labourlist--2020-10-12--MPs reject Labour-backed amendments to Brexit agriculture bill

The House of Commons has tonight voted down a range of Labour-supported agriculture bill amendments that had sought to uphold British food and animal welfare standards in future trade deals .
The amendments put forward by the House of Lords were all opposed by MPs tonight after a tense debate in which Labour accused the government of only supporting farmers “ when the sun shines ” .
The Lords had made changes to the bill including the demand that the government create rules to ban the import of food with lower standards than current ones , such as chlorinated chicken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers dismissed the proposed changes , saying they would add “ unnecessary layers of complication ” to any future trade negotiations and could obstruct our chances of securing deals after Brexit .
Voicing Labour ’ s support for the amendments during the debate , Shadow Environment Secretary Luke Pollard said : “ Today , members on both sides of the House are being given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be .
“ Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon across the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for the welfare of our animals and standing up for the environment ?
“ Or do we want to throw that all away just for the vague promise of a trade deal , where poor quality food is served to our children , where standards are undercut and where carbon and animal welfare responsibilities are exported ?
” Pollard criticised the government for choosing to undercut food safety and animal welfare protections in the UK despite celebrating the “ high standards ” of British farming in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I saw a lot of members on the benches opposite for Back British Farming Day in September .
Every day should be Back British Farming Day… “ And on this day , when our farmers need us , we have a chance to see who are the real friends of farming .
Who are there when the weather is bleak… and who are there only when the sun shines.
” Another of the changes proposed by the Lords instructed the government to set agriculture-specific climate change targets and address the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK ’ s carbon emissions .
Pollard said : “ Tonight our farmers will be looking at the votes cast in this place .
They will be looking to see if members of parliament… support British farmers or whether they choose not to.
” Reacting to the vote , Labour ’ s deputy leader Angela Rayner tweeted that the ruling Conservatives are “ a disgrace , letting our farmers down , letting consumers down , our high animal welfare standards in the gutter ” .
The government initially refused in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that would ensure the UK ’ s existing environmental protections , food safety regulations and animal welfare laws , leading to the Lords amendments .
The proposed changes had gained widespread support not just from opposition parties but also celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver , Yotam Ottolenghi and Prue Leith , plus the National Farmers ’ Union ( NFU ) .
The Labour leader told the PM : “ I want our country to produce the best food in the world , where our farmers compete on the basis of quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lower standards elsewhere .
“ Britain should be a beacon of quality , high standards , ethical treatment of animals and environmental protections in all aspects of food production.
” The government ’ s agriculture bill will now be sent back to the House of Lords as part of a process known as ‘ ping pong ‘ in which the two chambers resolve policy disagreements by sending bills back and forth .
Below are the full results of the amendment votes .
Lords Amendment 11 , which sought to limit the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was voted down by 347 votes to 212 .
Lords Amendment 16 , which aimed to maintain British food standards in trade deals , was voted down by 332 votes to 279 .
Lords Amendment 17 , which sought to improve environmental protections , was voted down by 344 votes to 206 .

The House of Commons has tonight voted down a range of Labour-supported agriculture bill amendments that had sought to uphold British food and animal welfare standards in future trade deals.
The amendments put forward by the House of Lords were all opposed by MPs tonight after a tense debate in which Labour accused the government of only supporting farmers “when the sun shines”.
The Lords had made changes to the bill including the demand that the government create rules to ban the import of food with lower standards than current ones, such as chlorinated chicken or beef fattened with hormones.
Government ministers dismissed the proposed changes, saying they would add “unnecessary layers of complication” to any future trade negotiations and could obstruct our chances of securing deals after Brexit.
Voicing Labour’s support for the amendments during the debate, Shadow Environment Secretary Luke Pollard said: “Today, members on both sides of the House are being given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be.
“Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon across the world standing up for our farmers, standing up for the welfare of our animals and standing up for the environment?
“Or do we want to throw that all away just for the vague promise of a trade deal, where poor quality food is served to our children, where standards are undercut and where carbon and animal welfare responsibilities are exported?”
Pollard criticised the government for choosing to undercut food safety and animal welfare protections in the UK despite celebrating the “high standards” of British farming in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto.
The Labour frontbencher and Plymouth MP added: “I saw a lot of members on the benches opposite for Back British Farming Day in September. Every day should be Back British Farming Day…
“And on this day, when our farmers need us, we have a chance to see who are the real friends of farming. Who are there when the weather is bleak… and who are there only when the sun shines.”
Another of the changes proposed by the Lords instructed the government to set agriculture-specific climate change targets and address the fact that the sector produces around 10% of the UK’s carbon emissions.
Pollard said: “Tonight our farmers will be looking at the votes cast in this place. They will be looking to see if members of parliament… support British farmers or whether they choose not to.”
Reacting to the vote, Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner tweeted that the ruling Conservatives are “a disgrace, letting our farmers down, letting consumers down, our high animal welfare standards in the gutter”.
The government initially refused in May to amend the agriculture bill in a way that would ensure the UK’s existing environmental protections, food safety regulations and animal welfare laws, leading to the Lords amendments.
The proposed changes had gained widespread support not just from opposition parties but also celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver, Yotam Ottolenghi and Prue Leith, plus the National Farmers’ Union (NFU).
Several senior Tory MPs also announced plans to rebel over the amendments this week, including Commons environment committee chair Neil Parish and Northern Ireland committee chair Simon Hoare. Keir Starmer wrote a letter to Boris Johnson last week demanding that the Prime Minister “back British farmers” by supporting the party’s proposals to protect the UK from lower-standard food imports after Brexit.
The Labour leader told the PM: “I want our country to produce the best food in the world, where our farmers compete on the basis of quality and are not undermined by producers working to lower standards elsewhere.
“Britain should be a beacon of quality, high standards, ethical treatment of animals and environmental protections in all aspects of food production.”
The government’s agriculture bill will now be sent back to the House of Lords as part of a process known as ‘ping pong‘ in which the two chambers resolve policy disagreements by sending bills back and forth.
Below are the full results of the amendment votes.
Lords Amendment 11, which sought to limit the use of pesticides to protect the public, was voted down by 347 votes to 212.
Lords Amendment 16, which aimed to maintain British food standards in trade deals, was voted down by 332 votes to 279.
Lords Amendment 17, which sought to improve environmental protections, was voted down by 344 votes to 206.


labourlist--2020-10-12--Exclusive: Starmer says Labour should not vote down ‘spycops’ bill – even if unamended

Keir Starmer has confirmed that he believes the Labour Party should not vote down the so-called ‘ spycops ’ bill – even if the opposition party ’ s amendments are not approved during its passage , LabourList can reveal .
The Labour leader also told his MPs tonight that he would take a different tack on the overseas operations bill , however , confirming that he is willing to vote against at third reading if it is not amended .
The covert human intelligence sources bill ( criminal conduct ) bill proposed by the government is set to be rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the House of Commons on Thursday this week .
20 Labour MPs defied a one-line party whip to abstain on the bill at second reading last week , although MPs approved it by a majority of 162 votes .
Concerns about the bill were voiced by MPs from across the House .
At a Parliament Labour Party meeting on Zoom this evening , attended by 180 MPs , Starmer explained that he does not believe they should vote the bill down even if Labour does not succeed in making changes .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a previously secret power – “ the third direction ” – allowing MI5 , police forces and other public bodies to authorise agents and informants to commit criminal offences .
Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has argued in favour of putting “ safeguards ” in the bill and more “ oversight ” , but said Labour supports putting the undercover policing activities on a “ statutory footing ” .
Affiliated trade union Unite is strongly opposed to the bill , however , with assistant general secretary Howard Beckett writing for LabourList that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of duty ” for Labour to “ sit on its hands ” .
MPs expressing concern over the leadership ’ s position on the CHIS bill tonight included ‘ soft left ’ Sarah Owen , Beth Winter and Nadia Whittome who were recently stood down from the Labour frontbench , Sarah Champion , Tony Lloyd and Tahir Ali .
Critics said they had doubts over the argument that the bill would be tempered by the Human Rights Act as the Tories are “ reviewing ” it , and were worried about sex offences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baroness Chakrabarti was “ impressive ” when speaking against the leadership position , one source said , and Labour peer John Hendy QC told the meeting : “ As a lawyer , I just can not accept that the state has prior approval to commit crimes.
” Other MPs expressed support for Starmer ’ s stance , including home affairs committee chair Yvette Cooper , intelligence and security committee ( ISC ) member Diana Johnson and frontbenchers who were not allowed to speak at the meeting .
Judith Cummins , MP for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keir demonstrated that he can make really difficult decisions if he were Prime Minister .
He was very clear , convincing and really showed his expertise beyond anyone else ’ s on the call.
” Shadow railways minister and Slough MP Tan Dhesi had planned to vote against the bill , but has said he was persuaded by Starmer tonight to abstain instead .
Dhesi said he was “ impressed ” by the “ detailed response ” offered .
“ I trust his experience , as well as the integrity with which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told LabourList , concluding : “ I ’ d rather have things on statute whereby the police or undercover agencies would be held to account by the ISC and lawmakers.
” LabourList also understands that Sam Tarry asked Starmer about the overseas operations bill , on which Labour MPs were recently whipped to abstain , and the Labour leader confirmed the party would vote against if there are no changes to the bill .
John Healey said the government bill relating to British troops serving overseas “ creates the risk that the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes go unpunished ” – but Labour did not vote against it .
The Shadow Defence Secretary said he was certain the government would be “ prepared to rewrite parts of this bill ” , which seeks to exempt British armed forces personnel from prosecution under the European Convention on Human Rights .
It has tonight been confirmed that Labour will vote against the bill if its amendments are not accepted .
The opposition party has criticised the legislation for placing “ torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes @ @ @ @ @

