliamentary candidate selections , though again Keir Starmer has pledged to reduce that power by ending NEC impositions .
Alice Perry goes into more detail about the functions of the NEC here .
The bottom line is that the judgement and politics of NEC members can make a huge difference to the party ’ s direction : examples include the move to allow Jeremy Corbyn to be automatically placed on the leadership contest ballot paper in 2016 , and more recently the appointment of a new general secretary .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party ( CLP ) representatives .
All of the member section seats are up .
Two incumbents were Labour First/Progress endorsed and won their seats in recent by-elections , while the other seven were chosen as Corbynite candidates , though Peter Willsman was suspended last year and has not been attending NEC meetings .
Only around half of the sitting CLP reps are restanding .
One disabled representative .
This is a newly created position on Labour ’ s NEC , which is now being elected for the first time .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McNeill , from the party ’ s left , and she is standing again .
A number of rival candidates have emerged .
Two Labour councillors .
These are held by soft left Islington councillor Alice Perry , who is deputy whip at Local Government Association ( LGA ) Labour , and Nick Forbes , leader of Newcastle City Council and of LGA Labour .
Both are standing again .
Three Parliamentary Labour Party ( PLP ) representatives .
Three MPs will be chosen .
The trio is currently George Howarth , Margaret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The post has been held for ten years by Diana Holland , who is also assistant general secretary of Unite .
She is standing again .
One Welsh Labour representative .
Mick Antoniw , a Member of the Senedd representing Pontypridd , is standing again .
Former Welsh Labour leader Carwyn Jones is also standing .
What is the timetable ?
• Friday 10th July , noon – Deadline for candidate statements to be submitted to the ‘ candidate portal ’ How is each seat elected ?
Labour ’ s NEC recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to using a single transferable vote ( STV ) system for the members ’ section of the body .
This reform introduces unpredictability to the CLP rep elections , and it has already changed the way that slates have formed – with all factional groups putting forward less than nine for the seats in order to maximise first preferences for their favoured candidates .
In each section , candidates first need to reach the required threshold of nominations .
Once they have secured a place on the ballot , it goes to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems and electorates vary between sections .
All candidates must have 12 months ’ membership by October 19th .
CLP rep candidates need at least five CLPs to nominate them , and the nine reps are elected by all party members via a one-member-one-vote STV system .
Disabled rep candidates need at least five CLPs or two trade unions to nominate them , and the rep is elected by an electoral college of 50 % OMOV of self-identified disabled members and 50 % affiliated trade unions .
Youth rep candidates need at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nominate them , and the rep is elected by an electoral college of 50 % OMOV of young members and 50 % affiliated trade unions .
Labour councillor candidates need at least five Labour groups to nominate them , and the two reps are elected by an OMOV ballot of Labour councillors , directly-elected mayors , police and crime commissioners .
PLP rep candidates need to self-nominate and have two backbench Labour MPs sign their nomination form by July 17th in order to stand .
The three reps will be elected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an online ballot .
Treasurer candidates need to be nominated by CLPs and affiliate organisations , and the treasurer is elected by an electoral college of 50 % OMOV of all members and 50 % affiliated organisations .
Welsh Labour rep candidates need to be nominated by five CLPs in Wales or affiliates , and they must have the support of at least one affiliate .
Following a rule change , the rep will be elected by an OMOV ballot of Welsh Labour party and affiliate members .

Elections are being held over the next four months – yes, really, four months – for 18 seats on Labour’s ruling body, which is soon to be made up of 39 members. The results of these contests will help to shape the party’s future.
The national executive committee (NEC) has oversight of compliance, audit procedures, policy development and party rules. It currently plays a major role in dealing with internal complaints, though this is expected to change soon with the introduction of an independent process, and can make decisions that affect the outcome of parliamentary candidate selections, though again Keir Starmer has pledged to reduce that power by ending NEC impositions.
Alice Perry goes into more detail about the functions of the NEC here. The bottom line is that the judgement and politics of NEC members can make a huge difference to the party’s direction: examples include the move to allow Jeremy Corbyn to be automatically placed on the leadership contest ballot paper in 2016, and more recently the appointment of a new general secretary.
Which NEC seats are up?
Nine Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representatives. All of the member section seats are up. Two incumbents were Labour First/Progress endorsed and won their seats in recent by-elections, while the other seven were chosen as Corbynite candidates, though Peter Willsman was suspended last year and has not been attending NEC meetings. Only around half of the sitting CLP reps are restanding.
One disabled representative. This is a newly created position on Labour’s NEC, which is now being elected for the first time.
One youth representative. The incumbent is Lara McNeill, from the party’s left, and she is standing again. A number of rival candidates have emerged.
Two Labour councillors. These are held by soft left Islington councillor Alice Perry, who is deputy whip at Local Government Association (LGA) Labour, and Nick Forbes, leader of Newcastle City Council and of LGA Labour. Both are standing again.
Three Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) representatives. Three MPs will be chosen. The trio is currently George Howarth, Margaret Beckett and Shabana Mahmood.
One treasurer. The post has been held for ten years by Diana Holland, who is also assistant general secretary of Unite. She is standing again.
One Welsh Labour representative. Mick Antoniw, a Member of the Senedd representing Pontypridd, is standing again. Former Welsh Labour leader Carwyn Jones is also standing.
What is the timetable?
Friday 10th July, noon – Deadline for candidate statements to be submitted to the ‘candidate portal’
– Deadline for candidate statements to be submitted to the ‘candidate portal’ Saturday 11th July – Nominations open for treasurer, CLP, disabled, youth and councillor posts
– Nominations open for treasurer, CLP, disabled, youth and councillor posts Sunday 27th September, midnight – Nominations deadline for CLPs, unions and Labour groups
– Nominations deadline for CLPs, unions and Labour groups Monday 19th October – Ballot dispatch begins
– Ballot dispatch begins Thursday 12th November, noon – Ballot closes
– Ballot closes Friday 13th November – Results announced
How is each seat elected?
Labour’s NEC recently voted in favour of switching from first-past-the-post to using a single transferable vote (STV) system for the members’ section of the body. This reform introduces unpredictability to the CLP rep elections, and it has already changed the way that slates have formed: all factional groups have put forward less than nine candidates for the seats in order to maximise first preferences.
In each section, candidates first need to reach the required threshold of nominations. Once they have secured a place on the ballot, it goes to a vote. The nomination requirements, voting systems and electorates vary between sections. All candidates must have 12 months’ membership by October 19th.
CLP rep candidates need at least five CLPs to nominate them, and the nine reps are elected by all party members via a one-member-one-vote STV system.
Disabled rep candidates need at least five CLPs or two trade unions to nominate them, and the rep is elected by an electoral college of 50% OMOV of self-identified disabled members and 50% affiliated trade unions.
Youth rep candidates need at least 50 young members and two affiliate groups to nominate them, and the rep is elected by an electoral college of 50% OMOV of young members and 50% affiliated trade unions.
Labour councillor candidates need at least five Labour groups to nominate them, and the two reps are elected by an OMOV ballot of Labour councillors, directly-elected mayors, police and crime commissioners.
PLP rep candidates need to self-nominate and have two backbench Labour MPs sign their nomination form by July 17th in order to stand. The three reps will be elected by all Labour MPs on July 21st via an online ballot.
Treasurer candidates need to be nominated by CLPs and affiliate organisations, and the treasurer is elected by an electoral college of 50% OMOV of all members and 50% affiliated organisations.
Welsh Labour rep candidates need to be nominated by five CLPs in Wales or affiliates, and they must have the support of at least one affiliate. Following a rule change, the rep will be elected by an OMOV ballot of Welsh Labour party and affiliate members.


labourlist--2020-07-11--Clapping is not enough. We’ll fight NHS underfunding and outsourcing

We celebrated the 72nd anniversary of the founding of the NHS last weekend .
There was well-deserved acclaim and clapping .
There is no doubt that NHS workers have stepped up magnificently in the fight against Covid-19 .
But clapping is not enough .