Keir Starmer has confirmed that he believes the Labour Party should not vote down the so-called ‘spycops’ bill – even if the opposition party’s amendments are not approved during its passage, LabourList can reveal.
The Labour leader also told his MPs tonight that he would take a different tack on the overseas operations bill, however, confirming that he is willing to vote against at third reading if it is not amended.
The covert human intelligence sources bill (criminal conduct) bill proposed by the government is set to be rushed through its committee and third reading stages in the House of Commons on Thursday this week.
20 Labour MPs defied a one-line party whip to abstain on the bill at second reading last week, although MPs approved it by a majority of 162 votes. Concerns about the bill were voiced by MPs from across the House.
At a Parliament Labour Party meeting on Zoom this evening, attended by 180 MPs, Starmer explained that he does not believe they should vote the bill down even if Labour does not succeed in making changes.
The CHIS bill aims to give legal protection for a previously secret power – “the third direction” – allowing MI5, police forces and other public bodies to authorise agents and informants to commit criminal offences.
Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds has argued in favour of putting “safeguards” in the bill and more “oversight”, but said Labour supports putting the undercover policing activities on a “statutory footing”.
Affiliated trade union Unite is strongly opposed to the bill, however, with assistant general secretary Howard Beckett writing for LabourList that “it would be a total dereliction of duty” for Labour to “sit on its hands”.
MPs expressing concern over the leadership’s position on the CHIS bill tonight included ‘soft left’ Sarah Owen, Beth Winter and Nadia Whittome who were recently stood down from the Labour frontbench, Sarah Champion, Tony Lloyd and Tahir Ali.
Critics said they had doubts over the argument that the bill would be tempered by the Human Rights Act as the Tories are “reviewing” it, and were worried about sex offences not being specifically prohibited in the bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti was “impressive” when speaking against the leadership position, one source said, and Labour peer John Hendy QC told the meeting: “As a lawyer, I just cannot accept that the state has prior approval to commit crimes.”
Other MPs expressed support for Starmer’s stance, including home affairs committee chair Yvette Cooper, intelligence and security committee (ISC) member Diana Johnson and frontbenchers who were not allowed to speak at the meeting.
Judith Cummins, MP for Bradford South, told LabourList: “Keir demonstrated that he can make really difficult decisions if he were Prime Minister. He was very clear, convincing and really showed his expertise beyond anyone else’s on the call.”
Shadow railways minister and Slough MP Tan Dhesi said he had planned to vote against the bill but was persuaded by Starmer tonight to abstain instead. Dhesi said he was “impressed” by the “detailed response” offered.
“I trust his experience, as well as the integrity with which he put the message across,” Dhesi told LabourList, concluding: “I’d rather have things on statute whereby the police or undercover agencies would be held to account by the ISC and lawmakers.”
LabourList also understands that Sam Tarry asked Starmer about the overseas operations bill, on which Labour MPs were recently whipped to abstain, and the Labour leader confirmed the party would vote against if there are no changes to the bill.
John Healey said the government bill relating to British troops serving overseas “creates the risk that the very gravest crimes including torture and other war crimes go unpunished” – but Labour did not vote against it.
The Shadow Defence Secretary said he was certain the government would be “prepared to rewrite parts of this bill”, which seeks to exempt British armed forces personnel from prosecution under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It has tonight been confirmed that Labour will vote against the overseas operations bill bill if its amendments are not accepted. The opposition party has criticised the legislation for placing “torture and other war crimes on a different level to crimes of sexual violence”.


labourlist--2020-10-12--Failing to oppose the spycops bill would be a dereliction of duty

The covert human intelligence sources bill ( CHIS ) , due to be rushed through its final stages of legislation on Thursday , would give protection to agents who commit crimes while undercover from criminal prosecution or civil redress .
Its proponents argue that this practice is already commonplace , and legislation is necessary to put it on a statutory footing .
But this legislation goes way beyond that .
The list of crimes committed by the state during undercover operations is vast .
One only needs to think of the ‘ spycops ’ scandal , where women were tricked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or the murder or Pat Finucane , a Belfast lawyer shot in his home 14 times in front of his wife and three children in 1989 .
David Cameron was forced to apologise in 2011 for the “ shocking levels of state collusion ” in his murder , yet still no member of the British Security Services has been prosecuted for this crime .
Unlike similar legislation in countries including the US and Canada , this bill does not place any limits whatsoever on the types of crimes that can be committed while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the Pat Finucane murder never happen again .
It places many lawful organisations , including trade unions , at risk of infiltration where crimes can lawfully be committed against their members .
Some MPs who debated the bill last week seemed utterly incredulous at the idea that any agents of the British state might ever seek to spy on trade unions or their members .
I don ’ t know where they ’ ve been for the last few years , but the revelations over the links between unlawful undercover policing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotland Yard .
Peter Francis , formerly an undercover cop in the Met ’ s Special Demonstrations Squad ( SDS ) , has admitted infiltrating and spying on five national trade unions , in addition to anti-racist movements , justice campaigns , socialist groups and environmental activists .
We ’ re not talking about terrorists or child sexual exploitation rings here .
The families of Stephen Lawrence and Ricky Reel , murdered in brutal racist attacks , were spied on as they sought justice for their loved ones .
Francis has offered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the stewardship of Sir John Mitting ( a process dragging on for so long that the initial presiding Judge , Lord Justice Pitchford , has had to step down on health grounds ) .
Victims of Francis ’ ‘ spycops ’ colleagues on the SDS are days away from beginning their formal hearings , including women tricked into intimate sexual relationships on false pretences – actions that campaigners believe constitutes statutory rape .
The Met has just apologised for the actions of undercover cop Bob Lambert , who fathered a child with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , paying compensation to the son he deserted at two years old – now a 26-year-old man .
Whilst the government ’ s decision to clarify the issue of such authorisations by putting them on to a statutory footing is not necessarily unwelcome , the near-total lack of necessary safeguards should appall anyone concerned with human rights and basic freedoms in a democracy .
Security minister James Brokenshire is hiding behind the legal requirement for compliance with the Human Rights Act ( 1999 ) , which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record suggests this is being put forward in bad faith .
Not only have many Tory backbenchers flirted with revoking the HRA altogether , the government ’ s legal defence team has previously argued that the state can not be held responsible for the human rights compliance of individual agents once lawfully authorised , telling the IPT , “ the state , in tasking the CHIS… is not the instigator of that activity and can not be treated as somehow responsible for it… It would be unreal to hold the state responsible.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil society organisations and civil liberties campaigners to warn MPs about this .
The bill refuses to specify any upper limit to the nature of criminal acts that might be authorised , potentially allowing agencies to give the green light to torture , rape , arson , bombings and even murder .
Nor does it forbid the surveillance of trade unions , so long as the agency could argue that such action was “ proportionate ” to a vague threat of “ preventing disorder ” or to “ economic wellbeing ” .
Unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s internet browsing history , such a power would not even require prior independent judicial authorisation .
Instead , the security services , police and other agencies given the power to authorise criminality would simply be left to decide for themselves when the relevant thresholds had been met .
The bill provides no basis for compensating innocent victims of illegal actions undertaken by an authorised CHIS , so future victims of spycops would be left without legal redress .
The sheer range of organisations that would have such a power is shocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Food Standards Agency , the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency , which aren ’ t even thought to be worthy of scrutiny by parliament ’ s intelligence and security committee .
While Labour rightly raised concerns about the lack of proper safeguards , by demanding that MPs abstain on the second reading of the CHIS bill , for the second time in recent weeks the party failed to sound the alarm to the wider public on an issue that should concern all trade unionists and social justice campaigners .
Nevertheless , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour has tabled to be voted upon on Thursday , and hope all MPs get behind these necessary safeguards .
But let ’ s be under no illusions : if Boris Johnson ’ s Tories use their parliamentary majority to block these essential amendments , it would be a total dereliction of duty for the party of organised labour to continue to sit on its hands .
We owe it to the victims waiting to give evidence to the public inquiry that the proceedings aren ’ t undermined by this outrageous attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeking long-overdue redress .