We need to pay attention to how underfunding and outsourcing have hollowed out our NHS over the decades .
The NHS met the challenge of Covid-19 – but only just .
As the public accounts committee ( PAC ) has highlighted repeatedly , NHS funding is not sustainable .
There have been raids on capital budgets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a backlog of spending needed on equipment and buildings .
The additional funding for Covid-19 is only short term .
On its current record this government will not follow through with a proper , sustainable long-term funding strategy .
Early in the pandemic , the Department of Health and Social Care wrote off £13bn in loans to trusts .
But the underlying , systemic funding weaknesses that see trusts with an £827m deficit ( in 2018/19 ) is not being tackled .
Underfunding and outsourcing are closely linked .
It is sometimes claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save money because of superior management skills .
The truth is that underfunding relies on underpaying outsourced manual labour .
And the PAC has had companies admit that they have bid low to win contracts .
It ’ s quite simply baked into an unsustainable funding model .
In London and elsewhere , these workers are disproportionately from black , Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds .
And we see hospitals employing new temporary staff with Covid-19 funding on NHS pay and conditions .
People with less experience in the NHS paid more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their role and are part of their local team but on outsourced contracts .
We have a clear example of the injustice that goes with outsourcing : the proposal of Hackney ’ s Homerton Hospital management to extend an existing outsourcing contract for a further five years .
The hospital ’ s manual jobs are outsourced .
This means that the cleaners , caterers , security guards and porters are employees of a giant company , ISS Mediclean , which pays them less than employees on the NHS ’ s lowest pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
170 doctors at the Homerton recently wrote to management to express their concerns .
They said : “ We are writing as Homerton employed doctors in support of our ISS colleagues .
We understand that a further five year contract is to be signed with ISS at the end of this month .
We have been proud to work alongside colleagues in cleaning , portering , catering and security services during the Covid-19 pandemic .
They have gone above and beyond in their commitment and hard work , but these employees… by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and worse terms and conditions , including only statutory sick pay.
” The key issue is that the ISS workers don ’ t have the same entitlement to sick pay as NHS workers .
In the middle of a coronavirus pandemic , this can cost lives .
Without proper sick pay workers come to work ill because they can ’ t afford the time .
The Guardian quoted a Homerton cleaner who caught Covid as saying : “ I was coughing and crying , but I thought there ’ s no point going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was back in work after two weeks , as cleaning in A & E is specialist and needs experience .
Staff were very emotional when three of them died and the mortuary was full .
These are our families and friends , everyone knows everyone.
” NHS workers need genuine respect .
A hospital like the Homerton , even if it insists on outsourcing the contract for cleaners and others , should fund it so those frontline workers get the same pay and conditions as workers employed directly by the NHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS properly .
And an incoming Labour government needs to be working now on how it brings these contracts back in house .
Most of the NHS has been outsourcing for so long that there is a gap in capability .
It takes time , and we need a clear direction so that planning starts now .
We have between us nearly 50 years ’ experience as MPs .
We are all too aware that the support for health workers because of Covid-19 and awareness of the impact on black staff magnified by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awareness , but it does not mean that the government will deliver .
The Treasury is never keen to back more money when it sees no additional benefit .
That ’ s why as Labour MPs we want fair pay to be unequivocally Labour policy .
And we will do all we can to shift the dial today .
The coronavirus pandemic has taught us all that cleaners , caterers , porters and security guards are all key frontline workers .
And they deserve justice .
It ’ s simply the right thing @ @ @

We celebrated the 72nd anniversary of the founding of the NHS last weekend. There was well-deserved acclaim and clapping. There is no doubt that NHS workers have stepped up magnificently in the fight against Covid-19. But clapping is not enough. We need to pay attention to how underfunding and outsourcing have hollowed out our NHS over the decades.
The NHS met the challenge of Covid-19 – but only just. As the public accounts committee (PAC) has highlighted repeatedly, NHS funding is not sustainable. There have been raids on capital budgets to prop up day-to-day spending, leaving a backlog of spending needed on equipment and buildings.
The additional funding for Covid-19 is only short term. On its current record this government will not follow through with a proper, sustainable long-term funding strategy. Early in the pandemic, the Department of Health and Social Care wrote off £13bn in loans to trusts. But the underlying, systemic funding weaknesses that see trusts with an £827m deficit (in 2018/19) is not being tackled.
Underfunding and outsourcing are closely linked. It is sometimes claimed that private companies managing outsourced NHS services save money because of superior management skills. The truth is that underfunding relies on underpaying outsourced manual labour. And the PAC has had companies admit that they have bid low to win contracts. It’s quite simply baked into an unsustainable funding model.
In London and elsewhere, these workers are disproportionately from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. And we see hospitals employing new temporary staff with Covid-19 funding on NHS pay and conditions. People with less experience in the NHS paid more than many cleaners and porters who have years in their role and are part of their local team but on outsourced contracts.
We have a clear example of the injustice that goes with outsourcing: the proposal of Hackney’s Homerton Hospital management to extend an existing outsourcing contract for a further five years. The hospital’s manual jobs are outsourced. This means that the cleaners, caterers, security guards and porters are employees of a giant company, ISS Mediclean, which pays them less than employees on the NHS’s lowest pay band and with worse terms of employment.
170 doctors at the Homerton recently wrote to management to express their concerns. They said: “We are writing as Homerton employed doctors in support of our ISS colleagues. We understand that a further five year contract is to be signed with ISS at the end of this month. We have been proud to work alongside colleagues in cleaning, portering, catering and security services during the Covid-19 pandemic. They have gone above and beyond in their commitment and hard work, but these employees… by being employed through ISS… receive worse pay and worse terms and conditions, including only statutory sick pay.”
The key issue is that the ISS workers don’t have the same entitlement to sick pay as NHS workers. In the middle of a coronavirus pandemic, this can cost lives. Without proper sick pay workers come to work ill because they can’t afford the time. The Guardian quoted a Homerton cleaner who caught Covid as saying: “I was coughing and crying, but I thought there’s no point going to hospital when it was so busy. I was back in work after two weeks, as cleaning in A&E is specialist and needs experience. Staff were very emotional when three of them died and the mortuary was full. These are our families and friends, everyone knows everyone.”
NHS workers need genuine respect. A hospital like the Homerton, even if it insists on outsourcing the contract for cleaners and others, should fund it so those frontline workers get the same pay and conditions as workers employed directly by the NHS. This government needs to fund the NHS properly. And an incoming Labour government needs to be working now on how it brings these contracts back in house. Most of the NHS has been outsourcing for so long that there is a gap in capability. It takes time, and we need a clear direction so that planning starts now.
We have between us nearly 50 years’ experience as MPs. We are all too aware that the support for health workers because of Covid-19 and awareness of the impact on black staff magnified by the Black Lives Matter movement raises public awareness, but it does not mean that the government will deliver. The Treasury is never keen to back more money when it sees no additional benefit. That’s why as Labour MPs we want fair pay to be unequivocally Labour policy. And we will do all we can to shift the dial today. The coronavirus pandemic has taught us all that cleaners, caterers, porters and security guards are all key frontline workers. And they deserve justice. It’s simply the right thing to do.


labourlist--2020-07-12--Sunday shows: Labour backs mandatory face masks when shopping

Rachel Reeves , the shadow cabinet member who opposes Michael Gove , revealed Labour ’ s support for mandatory face masks when shopping and appeared to say that Labour is opposed to post-Brexit European Court of Justice involvement in the UK .
She reiterated Labour ’ s position of opposing the new stamp duty cut for second homeowners and of not wanting to support any taxes rises at the moment .
• Asked whether Labour is in favour of compulsory face masks when shopping : “ Yes , I think that would be a sensible way forward.
” • On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new border spending : “ I think it ’ s too little too late… We saw an extraordinary letter from cabinet minister Liz Truss to the Chancellor and to Michael Gove this week setting out a whole range of concerns.
” • She added : “ I would like to know from Michael Gove how much this is going to cost , the number of additional border officials to implement this customs policy , but also most crucially the cost to British businesses ” .