The covert human intelligence sources bill (CHIS), due to be rushed through its final stages of legislation on Thursday, would give protection to agents who commit crimes while undercover from criminal prosecution or civil redress. Its proponents argue that this practice is already commonplace, and legislation is necessary to put it on a statutory footing. But this legislation goes way beyond that.
The list of crimes committed by the state during undercover operations is vast. One only needs to think of the ‘spycops’ scandal, where women were tricked into sexual relationships by undercover police. Or the murder or Pat Finucane, a Belfast lawyer shot in his home 14 times in front of his wife and three children in 1989. David Cameron was forced to apologise in 2011 for the “shocking levels of state collusion” in his murder, yet still no member of the British Security Services has been prosecuted for this crime.
Unlike similar legislation in countries including the US and Canada, this bill does not place any limits whatsoever on the types of crimes that can be committed while undercover, doing nothing to ensure scandals like the Pat Finucane murder never happen again. It places many lawful organisations, including trade unions, at risk of infiltration where crimes can lawfully be committed against their members.
Some MPs who debated the bill last week seemed utterly incredulous at the idea that any agents of the British state might ever seek to spy on trade unions or their members. I don’t know where they’ve been for the last few years, but the revelations over the links between unlawful undercover policing and blacklisting operations have already been admitted by Scotland Yard. Peter Francis, formerly an undercover cop in the Met’s Special Demonstrations Squad (SDS), has admitted infiltrating and spying on five national trade unions, in addition to anti-racist movements, justice campaigns, socialist groups and environmental activists. We’re not talking about terrorists or child sexual exploitation rings here. The families of Stephen Lawrence and Ricky Reel, murdered in brutal racist attacks, were spied on as they sought justice for their loved ones.
Francis has offered to give evidence to the public inquiry now under the stewardship of Sir John Mitting (a process dragging on for so long that the initial presiding Judge, Lord Justice Pitchford, has had to step down on health grounds). Victims of Francis’ ‘spycops’ colleagues on the SDS are days away from beginning their formal hearings, including women tricked into intimate sexual relationships on false pretences – actions that campaigners believe constitutes statutory rape. The Met has just apologised for the actions of undercover cop Bob Lambert, who fathered a child with a woman he misled in this way, paying compensation to the son he deserted at two years old – now a 26-year-old man.
Whilst the government’s decision to clarify the issue of such authorisations by putting them on to a statutory footing is not necessarily unwelcome, the near-total lack of necessary safeguards should appall anyone concerned with human rights and basic freedoms in a democracy.
Security minister James Brokenshire is hiding behind the legal requirement for compliance with the Human Rights Act (1999), which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights. But the government’s track record suggests this is being put forward in bad faith. Not only have many Tory backbenchers flirted with revoking the HRA altogether, the government’s legal defence team has previously argued that the state cannot be held responsible for the human rights compliance of individual agents once lawfully authorised, telling the IPT, “the state, in tasking the CHIS… is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it… It would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
Unite has joined other trade unions, civil society organisations and civil liberties campaigners to warn MPs about this. The bill refuses to specify any upper limit to the nature of criminal acts that might be authorised, potentially allowing agencies to give the green light to torture, rape, arson, bombings and even murder. Nor does it forbid the surveillance of trade unions, so long as the agency could argue that such action was “proportionate” to a vague threat of “preventing disorder” or to “economic wellbeing”.
Unlike applications to tap phones or access someone’s internet browsing history, such a power would not even require prior independent judicial authorisation. Instead, the security services, police and other agencies given the power to authorise criminality would simply be left to decide for themselves when the relevant thresholds had been met. The bill provides no basis for compensating innocent victims of illegal actions undertaken by an authorised CHIS, so future victims of spycops would be left without legal redress.
The sheer range of organisations that would have such a power is shocking – including such unlikely spymasters as the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency, which aren’t even thought to be worthy of scrutiny by parliament’s intelligence and security committee.
While Labour rightly raised concerns about the lack of proper safeguards, by demanding that MPs abstain on the second reading of the CHIS bill, for the second time in recent weeks the party failed to sound the alarm to the wider public on an issue that should concern all trade unionists and social justice campaigners. Nevertheless, we welcome the amendments to the bill that Labour has tabled to be voted upon on Thursday, and hope all MPs get behind these necessary safeguards.
But let’s be under no illusions: if Boris Johnson’s Tories use their parliamentary majority to block these essential amendments, it would be a total dereliction of duty for the party of organised labour to continue to sit on its hands. We owe it to the victims waiting to give evidence to the public inquiry that the proceedings aren’t undermined by this outrageous attempt to legitimise the very behaviour for which they are seeking long-overdue redress.


labourlist--2020-10-12--PM’s handling of Covid has “eroded public confidence”, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has argued that the “ serial failure ” of the Prime Minister to meet the Covid commitments he has made , combined with repeated leaks to the media , has “ fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most ” .
Responding to a Commons statement delivered by Boris Johnson this afternoon , the Labour leader told MPs that he is “ deeply sceptical that the government actually has a plan to get control of this virus ” .
Starmer said Labour would “ look at the small print ” , discuss with local leaders the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scrutinise the financial support measures being offered by the government .
Yet the opposition leader also declared to the Commons this afternoon : “ We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt , but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is behind the curve.
” Reminding those watching that it has only been three weeks since the Prime Minister came to parliament to outline the current Covid restrictions in place , Starmer said : “ Those measures have not worked .
“ We wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there ’ s a pattern here .
On the 1st July , the Prime Minister told us of his whack-a-mole strategy to control local outbreaks .
“ 20 areas have now been in local lockdowns for over two months .
19 have seen their infection rates rise , some by very large amounts .
So those measures have not worked either .
“ In May , the Prime Minister boasted of a ‘ world-beating ’ track and trace system .
He told us it would be a real game-changer in the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the figures were the worst yet.
” Official data last week showed that the scheme reached only 68.6 % of close contacts of people who tested positive for Covid-19 in England in the week ending September 30th , compared to the 97.1 % of contacts reached by local teams .
The Prime Minister used his statement to parliament this afternoon to outline the new lockdown approach , which will see areas categorised into three tiers of restrictions according to alert levels ‘ medium ’ , ‘ high ’ and ‘ very high ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the medium level means baseline restrictions already in place across the country , including the 10pm curfew for hospitality businesses and the ‘ rule of six ’ restriction .
Johnson then explained that the high alert level “ reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment ” , with the rule of six in place for gatherings outdoors , in private gardens and public spaces .
He added that the very high level , applied where the “ NHS could soon be unbearable pressure without further restrictions ” , will mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include the closure of bars and pubs .
The government has seen growing opposition to its local lockdown approach to suppressing the virus , particularly in the North of England , and over its confused and last-minute messaging in the pandemic .
Criticism over the lack of communication between central and local government has increased in recent days as the press was briefed on changes to the Covid response in a series of leaks .
Lisa Nandy accused Johnson on Sunday of having “ gone missing all weekend while these decisions are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about changes to the government ’ s Covid strategy .
Several MPs representing northern constituencies complained earlier today after they received last-minute invitations to join Zoom calls with the Health Secretary , with some receiving the email just minutes before the meeting .
Oldham MP and Labour frontbencher Jim McMahon tweeted that he had received the invitation 20 minutes before it started , saying : “ This is really poor even by current standards , like most things it appears an afterthought.
” Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Sheffield Healey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments , adding “ you did better than us , I got my invite five minutes after the meeting had started ” .
Labour MP for Warrington North Charlotte Nichols slammed the government after officials invited her to a briefing for the wrong area .
She highlighted that her constituency is not in Merseyside or the Liverpool City region .
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy took to social media after reports emerged that Manchester is to be placed in tier two , but revealed she was not invited to the meeting although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region .
She tweeted : “ Apparently there was a government briefing for Greater Manchester MPs but I can ’ t provide details because I wasn ’ t invited .
I suspect this is because they don ’ t know where Wigan is .
What an absolute shambles.
” Downing Street warned this morning that the country is at a “ critical juncture ” in its fight against the coronavirus after reports emerged that areas in the North , such as Manchester and Liverpool , were poised for new restrictions .
Greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to place the region in tier two , meaning that the city will avoid the toughest restrictions under the government ’ s new three-tier Covid response , calling it the “ right decision ” .
But Burnham added : “ Any restrictions will lead to loss of trade for businesses and challenges for councils .
The Prime Minister must give all areas under restrictions full financial support .
Anything less will see them levelled down.
” Below is the full text of the speech delivered by Starmer in the Commons today .
Mr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical moment .
A “ tipping point ” to quote the deputy chief medical officer .
We ’ ve all seen the clear – and alarming – trend in infection rates .
The virus is now spreading in all areas of the UK – though much faster in some than others .
There are more patients in hospital with Covid today than when the country went into lockdown on March 23rd .
Nobody should be under any illusion about where this is heading .
Or of the need for decisive action .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Prime Minister can bring the country back from the brink .
Whether they can regain control of the virus and provide the support and confidence that local businesses and communities need .
That ’ s how high the stakes now are .
So we will consider the package .
We will look at the small print of the Prime Minister ’ s statement , we will discuss them with local mayors , councillors and leaders in the areas most affected .
And we ’ ll scrutinise the economic package that sits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say to the Prime Minister , I am now deeply sceptical that the government has actually got a plan to get control of this virus , to protect jobs or regain public trust .
We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt , but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is several steps behind the curve and running to catch up with a virus that he has lost control of long ago .
It was less than three weeks ago – 22 September – the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions .
He said then that the measures he was introducing would “ curb the number of daily infections ” .
And were “ carefully judged to achieved the maximum reduction in the R number ” .
That has not happened .
Those measures have not worked .
We would not be here today if they had .
And there ’ s a pattern here : On 1 July the Prime Minister told us of his new ‘ whack a mole ’ strategy to control local outbreaks .
20 areas have now been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 have seen their infection rates rise – some by very large amounts .
So those measures have also not worked .
In May the Prime Minister boasted of the ‘ world beating ’ track and trace system .
He told us it would be ‘ a real game changer ’ in the fight against the virus .
We have debated this many times since .
But last week the figures were the worst yet .
In June he promised that 100 % of test results would be turned around within 24 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just 24 % .
This serial failure , combined with the repeated leaks and briefings to newspapers has fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most .
So can the Prime Minister tell us : What reassurance can he give that these measures will be sufficient to get the virus under control ?
Will he finally accept that trace and isolate should be handed over to local authorities – as we have said for months ?
Will he accept that the support packages announced by the Chancellor simply won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Particularly for those on the minimum wage ?
And will he confirm that mayors , council leaders and local leaders will be fully involved in any future decisions ?
Finally , I want to say this to the Prime Minister : I know there are those on his side who will oppose further restrictions .
There will be those who look at the data and tell him to disregard it .
Or say that the cost of acting now is too high .
I want to be clear : The worst thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act quickly and decisively enough .
Or to keep coming back to this House every couple of weeks with a new plan that doesn ’ t work and isn ’ t up to the scale of the task .
We need to break that cycle , finally get on top of the virus , rebuild public confidence .
I hope the measures announced today will do so .
But the House , and the country , will be deeply sceptical whether they can .
”