• On whether Labour backs the government in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say the ECJ shouldn ’ t be able to oversee , but there must be compromise on both sides ” .
• Asked when Labour would back the government if the EU insists on its own state aid rules : “ I think the government have hid behind EU state aid rules on too many occasions as an excuse not to support British industry.
” • On whether Labour opposes any of Rishi Sunak ’ s announcements this week : “ There is one that I would very much oppose , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the purchases of second home and buy-to-let properties… I don ’ t think it is right to give those people tax cuts.
” • On whether Labour opposes any tax rises : “ We ’ re in a situation right now where the entire focus of government should be on protecting jobs and creating jobs… This is not the right time to be putting up taxes.
” • Asked if Labour would reject a hypothetical government proposal to raise taxes on £80,000+ earners : “ We would look at any proposals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pressed further : “ We ’ re not setting out proposals at the moment for the next manifesto… I ’ m not going to write the manifesto on an ad hoc basis on this programme.
” • On Labour ’ s boycott of Facebook : “ What we ’ re not doing at the moment is advertising on Facebook .
That is in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter campaign , but also in line with what many businesses are doing this month .
Which is to express our concerns about the failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material ” .
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon apologised for “ every death ” caused by Covid-19 , but added : “ What I absolutely refute is that there was some particular problem in Scotland or that we didn ’ t take great care.
” Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin called for “ more detail ” on the arrangements for the Northern Ireland protocol in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland .
He said the UK-EU talks needed “ an injection of momentum ” .
Michael Gove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would be sacked over the leak , he said : “ No , Liz is one of my best friends in the cabinet.
” Gove argued that “ there is an element of Captain Hindsight ” in Labour ’ s criticisms of the Brexit preparations .
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell also confirmed that Labour supports the mandatory use of face masks when shopping .
She said Tory ideology is “ getting in the way ” of the government ’ s recovery plan .
• On Sunak ’ s statement : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed opportunity .
Possibly the last opportunity we ’ ve had to save tens of thousands , if not hundred of thousands , of jobs over the coming months.
” • She added : “ We ’ ve gone from a government saying it will do whatever it takes to Rishi Sunak saying on Wednesday he will do whatever he can… There ’ s some ideology getting in the way here now why they won ’ t support key sectors that they said they would.
” • On the furlough scheme , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ They seem to have some aversion to what they might call picking winners , but instead what they ’ re doing is instead creating losers.
” • On the new measures : “ They really could have focused these large sums of money that they were talking about on Wednesday where they are needed most.
” • Asked if she and Keir Starmer should have worn face coverings when they visited a pub this week : “ We followed the guidance… Obviously in bars and restaurants it ’ s not mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can eat and drink.
” • On the disproportionate impact of the crisis : “ I ’ m really worried about the implications of this crisis on women in particular , also those of black and ethnic minority backgrounds.
” She pointed out that the jobs of both groups are more likely to be at risk .
• Asked what policies Starmer has announced since becoming leader : “ I don ’ t think now is the time for manifesto commitments – especially not because of the context that we ’ re in… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a fantastic start as leader .
” • Asked whether Labour is considering a wealth tax : “ We ’ re a long way off these kind of conversations and that is because we don ’ t know what the state of the public finances are going to be… We can really shape what is going to be necessary for the future of any tax and spend policy today by protecting and creating jobs today and that is our focus.
” TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady also appeared on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise for key workers , for an effective test and trace system and for more “ flexibility and targeted support ” for sections of the economy .
• On people returning to work : “ Employers need to be carrying out proper risk assessments and publishing them , and consulting with their unions and their workforces about them – the question is , is what ’ s safe.
” • On public confidence : “ The best way to drive up consumer confidence is to know that we ’ ve got a really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that when we do get local outbreaks… we deal with it properly.
” • On sick pay : “ And that people can afford to take time off sick , instead of having to rely on £96 statutory sick pay .
We need to see a boost to that , and make sure that all workers are covered.