Keir Starmer has argued that the “serial failure” of the Prime Minister to meet the Covid commitments he has made, combined with repeated leaks to the media, has “fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most”.
Responding to a Commons statement delivered by Boris Johnson this afternoon, the Labour leader told MPs that he is “deeply sceptical that the government actually has a plan to get control of this virus”.
Starmer said Labour would “look at the small print”, discuss with local leaders the new three-tier lockdown plan outlined by Johnson and scrutinise the financial support measures being offered by the government.
Yet the opposition leader also declared to the Commons this afternoon: “We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is behind the curve.”
Reminding those watching that it has only been three weeks since the Prime Minister came to parliament to outline the current Covid restrictions in place, Starmer said: “Those measures have not worked.
“We wouldn’t be here today if they had. And there’s a pattern here. On the 1st July, the Prime Minister told us of his whack-a-mole strategy to control local outbreaks.
“20 areas have now been in local lockdowns for over two months. 19 have seen their infection rates rise, some by very large amounts. So those measures have not worked either.
“In May, the Prime Minister boasted of a ‘world-beating’ track and trace system. He told us it would be a real game-changer in the fight against the virus… But last week, the figures were the worst yet.”
Official data last week showed that the scheme reached only 68.6% of close contacts of people who tested positive for Covid-19 in England in the week ending September 30th, compared to the 97.1% of contacts reached by local teams.
The Prime Minister used his statement to parliament this afternoon to outline the new lockdown approach, which will see areas categorised into three tiers of restrictions according to alert levels ‘medium’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’.
He told the Commons today that the medium level means baseline restrictions already in place across the country, including the 10pm curfew for hospitality businesses and the ‘rule of six’ restriction.
Johnson then explained that the high alert level “reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment”, with the rule of six in place for gatherings outdoors, in private gardens and public spaces.
He added that the very high level, applied where the “NHS could soon be unbearable pressure without further restrictions”, will mean a ban on social gathering indoors and include the closure of bars and pubs.
The government has seen growing opposition to its local lockdown approach to suppressing the virus, particularly in the North of England, and over its confused and last-minute messaging in the pandemic.
Criticism over the lack of communication between central and local government has increased in recent days as the press was briefed on changes to the Covid response in a series of leaks.
Lisa Nandy accused Johnson on Sunday of having “gone missing all weekend while these decisions are being made” amid leaks to the papers about changes to the government’s Covid strategy.
“Those measures have not worked, we wouldn’t be here today if they had” Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says the government’s “serial failure… has fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most”https://t.co/ZeqPD07th4 pic.twitter.com/1EuYevjDV7 — BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) October 12, 2020
Several MPs representing northern constituencies complained earlier today after they received last-minute invitations to join Zoom calls with the Health Secretary, with some receiving the email just minutes before the meeting.
Oldham MP and Labour frontbencher Jim McMahon tweeted that he had received the invitation 20 minutes before it started, saying: “This is really poor even by current standards, like most things it appears an afterthought.”
Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Sheffield Healey MP Louise Haigh quote tweeted McMahon’s comments, adding “you did better than us, I got my invite five minutes after the meeting had started”.
Labour MP for Warrington North Charlotte Nichols slammed the government after officials invited her to a briefing for the wrong area. She highlighted that her constituency is not in Merseyside or the Liverpool City region.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy took to social media after reports emerged that Manchester is to be placed in tier two, but revealed she was not invited to the meeting although her constituency of Wigan does fall within the region.
She tweeted: “Apparently there was a government briefing for Greater Manchester MPs but I can’t provide details because I wasn’t invited. I suspect this is because they don’t know where Wigan is. What an absolute shambles.”
Downing Street warned this morning that the country is at a “critical juncture” in its fight against the coronavirus after reports emerged that areas in the North, such as Manchester and Liverpool, were poised for new restrictions.
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham welcomed the move to place the region in tier two, meaning that the city will avoid the toughest restrictions under the government’s new three-tier Covid response, calling it the “right decision”.
But Burnham added: “Any restrictions will lead to loss of trade for businesses and challenges for councils. The Prime Minister must give all areas under restrictions full financial support. Anything less will see them levelled down.”
Below is the full text of the speech delivered by Starmer in the Commons today.
Mr Speaker, we are now at a critical moment. A “tipping point” to quote the deputy chief medical officer. We’ve all seen the clear – and alarming – trend in infection rates. The virus is now spreading in all areas of the UK – though much faster in some than others. There are more patients in hospital with Covid today than when the country went into lockdown on March 23rd. Nobody should be under any illusion about where this is heading. Or of the need for decisive action.
The question today is whether the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister can bring the country back from the brink. Whether they can regain control of the virus and provide the support and confidence that local businesses and communities need. That’s how high the stakes now are. So we will consider the package. We will look at the small print of the Prime Minister’s statement, we will discuss them with local mayors, councillors and leaders in the areas most affected. And we’ll scrutinise the economic package that sits alongside it. But I have to say to the Prime Minister, I am now deeply sceptical that the government has actually got a plan to get control of this virus, to protect jobs or regain public trust.
We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is several steps behind the curve and running to catch up with a virus that he has lost control of long ago. It was less than three weeks ago – 22 September – the Prime Minister came to this House to announce new restrictions. He said then that the measures he was introducing would “curb the number of daily infections”. And were “carefully judged to achieved the maximum reduction in the R number”. That has not happened. Those measures have not worked. We would not be here today if they had.
And there’s a pattern here: On 1 July the Prime Minister told us of his new ‘whack a mole’ strategy to control local outbreaks. 20 areas have now been in restrictions for over two months. 19 have seen their infection rates rise – some by very large amounts. So those measures have also not worked. In May the Prime Minister boasted of the ‘world beating’ track and trace system. He told us it would be ‘a real game changer’ in the fight against the virus. We have debated this many times since. But last week the figures were the worst yet. In June he promised that 100% of test results would be turned around within 24 hours. The latest figure for in-person testing is just 24%.
This serial failure, combined with the repeated leaks and briefings to newspapers has fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most. So can the Prime Minister tell us: What reassurance can he give that these measures will be sufficient to get the virus under control? Will he finally accept that trace and isolate should be handed over to local authorities – as we have said for months? Will he accept that the support packages announced by the Chancellor simply won’t work for many thousands of people. Particularly for those on the minimum wage? And will he confirm that mayors, council leaders and local leaders will be fully involved in any future decisions?
Finally, I want to say this to the Prime Minister: I know there are those on his side who will oppose further restrictions. There will be those who look at the data and tell him to disregard it. Or say that the cost of acting now is too high. I want to be clear: The worst thing the Prime Minister can do is not act quickly and decisively enough. Or to keep coming back to this House every couple of weeks with a new plan that doesn’t work and isn’t up to the scale of the task. We need to break that cycle, finally get on top of the virus, rebuild public confidence. I hope the measures announced today will do so. But the House, and the country, will be deeply sceptical whether they can.”


labourlist--2020-10-12--Delay “necessary but not enough to make exams fair for all”, says Labour