” • On rogue employers : “ It was the wrong decision to cut the number of inspectors… We ’ ve [ the TUC ] got 120,000 trained and accredited union health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let those reps be used to support our inspectors.
” • Asked if people should return to using public transport ?
“ It ’ s very difficult to socially distance on a train or a bus unless you ’ re controlling numbers and you need marshals to do that – so it needs to be planned.
” • On wages : “ We want more people to buy more goods and services to drive up consumer demand… one of the best ways to do that is to drive up wages – which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for millions of key workers to get a pay rise.
” • On the government ’ s job retention scheme bonus for employers : “ What we ’ re worried about is a risk of getting into gimmicks rather than actually giving the targeted support that industries need.
” • On targeted support : “ Some of our industries , through no fault of their own , simply through this crisis , are in real trouble… We have to have targeted plans and support to keep them on their feet.
” • She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for flexibility and targeted support to get us through this period .
I tell you , it ’ s a lot easier to hold on to good jobs that we have already , than to try and create them down the line.
” Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove discussed the UK ’ s economic recovery , saying that he wants to see “ more people back at work on the shop floor , in the office , wherever they can be ” .
Asked about incorrect and misleading testing figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to apologise .
He claimed that he is “ completely unfamiliar with this story ” , but added : “ I certainly haven ’ t misled anyone .
”

The Andrew Marr Show
Rachel Reeves, the shadow cabinet member who opposes Michael Gove, revealed Labour’s support for mandatory face masks when shopping and appeared to say that Labour is opposed to post-Brexit European Court of Justice involvement in the UK. She reiterated Labour’s position of opposing the new stamp duty cut for second homeowners and of not wanting to support any taxes rises at the moment.
Asked whether Labour is in favour of compulsory face masks when shopping: “Yes, I think that would be a sensible way forward.”
On the government’s Brexit preparations include new border spending: “I think it’s too little too late… We saw an extraordinary letter from cabinet minister Liz Truss to the Chancellor and to Michael Gove this week setting out a whole range of concerns.”
She added: “I would like to know from Michael Gove how much this is going to cost, the number of additional border officials to implement this customs policy, but also most crucially the cost to British businesses”.
On whether Labour backs the government in opposing ECJ involvement: “It right to say the ECJ shouldn’t be able to oversee, but there must be compromise on both sides”.
Asked when Labour would back the government if the EU insists on its own state aid rules: “I think the government have hid behind EU state aid rules on too many occasions as an excuse not to support British industry.”
On whether Labour opposes any of Rishi Sunak’s announcements this week: “There is one that I would very much oppose, and that is the reduction in stamp duty for the purchases of second home and buy-to-let properties… I don’t think it is right to give those people tax cuts.”
On whether Labour opposes any tax rises: “We’re in a situation right now where the entire focus of government should be on protecting jobs and creating jobs… This is not the right time to be putting up taxes.”
Asked if Labour would reject a hypothetical government proposal to raise taxes on £80,000+ earners: “We would look at any proposals that the government have put forward.”
Pressed further: “We’re not setting out proposals at the moment for the next manifesto… I’m not going to write the manifesto on an ad hoc basis on this programme.”
On Labour’s boycott of Facebook: “What we’re not doing at the moment is advertising on Facebook. That is in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter campaign, but also in line with what many businesses are doing this month. Which is to express our concerns about the failure of Facebook to take down some hateful material”.
#Marr: Is Labour against tax rises on those earning over £80,000? Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Rachel Reeves: “We would look at any proposals the government have put forward”https://t.co/qNf5AhFTTK pic.twitter.com/1jGkDOIiJZ — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 12, 2020
First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon apologised for “every death” caused by Covid-19, but added: “What I absolutely refute is that there was some particular problem in Scotland or that we didn’t take great care.”
Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin called for “more detail” on the arrangements for the Northern Ireland protocol in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. He said the UK-EU talks needed “an injection of momentum”.
Michael Gove discussed the Truss letter. Asked whether she would be sacked over the leak, he said: “No, Liz is one of my best friends in the cabinet.” Gove argued that “there is an element of Captain Hindsight” in Labour’s criticisms of the Brexit preparations.