Kate Green has declared that the delay to A-Level and GCSE exams announced by the Education Secretary for assessments next year is “ necessary but not enough to make exams fair for all ” .
Responding to confirmation this afternoon that exams will be held in the summer of 2021 but delayed by three weeks , the Shadow Education Secretary urged the government to also “ look at other possibilities ” .
Gavin Williamson said today that the assessments will be subject to a three-week delay to allow for additional teaching time , following the announcement of other adjustments already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green argued that the government could have made the call on the 2021 exams delay “ weeks ago to give schools more time to prepare ” and “ must ensure that every pupil gets the support they need to catch up ” .
The changes revealed by the government today mean that summer exams in England will begin on June 7th and end on July 2nd for nearly all AS/A-Levels and GCSEs .
Students will receive their results on August 24th and 27th respectively .
Announcing the move , Gavin Williamson said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judging a student ’ s performance so they will go ahead , underpinned by contingency measures developed in partnership with the sector .
“ Students have experienced considerable disruption and it ’ s right we give them , and their teachers , the certainty that exams will go ahead and more time to prepare.
” But the call from the Shadow Education Secretary for the government to consider “ other possibilities ” to make sure that students are not disadvantaged academically in the pandemic echoes the demands of trade unions .
UCU general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delay in the start of exams in 2021 to allow students and teachers more time to complete courses is welcome , it is vital to consider how this will affect teacher workload and timetable planning .
“ Longer term , the current situation shows that we must seriously look at moving to a system of post-qualifications admissions , where students apply to university after their results .
“ Without substantial support from the government , and a commitment to genuine reform , further uncertainty around exams and marking systems will simply create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for staff.
” Both the Association of School and College Leaders and the union NAHT said they are “ dismayed ” at the government ’ s plan to counter Covid GCSE and A-Level disruption with the minor delay , describing the measure as “ inadequate ” .
Commenting this afternoon , ASCL general secretary Geoff Barton said : “ It has taken the government an eternity to reach a very inadequate response to the scale of the challenge which lies ahead for students who are taking GCSEs and A-levels next year .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks is of marginal benefit when compared to the loss of learning from the national lockdown and ongoing disruption .
There isn ’ t enough being done to make the exams themselves fairer.
” General secretary of the NAHT , Paul Whiteman said : “ A delay is one step which could benefit all students giving teachers more time to cover the content .
“ But along with the delay , comes a compression of the series , and we remain concerned about the impact of this on both student wellbeing and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic timetable comes after thousands of A-Level students in England , Wales and Northern Ireland received grades predicted by an algorithm over the summer as a result of exams being cancelled due to the pandemic .
The government came under sustained pressure after data published by Ofqual showed that the algorithm had resulted in 39.1 % of grades in England being moderated downwards , with the most disadvantaged pupils worst-affected .
The Education Secretary later performed what Keir Starmer described as a “ screeching U-turn ” , scrapping the controversial algorithm and awarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This latest announcement for schools in England comes after the Scottish government decided not to hold exams for its national five qualification , the equivalent of GCSEs , instead opting for a new system of school assessments .
Scotland has also said that its Highers and Advanced Highers – the equivalent of A-levels – will be delayed .
A-level , AS and GCSE exams in Northern Ireland will start one week later in 2021 but will still finish by June 30th .

Kate Green has declared that the delay to A-Level and GCSE exams announced by the Education Secretary for assessments next year is “necessary but not enough to make exams fair for all”.
Responding to confirmation this afternoon that exams will be held in the summer of 2021 but delayed by three weeks, the Shadow Education Secretary urged the government to also “look at other possibilities”.
Gavin Williamson said today that the assessments will be subject to a three-week delay to allow for additional teaching time, following the announcement of other adjustments already outlined by qualifications regulator Ofqual.
But Green argued that the government could have made the call on the 2021 exams delay “weeks ago to give schools more time to prepare” and “must ensure that every pupil gets the support they need to catch up”.
The changes revealed by the government today mean that summer exams in England will begin on June 7th and end on July 2nd for nearly all AS/A-Levels and GCSEs. Students will receive their results on August 24th and 27th respectively.
Announcing the move, Gavin Williamson said: “Exams are the fairest way of judging a student’s performance so they will go ahead, underpinned by contingency measures developed in partnership with the sector.
“Students have experienced considerable disruption and it’s right we give them, and their teachers, the certainty that exams will go ahead and more time to prepare.”
But the call from the Shadow Education Secretary for the government to consider “other possibilities” to make sure that students are not disadvantaged academically in the pandemic echoes the demands of trade unions.
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Whilst a delay in the start of exams in 2021 to allow students and teachers more time to complete courses is welcome, it is vital to consider how this will affect teacher workload and timetable planning.
“Longer term, the current situation shows that we must seriously look at moving to a system of post-qualifications admissions, where students apply to university after their results.
“Without substantial support from the government, and a commitment to genuine reform, further uncertainty around exams and marking systems will simply create further chaos for students and unbearable workloads for staff.”
Both the Association of School and College Leaders and the union NAHT said they are “dismayed” at the government’s plan to counter Covid GCSE and A-Level disruption with the minor delay, describing the measure as “inadequate”.
Commenting this afternoon, ASCL general secretary Geoff Barton said: “It has taken the government an eternity to reach a very inadequate response to the scale of the challenge which lies ahead for students who are taking GCSEs and A-levels next year.
“Delaying the start of exams by three weeks is of marginal benefit when compared to the loss of learning from the national lockdown and ongoing disruption. There isn’t enough being done to make the exams themselves fairer.”
General secretary of the NAHT, Paul Whiteman said: “A delay is one step which could benefit all students giving teachers more time to cover the content.
“But along with the delay, comes a compression of the series, and we remain concerned about the impact of this on both student wellbeing and their exam performance.”
The revision to the academic timetable comes after thousands of A-Level students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland received grades predicted by an algorithm over the summer as a result of exams being cancelled due to the pandemic.
The government came under sustained pressure after data published by Ofqual showed that the algorithm had resulted in 39.1% of grades in England being moderated downwards, with the most disadvantaged pupils worst-affected.
The Education Secretary later performed what Keir Starmer described as a “screeching U-turn”, scrapping the controversial algorithm and awarding grades to pupils based on teacher-predicted outcomes.
This latest announcement for schools in England comes after the Scottish government decided not to hold exams for its national five qualification, the equivalent of GCSEs, instead opting for a new system of school assessments.
Scotland has also said that its Highers and Advanced Highers – the equivalent of A-levels – will be delayed. A-level, AS and GCSE exams in Northern Ireland will start one week later in 2021 but will still finish by June 30th.


labourlist--2020-10-13--Vince Maple: Why I’m standing to represent local parties on Labour’s NEC

Like , I suspect , most people who read articles on LabourList about a candidate in an internal election , I love the Labour Party .
It is the place where we can bring about positive change for our communities , our country and our planet .
But the reality is that the Labour Party , like any organisation , is not perfect and over the last few years there have been several things that should have been done differently .
It is those things that have inspired me to put myself forward for Labour ’ s national executive committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports over the years from both Ann Black and more recently Alice Perry and wondering why on earth anyone would want to put themselves forward for that !
I ’ ve got five main pledges covering the key issues .
Firstly , selecting parliamentary candidates .
In both the 2017 and 2019 general elections , most candidates in the South East region were selected not by their Constituency Labour Party ( CLP ) but by a combination of NEC and regional board members .
In 2019 , more than 60 out of 84 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is totally unacceptable and should never happen again .
For some members , their parliamentary candidate selection is seen as a duty and we must ensure they are able to carry it out .
If I ’ m elected to the NEC , I will never support any process that cuts members out in the way we saw in 2017 and 2019 .
My second pledge is around complaints .
If you bring more than half a million people together , the reality is that sometimes things will go wrong .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-resourced , effective complaints process .
The Labour Party simply does not have that at the moment .
That isn ’ t about individual party staff who are doing their very best , but about having the right level of resources in such an important area .
I ’ m aware of several complaints that have taken years and still haven ’ t been resolved – that ’ s not good for the person who made the complaint , the person the complaint has been made about or , indeed , their branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call from Labour Women ’ s Network and Labour Too for sexual harassment cases to have an independent process and would be open to the complaints process for all cases to be independent if that is practicable .
My next pledge is on the issue of resources .
We need to make sure that CLPs , regions and nations have the resources to do their job properly .
A small percentage of your membership fee goes back to your CLP – I want to see a fairer distribution of resources to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recovering CLP secretary , so I know only too well the hours that CLP officers , all of whom are volunteers , put into making sure our grassroots organisations function as effectively as possible .
I firmly believe they deserve not only a huge amount of respect ( not least for dealing with the hundreds of emails for NEC candidates ) but also support to make their roles as straightforward as possible .
That means getting good access to training , better ways to share best practice and Labour Party technology that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to email all members or produce a leaflet to put out to your community .
My final pledge is around supporting our local elected representatives .
It has been a privilege to serve my hometown of Chatham on Medway Council since 2007 and to be one of nearly 7,000 councillors standing up for Labour values across the country .
We need to see more being done to support both councillors and local government committees in ensuring we have the best possible campaigns to increase that number further .
In a previous life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility for the Labour Party so , as well as being an election-winning machine , I absolutely want to see our party being a good employer , something that there is always room to improve on .
Finally , if elected as an independent candidate , I will work with whoever is elected alongside me .
I ’ ve got a proven track record of working with people across the internal political spectrum , most recently in my current role as chair of the South East regional board .
I hope you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this NEC election for me ultimately is not really about policy direction , although I ’ ve been happy to answer many questions on that so far .
It is about making sure we have a well-organised , functioning Labour Party , which uses all the talent of our members and is ready to fight local , regional and national elections to put a stop to Tory incompetence and deliver Labour victories , starting in the critical elections next May .

Like, I suspect, most people who read articles on LabourList about a candidate in an internal election, I love the Labour Party. It is the place where we can bring about positive change for our communities, our country and our planet. But the reality is that the Labour Party, like any organisation, is not perfect and over the last few years there have been several things that should have been done differently. It is those things that have inspired me to put myself forward for Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) – despite reading feedback reports over the years from both Ann Black and more recently Alice Perry and wondering why on earth anyone would want to put themselves forward for that!
I’ve got five main pledges covering the key issues. Firstly, selecting parliamentary candidates. In both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, most candidates in the South East region were selected not by their Constituency Labour Party (CLP) but by a combination of NEC and regional board members. In 2019, more than 60 out of 84 candidates were selected that way. That is totally unacceptable and should never happen again. For some members, their parliamentary candidate selection is seen as a duty and we must ensure they are able to carry it out. If I’m elected to the NEC, I will never support any process that cuts members out in the way we saw in 2017 and 2019.
My second pledge is around complaints. If you bring more than half a million people together, the reality is that sometimes things will go wrong. It is critical that a good organisation has a well-resourced, effective complaints process. The Labour Party simply does not have that at the moment. That isn’t about individual party staff who are doing their very best, but about having the right level of resources in such an important area. I’m aware of several complaints that have taken years and still haven’t been resolved – that’s not good for the person who made the complaint, the person the complaint has been made about or, indeed, their branch and CLP. I am supportive of the call from Labour Women’s Network and Labour Too for sexual harassment cases to have an independent process and would be open to the complaints process for all cases to be independent if that is practicable.
My next pledge is on the issue of resources. We need to make sure that CLPs, regions and nations have the resources to do their job properly. A small percentage of your membership fee goes back to your CLP – I want to see a fairer distribution of resources to all parts of our party. I am a recovering CLP secretary, so I know only too well the hours that CLP officers, all of whom are volunteers, put into making sure our grassroots organisations function as effectively as possible. I firmly believe they deserve not only a huge amount of respect (not least for dealing with the hundreds of emails for NEC candidates) but also support to make their roles as straightforward as possible. That means getting good access to training, better ways to share best practice and Labour Party technology that doesn’t fail when you are attempting to email all members or produce a leaflet to put out to your community.
My final pledge is around supporting our local elected representatives. It has been a privilege to serve my hometown of Chatham on Medway Council since 2007 and to be one of nearly 7,000 councillors standing up for Labour values across the country. We need to see more being done to support both councillors and local government committees in ensuring we have the best possible campaigns to increase that number further. In a previous life, I was the GMB officer with responsibility for the Labour Party so, as well as being an election-winning machine, I absolutely want to see our party being a good employer, something that there is always room to improve on.
Finally, if elected as an independent candidate, I will work with whoever is elected alongside me. I’ve got a proven track record of working with people across the internal political spectrum, most recently in my current role as chair of the South East regional board. I hope you will lend me one of your preferences as this NEC election for me ultimately is not really about policy direction, although I’ve been happy to answer many questions on that so far. It is about making sure we have a well-organised, functioning Labour Party, which uses all the talent of our members and is ready to fight local, regional and national elections to put a stop to Tory incompetence and deliver Labour victories, starting in the critical elections next May.


labourlist--2020-10-13--Emma Lewell-Buck: “No child should go hungry in a country as wealthy as ours”

Emma Lewell-Buck , Labour MP for South Shields since 2013 , will present a ten minute rule motion to the House of Commons this afternoon on her school breakfast bill .
To find out more about the proposed legislation , we spoke to the MP ahead of her intervention… Sienna : You introduced the Food Insecurity Bill in the last parliament , asking the government to systematically measure household food insecurity , but it didn ’ t progress quickly enough to get through ?
Emma : It didn ’ t get through but the government agreed to do it anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years of lobbying and pushing , they agreed to it and the first figures should be released from that in 2021 .
They did exactly what I was asking – just didn ’ t put it in the legislation .
The worry is that we ’ ll get the figures next year , then they might say ‘ we won ’ t continue it for future years ’ because it ’ s not legislated for .
But it should give a household food insecurity measurement to look at the hotspots around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
I think we all know what ’ s driving it – punitive welfare reform and austerity measures – but to take the political football out of it , we can actually see for the first time , when these statistics are released , what is causing it .
And it can stop that toing and froing and that arguing , we can start to look at mitigating it rather than having this ongoing fight about ‘ is it austerity or not ?
’ .
Tell me a bit more about your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s dead straightforward , a bit like my food insecurity one was .
It ’ s making sure that every kid who needs a school breakfast gets one .
It applies to England only , because obviously it ’ s a devolved issue .
We ’ re using the clumsily named income deprivation affecting children index [ IDACI ] .
If 50 % of kids in a school are on that index , then the entire school will have funding for free school breakfasts every morning .
Some people might say , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t provide breakfast , that ’ s a social security problem rather than a Department for Education problem .
Why do you think breakfast should be eaten at school ?
There ’ s over four million children in poverty , and that was before Covid .
What we ’ re seeing is up to two million kids are arriving at school hungry and it impacts on your learning .
No matter how smart a kid is , no matter how amazing their teacher is , if you ’ re hungry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to eat again , you ’ re not able to learn .
All of the impact that has on learning , on self-esteem , it ’ s just a no brainer .
The money is actually there for it , it ’ s costed , so why not do it ?
Some people will say it ’ s the responsibility of parents , but if parents have nothing… There ’ s over eight million people living in food insecurity in the UK .
If you ’ ve got nothing , how can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people might say that instead of having the provision of breakfasts dependent on evidence of need or a request being made , why not make them universal ?
I think if we made it universal the funds probably wouldn ’ t be there and it would be less likely to get through the House .
There ’ s been a lot of work and background tweaking to be done to try to get it through .
I know this isn ’ t a catch all , this isn ’ t going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will make sure those most in need do get a free breakfast .
And because it will apply to the whole school , it will remove that stigma element as well .
Under your bill , schools make the request for breakfast funding instead of pupils themselves .
How does that process work exactly ?
Any school that has automatically over 50 % of children on the index [ gets the funding ] .
Other schools , if they want to have the funds , have to make a case to the DfE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costings that way .
There ’ s an underspend in free school meals , so there ’ s money there from that .
The soft drinks levy , there ’ s millions gone missing from that – nobody knows where it ’ s gone .
Why not use it for this provision ?
Have you got the support of the Labour leadership for this bill ?
What are their thoughts on it ?
They ’ re looking at it , they ’ re looking at the costings and the finances , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoken to Kate Green , I ’ ve spoken to Keir ’ s office .
I suppose it ties in well with Kate Green ’ s appointment because she was picked on the basis that she would look at education alongside child poverty due to her experience in that area .
It reflects the Labour leadership ’ s view of how the education brief should be approached .
Yes , and it goes back to what I was saying before .
No matter how talented you are , how clever you are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re hungry you can ’ t learn .
We ’ ve had teachers talk about kids turning up at school and rummaging through bins , irritable behaviours , kids getting angry and aggressive , all linked to hunger .
That impedes their learning .
We ’ ve got rising numbers of children going to hospital for malnutrition , and all of this has been exacerbated by the pandemic .
This bill was urgent before – now it ’ s doubly urgent .
I ’ m getting good noises from the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
Over 70 MPs from across the House support it now , even MPs from the devolved areas are supporting it because they see the benefit .
How many Tories have pledged their support ?
It ’ s grown , but at my last check it was about ten .
A few of them are key sponsors of the bill .
We ’ ve got Robert Halfon .
Have you been approaching MPs from other parties to secure more support across the House for the bill ?
Yes .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everything I ’ ve ever achieved has been through cross-party working .
The best things come out of the House through cross-party working .
Bearing in mind , that whole time , my party has been in opposition .
You need to work cross-party – otherwise it would just never happen .
I do have a reputation sometimes for being really partisan and really political , but I think still people can see this is a really simple , straight-forward bill , and the money is there to implement it .
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be against feeding hungry kids ?
How do you go about approaching other MPs ?
I just approach them and say this is what I ’ m doing… I think because of the issue , you ’ d have to be pretty hard-hearted to not support something like that .
Is your interest in children ’ s hunger informed by any personal experiences , things that you saw before entering parliament ?
As a social worker , you specialised in child protection ?
I didn ’ t come from a particularly wealthy background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s like to go without , I know what it ’ s like to struggle .
When I was a child protection social worker , I seen some really bad cases of neglect , hunger and poverty .
But what I ’ ve noticed over the last ten years is that those children who I used to work with are now becoming the norm as opposed to the exception .
Social services are seeing referrals rising for issues around poverty and hunger .
It ’ s awful that parents are being punished and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely beyond their control .
I ’ ve always said I would do everything I possibly could in my power to make sure that no kid went hungry in this country , so it ’ s something I ’ ve campaigned on from the minute I got into parliament .
I was one of the founding members of the APPG [ all-party parliamentary group ] on hunger with Frank Field , we set up Feeding Britain charity together and I ’ m still a trustee on that .
I will never rest because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country as rich as ours anybody should be going hungry , especially not children .
What are the experiences you ’ ve heard while developing this bill , in your charity work and from your constituents ?
I work quite closely with a lot of food banks in the constituency , and throughout lockdown I did shifts in them every Friday .
I was going out delivering parcels to families direct and chatting to them .
What I saw was a massive increase that we just couldn ’ t cope with .
Sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours , just driving around delivering food parcels to people .
Those food parcels were nowhere near enough , but when resources are tight even the charities are having to give less than they did before because they can ’ t cope with the volume .
A lot of that comes from my experience in my constituency , but also I ’ ve got friends who are teachers , I ’ ve spoken to teachers throughout the drafting of the bill .
They ’ re saying that it ’ s becoming commonplace to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threadbare clothing , with a grey pallor , hungry , rummaging in bins .
Teachers are regularly buying food to give them breakfast , whereas a bill like this would make a massive difference .
You ’ re not just catching one or two – you ’ re catching all the children who need that start to the day .
It ’ s not a panacea , but it ’ ll help make a dent .
Is there anything else you would like LabourList readers to know ?
If they could all contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MP to support us and join growing numbers across the House who are sending a very clear message to the government that no child should go hungry in a country as wealthy as ours .