Ridge on Sunday
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell also confirmed that Labour supports the mandatory use of face masks when shopping. She said Tory ideology is “getting in the way” of the government’s recovery plan.
On Sunak’s statement: “The summer economic update was a real missed opportunity. Possibly the last opportunity we’ve had to save tens of thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of jobs over the coming months.”
She added: “We’ve gone from a government saying it will do whatever it takes to Rishi Sunak saying on Wednesday he will do whatever he can… There’s some ideology getting in the way here now why they won’t support key sectors that they said they would.”
On the furlough scheme, which will end for all sectors in October: “They seem to have some aversion to what they might call picking winners, but instead what they’re doing is instead creating losers.”
On the new measures: “They really could have focused these large sums of money that they were talking about on Wednesday where they are needed most.”
Asked if she and Keir Starmer should have worn face coverings when they visited a pub this week: “We followed the guidance… Obviously in bars and restaurants it’s not mandatory to wear face masks so that you can eat and drink.”
On the mandatory wearing of face masks: “I do agree with you that we do need to get a lot more confidence back in the system and if mandatory wearing of face masks in shops will help to do that, then we absolutely support it.”
On the disproportionate impact of the crisis: “I’m really worried about the implications of this crisis on women in particular, also those of black and ethnic minority backgrounds.” She pointed out that the jobs of both groups are more likely to be at risk.
Asked what policies Starmer has announced since becoming leader: “I don’t think now is the time for manifesto commitments – especially not because of the context that we’re in… I think he’s got off to a fantastic start as leader .”
.” Asked whether Labour is considering a wealth tax: “We’re a long way off these kind of conversations and that is because we don’t know what the state of the public finances are going to be… We can really shape what is going to be necessary for the future of any tax and spend policy today by protecting and creating jobs today and that is our focus.”
Keir Starmer has been the Labour leader for 100 days – can you name a single new policy announced in that time? "He's really begun to make his mark on the Labour party," says @LucyMPowell.#Ridge Live: https://t.co/h0gbPJfUZi pic.twitter.com/ZHFcwXHRJ1 — Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) July 12, 2020
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady also appeared on the show. She called for a pay rise for key workers, for an effective test and trace system and for more “flexibility and targeted support” for sections of the economy.
On people returning to work: “Employers need to be carrying out proper risk assessments and publishing them, and consulting with their unions and their workforces about them – the question is, is what’s safe.”
On public confidence: “The best way to drive up consumer confidence is to know that we’ve got a really effective test and trace system in place, so that when we do get local outbreaks… we deal with it properly.”
On sick pay: “And that people can afford to take time off sick, instead of having to rely on £96 statutory sick pay. We need to see a boost to that, and make sure that all workers are covered.”
On rogue employers: “It was the wrong decision to cut the number of inspectors… We’ve [the TUC] got 120,000 trained and accredited union health and safety reps – we’re happy to let those reps be used to support our inspectors.”
Asked if people should return to using public transport? “It’s very difficult to socially distance on a train or a bus unless you’re controlling numbers and you need marshals to do that – so it needs to be planned.”
On wages: “We want more people to buy more goods and services to drive up consumer demand… one of the best ways to do that is to drive up wages – which is why we’ve been calling for millions of key workers to get a pay rise.”
On the government’s job retention scheme bonus for employers: “What we’re worried about is a risk of getting into gimmicks rather than actually giving the targeted support that industries need.”
On targeted support: “Some of our industries, through no fault of their own, simply through this crisis, are in real trouble… We have to have targeted plans and support to keep them on their feet.”
She added: “We’re looking for flexibility and targeted support to get us through this period. I tell you, it’s a lot easier to hold on to good jobs that we have already, than to try and create them down the line.”
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove discussed the UK’s economic recovery, saying that he wants to see “more people back at work on the shop floor, in the office, wherever they can be”.
Asked about incorrect and misleading testing figures being released by the government, Gove refused to apologise. He claimed that he is “completely unfamiliar with this story”, but added: “I certainly haven’t misled anyone.”