Emma Lewell-Buck, Labour MP for South Shields since 2013, will present a ten minute rule motion to the House of Commons this afternoon on her school breakfast bill. To find out more about the proposed legislation, we spoke to the MP ahead of her intervention…
Sienna: You introduced the Food Insecurity Bill in the last parliament, asking the government to systematically measure household food insecurity, but it didn’t progress quickly enough to get through?
Emma: It didn’t get through but the government agreed to do it anyway. There was mounting support after a few years of lobbying and pushing, they agreed to it and the first figures should be released from that in 2021. They did exactly what I was asking – just didn’t put it in the legislation.
The worry is that we’ll get the figures next year, then they might say ‘we won’t continue it for future years’ because it’s not legislated for. But it should give a household food insecurity measurement to look at the hotspots around the country and see what’s driving it. I think we all know what’s driving it – punitive welfare reform and austerity measures – but to take the political football out of it, we can actually see for the first time, when these statistics are released, what is causing it. And it can stop that toing and froing and that arguing, we can start to look at mitigating it rather than having this ongoing fight about ‘is it austerity or not?’.
Tell me a bit more about your new school breakfast bill.
It’s dead straightforward, a bit like my food insecurity one was. It’s making sure that every kid who needs a school breakfast gets one. It applies to England only, because obviously it’s a devolved issue. We’re using the clumsily named income deprivation affecting children index [IDACI]. If 50% of kids in a school are on that index, then the entire school will have funding for free school breakfasts every morning.
Some people might say, this is the responsibility of parents and if they can’t provide breakfast, that’s a social security problem rather than a Department for Education problem. Why do you think breakfast should be eaten at school?
There’s over four million children in poverty, and that was before Covid. What we’re seeing is up to two million kids are arriving at school hungry and it impacts on your learning. No matter how smart a kid is, no matter how amazing their teacher is, if you’re hungry and worrying about where you’re going to eat again, you’re not able to learn. All of the impact that has on learning, on self-esteem, it’s just a no brainer. The money is actually there for it, it’s costed, so why not do it?
Some people will say it’s the responsibility of parents, but if parents have nothing… There’s over eight million people living in food insecurity in the UK. If you’ve got nothing, how can you?
On the other hand, some people might say that instead of having the provision of breakfasts dependent on evidence of need or a request being made, why not make them universal?
I think if we made it universal the funds probably wouldn’t be there and it would be less likely to get through the House. There’s been a lot of work and background tweaking to be done to try to get it through. I know this isn’t a catch all, this isn’t going to solve all the problems, but it will make sure those most in need do get a free breakfast. And because it will apply to the whole school, it will remove that stigma element as well.
Under your bill, schools make the request for breakfast funding instead of pupils themselves. How does that process work exactly?
Any school that has automatically over 50% of children on the index [gets the funding]. Other schools, if they want to have the funds, have to make a case to the DfE to say why and work out the costings that way.
There’s an underspend in free school meals, so there’s money there from that. The soft drinks levy, there’s millions gone missing from that – nobody knows where it’s gone. Why not use it for this provision?
Have you got the support of the Labour leadership for this bill? What are their thoughts on it?
They’re looking at it, they’re looking at the costings and the finances, but they are very supportive. I’ve spoken to Kate Green, I’ve spoken to Keir’s office.
I suppose it ties in well with Kate Green’s appointment because she was picked on the basis that she would look at education alongside child poverty due to her experience in that area. It reflects the Labour leadership’s view of how the education brief should be approached.
Yes, and it goes back to what I was saying before. No matter how talented you are, how clever you are, how amazing your teacher is, if you’re hungry you can’t learn. We’ve had teachers talk about kids turning up at school and rummaging through bins, irritable behaviours, kids getting angry and aggressive, all linked to hunger. That impedes their learning. We’ve got rising numbers of children going to hospital for malnutrition, and all of this has been exacerbated by the pandemic. This bill was urgent before – now it’s doubly urgent.
I’m getting good noises from the government and also we’ve got cross-party support. Over 70 MPs from across the House support it now, even MPs from the devolved areas are supporting it because they see the benefit.
How many Tories have pledged their support?
It’s grown, but at my last check it was about ten. A few of them are key sponsors of the bill. We’ve got Robert Halfon.
Have you been approaching MPs from other parties to secure more support across the House for the bill?
Yes. I’ve been in parliament for seven years, and everything I’ve ever achieved has been through cross-party working. The best things come out of the House through cross-party working. Bearing in mind, that whole time, my party has been in opposition. You need to work cross-party – otherwise it would just never happen. I do have a reputation sometimes for being really partisan and really political, but I think still people can see this is a really simple, straight-forward bill, and the money is there to implement it. Who would, in their right mind, be against feeding hungry kids?
How do you go about approaching other MPs?
I just approach them and say this is what I’m doing… I think because of the issue, you’d have to be pretty hard-hearted to not support something like that.
Is your interest in children’s hunger informed by any personal experiences, things that you saw before entering parliament? As a social worker, you specialised in child protection?
I didn’t come from a particularly wealthy background myself. I know what it’s like to go without, I know what it’s like to struggle. When I was a child protection social worker, I seen some really bad cases of neglect, hunger and poverty. But what I’ve noticed over the last ten years is that those children who I used to work with are now becoming the norm as opposed to the exception. Social services are seeing referrals rising for issues around poverty and hunger. It’s awful that parents are being punished and being monitored by social services for something largely beyond their control.
I’ve always said I would do everything I possibly could in my power to make sure that no kid went hungry in this country, so it’s something I’ve campaigned on from the minute I got into parliament. I was one of the founding members of the APPG [all-party parliamentary group] on hunger with Frank Field, we set up Feeding Britain charity together and I’m still a trustee on that. I will never rest because I don’t think in a country as rich as ours anybody should be going hungry, especially not children.
What are the experiences you’ve heard while developing this bill, in your charity work and from your constituents?
I work quite closely with a lot of food banks in the constituency, and throughout lockdown I did shifts in them every Friday. I was going out delivering parcels to families direct and chatting to them. What I saw was a massive increase that we just couldn’t cope with. Sometimes in my car for four or five hours, just driving around delivering food parcels to people. Those food parcels were nowhere near enough, but when resources are tight even the charities are having to give less than they did before because they can’t cope with the volume.
A lot of that comes from my experience in my constituency, but also I’ve got friends who are teachers, I’ve spoken to teachers throughout the drafting of the bill. They’re saying that it’s becoming commonplace to see kids turning up to school in threadbare clothing, with a grey pallor, hungry, rummaging in bins. Teachers are regularly buying food to give them breakfast, whereas a bill like this would make a massive difference. You’re not just catching one or two – you’re catching all the children who need that start to the day. It’s not a panacea, but it’ll help make a dent.
Is there anything else you would like LabourList readers to know?
If they could all contact their MP, try to get their MP to support us and join growing numbers across the House who are sending a very clear message to the government that no child should go hungry in a country as wealthy as ours.


labourlist--2020-10-13--Labour would have followed ‘circuit breaker’ SAGE advice, Ashworth says

While every other lobby journalist was distracted by the publication of the September scientific advisory group for emergencies ( SAGE ) minutes , LabourList was closely following the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting taking place over Zoom .
And we nabbed an exclusive : Keir Starmer told Labour MPs that he did not believe the party should vote against the government ’ s covert human intelligence sources bill ( criminal conduct ) bill at third reading this week , even if it is unamended .
Unite ’ s Howard Beckett had written for LabourList that afternoon to say it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party of organised labour to continue to sit on its hands ” if the Tories block the amendments , but it looks like MPs will be told to abstain rather than oppose the controversial ‘ spycops ’ bill on Thursday .
20 Labour MPs defied the whip at second reading to vote against the bill , which allows MI5 , police forces and other bodies including , er , the Food Standards Agency to commit criminal offences , but the next rebellion could be bigger .
Starmer explained to the PLP meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one source , a “ detailed response ” said another – that the bill would be tempered by the Human Rights Act , but MPs such as Sarah Owen expressed doubt because we the Tories aren ’ t exactly big fans of it .
She was among a number of MPs not in the Socialist Campaign Group to indicate concern over Labour ’ s abstention plan .
Others , of course , were “ impressed ” with Starmer ’ s efforts , and Tan Dhesi told LabourList that the meeting actually changed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check out my full write-up here .
Turning to the major news of the day , a SAGE document dump has revealed that ministers ignored advice three weeks ago to impose a ‘ circuit breaker ’ .
They can no longer claim to be “ following the science ” with a straight face : their top priority is to keep the economy going .
Describing the papers as “ alarming ” , Jonathan Ashworth established a clear position for Labour on the matter this morning : the opposition party would have followed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Shadow Health Secretary said “ the health of the economy goes hand in hand with the health of the public ” , pointed out that the NHS being overwhelmed itself affects economic growth , and argued that the government can not simply put the economy first because it “ doesn ’ t work like that ” .
Ashworth said he thought the business closures in Merseyside were necessary – and the government should have gone further .
It looks odd for Labour ’ s health spokesperson to appear to be urging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , the alert level with the toughest restrictions , when Labour mayor Andy Burnham has just won a high-profile campaign to keep Greater Manchester out of Tier 3 .
But the local leader is also in favour of tougher national restrictions .
The missing piece of the puzzle that would bring the seemingly divergent Labour arguments together is an opposition to the ‘ levelling down ’ aspect of the government ’ s approach , making this about regional inequality and fairness across the country .
But does the Labour leadership agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been lifted until it was right for areas in the North of England , rather than just London ?
Since the start , Starmer has instinctively favoured a lighter touch style compared to other Labour figures , as he worries about the non-Covid health consequences of lockdown .
The line he takes at PMQs and his first live televised press conference will be revealing .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

While every other lobby journalist was distracted by the publication of the September scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE) minutes, LabourList was closely following the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting taking place over Zoom. And we nabbed an exclusive: Keir Starmer told Labour MPs that he did not believe the party should vote against the government’s covert human intelligence sources bill (criminal conduct) bill at third reading this week, even if it is unamended. Unite’s Howard Beckett had written for LabourList that afternoon to say it would be a “total dereliction of duty for the party of organised labour to continue to sit on its hands” if the Tories block the amendments, but it looks like MPs will be told to abstain rather than oppose the controversial ‘spycops’ bill on Thursday.
20 Labour MPs defied the whip at second reading to vote against the bill, which allows MI5, police forces and other bodies including, er, the Food Standards Agency to commit criminal offences, but the next rebellion could be bigger. Starmer explained to the PLP meeting – a “long-winded speech” said one source, a “detailed response” said another – that the bill would be tempered by the Human Rights Act, but MPs such as Sarah Owen expressed doubt because we the Tories aren’t exactly big fans of it. She was among a number of MPs not in the Socialist Campaign Group to indicate concern over Labour’s abstention plan. Others, of course, were “impressed” with Starmer’s efforts, and Tan Dhesi told LabourList that the meeting actually changed his mind. For many more details, check out my full write-up here.
Turning to the major news of the day, a SAGE document dump has revealed that ministers ignored advice three weeks ago to impose a ‘circuit breaker’. They can no longer claim to be “following the science” with a straight face: their top priority is to keep the economy going. Describing the papers as “alarming”, Jonathan Ashworth established a clear position for Labour on the matter this morning: the opposition party would have followed the scientific advice. No messing around, the Shadow Health Secretary said “the health of the economy goes hand in hand with the health of the public”, pointed out that the NHS being overwhelmed itself affects economic growth, and argued that the government cannot simply put the economy first because it “doesn’t work like that”. Ashworth said he thought the business closures in Merseyside were necessary – and the government should have gone further.
It looks odd for Labour’s health spokesperson to appear to be urging the government to put more areas into Tier 3, the alert level with the toughest restrictions, when Labour mayor Andy Burnham has just won a high-profile campaign to keep Greater Manchester out of Tier 3. But the local leader is also in favour of tougher national restrictions. The missing piece of the puzzle that would bring the seemingly divergent Labour arguments together is an opposition to the ‘levelling down’ aspect of the government’s approach, making this about regional inequality and fairness across the country. But does the Labour leadership agree with Burnham that national lockdown should not have been lifted until it was right for areas in the North of England, rather than just London? Since the start, Starmer has instinctively favoured a lighter touch style compared to other Labour figures, as he worries about the non-Covid health consequences of lockdown. The line he takes at PMQs and his first live televised press conference will be revealing. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-10-13--Dodds and Allin-Khan endorse Open Labour NEC candidates

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds and shadow mental health minister Dr Rosena Allin-Khan have endorsed the Open Labour candidates in the ongoing contests to secure seats on Labour ’ s governing body .
Speaking at a rally held by the group this evening , Allin-Khan declared that the soft-left slate for the national executive committee ( NEC ) elections is “ amazing ” while Dodds declared her support for Ann Black as a “ really strong voice ” for members .
Allin-Khan told those at the event tonight : “ I think you ’ re just amazing .
I love what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many of you heard about me for the first time when I ran in the deputy leadership contest… “ But you made me feel so warm and welcome when I was with you .
I ’ m so proud to be part of the Labour family with you.
” Commenting on Jermain Jackman , who is standing to be one of the local party representatives on the party ’ s governing body , she added : “ He wants to enable more grassroots activism and mobilise grassroots activists .
“ And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that really well is because he comes from just having incredible life experience and understanding .
“ Much like I found when watching politics from a distance , you just often don ’ t see people that reflect you and your values , that look like you and sound like you .
And so I think he will be a powerful force for energising the grassroots.
” Describing her relationship with Ann Black , who is a local party secretary in Dodds ’ Oxford constituency , the Shadow Chancellor explained : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to introduce Ann at this meeting and I was absolutely delighted to do so .
“ I have known Ann for a very long time… She has consistently been a really strong voice , I think , for members – whatever ideological permutation they might come from , whatever part of the party they come from.
” The rally this evening was hosted by activists Abi Barinski and Maliha Reza .
It featured all of the candidates running on the Open Labour slate in the upcoming NEC elections , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shadow tourism and heritage minister Sobel co-founded Open Labour in 2015 before being elected to parliament as the MP for Leeds North West in the 2017 general election .
He stressed at the rally tonight the importance of voting for Jackman , who would be the first Black man elected to the NEC .
He said “ this historical shortfall has been pointed out to us ” and added there is “ no excuse ” for not voting to solve it .
Both Open Labour local representative candidates Black and Jackman used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whipping Labour MPs to abstain in recent votes on controversial bills on policing and military misconduct .
Jackman told participants at the event today : “ We see what ’ s happening in the world .
We ’ re seeing oppression , we ’ re seeing protests , we ’ re seeing war , we ’ re seeing conflicts , we ’ re seeing migrants die in the English Channel .
“ And me personally , I don ’ t feel like we have been outspoken enough , I don ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me question what platform are we standing on when we talk about internationalism… “ We ’ ve seen in recent weeks a number of bills going through parliament… and I do question – I question a lot on what we ’ re abstaining on and what we ’ re voting for and what we ’ re voting against.
” Seen to be the soft-left grouping within the Labour Party , Open Labour describes itself as the representative of the “ open left ” and states that it seeks to build a “ broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement .
The organisation ’ s full slate is comprised of George Lindars-Hammond for disabled representative and Alice Perry for the local government position , alongside Black and Jackman for Constituency Labour Party ( CLP ) representatives .
NEC nominations closed on September 27th , with 42 candidates making it onto the ballot in the CLP rep race .
Ballots will be sent out to members from October 19th with voting closing on November 12th .
The results will be announced the next day .

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds and shadow mental health minister Dr Rosena Allin-Khan have endorsed Open Labour candidates in the ongoing contests to secure seats on Labour’s governing body.
Addressing a rally held by the group this evening, Allin-Khan declared that the soft-left slate for the national executive committee (NEC) elections is “amazing” while Dodds declared her support for Ann Black as a “really strong voice” for members.
Allin-Khan told those at the event tonight: “I think you’re just amazing. I love what Open Labour stands for. I know that many of you heard about me for the first time when I ran in the deputy leadership contest…
“But you made me feel so warm and welcome when I was with you. I’m so proud to be part of the Labour family with you.”
Commenting on Jermain Jackman, who is standing to be one of the local party representatives on the party’s governing body, she added: “He wants to enable more grassroots activism and mobilise grassroots activists.
“And I think one way he will be able to do that really well is because he comes from just having incredible life experience and understanding.
“Much like I found when watching politics from a distance, you just often don’t see people that reflect you and your values, that look like you and sound like you. And so I think he will be a powerful force for energising the grassroots.”
Describing her relationship with Ann Black, who is a local party secretary in Dodds’ Oxford constituency, the Shadow Chancellor explained: “I was asked if I would be able to introduce Ann at this meeting and I was absolutely delighted to do so.
“I have known Ann for a very long time… She has consistently been a really strong voice, I think, for members – whatever ideological permutation they might come from, whatever part of the party they come from.”
The rally this evening was hosted by activists Abi Barinski and Maliha Reza. It featured all of the candidates running on the Open Labour slate in the upcoming NEC elections, as well as Dodds, Allin-Khan and Alex Sobel.
Shadow tourism and heritage minister Sobel co-founded Open Labour in 2015 before being elected to parliament as the MP for Leeds North West in the 2017 general election.
He stressed at the rally tonight the importance of voting for Jackman, who would be the first Black man elected to the NEC. He said “this historical shortfall has been pointed out to us” and added there is “no excuse” for not voting to solve it.
Both Open Labour local representative candidates Black and Jackman used the rally to criticise Keir Starmer for whipping Labour MPs to abstain in recent votes on controversial bills on policing and military misconduct.
Jackman told participants at the event today: “We see what’s happening in the world. We’re seeing oppression, we’re seeing protests, we’re seeing war, we’re seeing conflicts, we’re seeing migrants die in the English Channel.
“And me personally, I don’t feel like we have been outspoken enough, I don’t feel like we have championed enough… it makes me question what platform are we standing on when we talk about internationalism…
“We’ve seen in recent weeks a number of bills going through parliament… and I do question – I question a lot on what we’re abstaining on and what we’re voting for and what we’re voting against.”
Seen to be the soft-left grouping within the Labour Party, Open Labour describes itself as the representative of the “open left” and states that it seeks to build a “broad and diverse alliances” across the labour movement.
The organisation’s full slate is comprised of George Lindars-Hammond for disabled representative and Alice Perry for the local government position, alongside Black and Jackman for Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representatives.
NEC nominations closed on September 27th, with 42 candidates making it onto the ballot in the CLP rep race. Ballots will be sent out to members from October 19th with voting closing on November 12th. The results will be announced the next day.