labourlist--2020-02-13--Your questions answered on Labour Together’s review of the 2019 Labour general election campaign

There has been a huge amount of interest in the Labour Together Review of the 2019 general election campaign since it was launched just before Christmas .
Some of that interest is about Labour Together itself , what the organisation is and what work we ’ ve been doing since we were set up , and some of it about the ambitious task we ’ ve set ourselves , to analyse and investigate what has gone wrong for Labour over our four successive general election defeats since 2010 .
After the crushing general election defeat , we decided to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that we can come to a common understanding of what has gone so wrong for us over the last four elections , and how we can unite to win again .
You can read about the launch of the review here on LabourList , along with some of our previous work on the economy , the world of work , and belonging .
We thought it would be helpful to set out some of the frequently asked questions we ’ re hearing from across the Labour movement , so that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and encourage all members to take part in how we move forward together to plot a path back to power for the Party we all love .
1 .
What is Labour Together ?
Essentially , Labour Together is a group of committed Labour members , supporters and politicians who believe that “ by the strength of our common endeavour , we achieve more than we achieve alone ” .
The answers to the deep and difficult questions facing our movement and our country won ’ t be found at a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim is to create a space for people to have difficult but necessary political conversations face-to-face , in living rooms and around kitchen tables with people they might not ordinarily speak with .
We need a space within the Labour movement for all of us to step forward , to be heard and to listen .
We work with Labour members and supporters of every tradition to build a new political culture which can prepare the country for the next century and to shape it for everyone .
Here ’ s more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the common ground across our movement .
2 .
How can I contribute to the review ?
We ’ ve had 10,000 responses to our online survey collecting views from members across the Labour movement .
Anyone can share their thoughts on what worked and what didn ’ t during Labour ’ s campaign .
We ’ ve heard from members , Labour Party staff , trade unionists , local councillors , branch and CLP officers and many more .
Our survey contains open-ended questions , we don ’ t want to guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We want to hear from you in your own words .
Have your say , and make sure your voice is heard .
We ’ ll also be speaking directly to MPs , former MPs and candidates – both in the seats where we did well in and also those we lost and need to win to form a majority at the next general election .
If this is you , get in touch as we ’ re keen to hear from you .
3 .
Where does the funding come from for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a membership body or a faction , so we are funded by donations small and large from activists , trade unions and members who recognise our network needs to exist .
Our funding is registered on the Electoral Commission ’ s website .
4. Who has access to the data from the survey ?
Labour Together is not supporting any particular leadership campaign , and the data from our survey is not and will not be shared with any campaign .
Indeed , we ’ re not planning to launch our final report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed because we don ’ t want our findings to influence the result in any way .
The survey data is being held by a separate organisation who are administering the survey for us , and is not accessible to anyone other than the commissioners .
5 .
Is Labour Together for all Labour Party members ?
We ’ re proud to work across factions and none to bring people together to give Labour a fighting chance for the future .
We work with people from across our movement , bridging different groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other and build a common future .
Our commission has members from across the Labour family , and we are actively engaging with organisations like Momentum , Open Labour , the new Left , the Fabians , Progress , Labour First , local government , the unions and many others so that we can come to a collective view and understanding about how we can resolve the difficulties Labour faces , and build a better future together .

There has been a huge amount of interest in the Labour Together Review of the 2019 general election campaign since it was launched just before Christmas. Some of that interest is about Labour Together itself, what the organisation is and what work we’ve been doing since we were set up, and some of it about the ambitious task we’ve set ourselves, to analyse and investigate what has gone wrong for Labour over our four successive general election defeats since 2010.
After the crushing general election defeat, we decided to come together and build bridges across our movement, so that we can come to a common understanding of what has gone so wrong for us over the last four elections, and how we can unite to win again. You can read about the launch of the review here on LabourList, along with some of our previous work on the economy, the world of work, and belonging.
We thought it would be helpful to set out some of the frequently asked questions we’re hearing from across the Labour movement, so that we can assuage any concerns people may have, and encourage all members to take part in how we move forward together to plot a path back to power for the Party we all love.
1. What is Labour Together?
Essentially, Labour Together is a group of committed Labour members, supporters and politicians who believe that “by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone”. The answers to the deep and difficult questions facing our movement and our country won’t be found at a political podium but rather around tables.
Our aim is to create a space for people to have difficult but necessary political conversations face-to-face, in living rooms and around kitchen tables with people they might not ordinarily speak with. We need a space within the Labour movement for all of us to step forward, to be heard and to listen.
We work with Labour members and supporters of every tradition to build a new political culture which can prepare the country for the next century and to shape it for everyone. Here’s more about our philosophy, and our search for the common ground across our movement.
2. How can I contribute to the review?
We’ve had 10,000 responses to our online survey collecting views from members across the Labour movement. Anyone can share their thoughts on what worked and what didn’t during Labour’s campaign. We’ve heard from members, Labour Party staff, trade unionists, local councillors, branch and CLP officers and many more.
Our survey contains open-ended questions, we don’t want to guide responses in one way or another. We want to hear from you in your own words. Have your say, and make sure your voice is heard.
We’ll also be speaking directly to MPs, former MPs and candidates – both in the seats where we did well in and also those we lost and need to win to form a majority at the next general election. If this is you, get in touch as we’re keen to hear from you.
3. Where does the funding come from for Labour Together?
Labour Together is not a membership body or a faction, so we are funded by donations small and large from activists, trade unions and members who recognise our network needs to exist. Our funding is registered on the Electoral Commission’s website.
4. Who has access to the data from the survey?
Labour Together is not supporting any particular leadership campaign, and the data from our survey is not and will not be shared with any campaign. Indeed, we’re not planning to launch our final report until after the Labour leadership ballot has closed because we don’t want our findings to influence the result in any way. The survey data is being held by a separate organisation who are administering the survey for us, and is not accessible to anyone other than the commissioners.
5. Is Labour Together for all Labour Party members?
We’re proud to work across factions and none to bring people together to give Labour a fighting chance for the future. We work with people from across our movement, bridging different groups so that we can learn from each other and build a common future.
Our commission has members from across the Labour family, and we are actively engaging with organisations like Momentum, Open Labour, the new Left, the Fabians, Progress, Labour First, local government, the unions and many others so that we can come to a collective view and understanding about how we can resolve the difficulties Labour faces, and build a better future together.


labourlist--2020-02-13--Labour calls for investigation into funding of PM’s luxury holiday to Mustique

Labour has called for an investigation into the source of funding for the Prime Minister ’ s luxury holiday to Mustique by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards .
The person named by Boris Johnson as having paid for the holiday , David Ross , denied that he did so though has stated that he “ facilitated the accommodation ” – which Labour says “ leaves questions unanswered ” .
In a fresh letter to the relevant commissioner , Labour ’ s Jon Trickett has noted that “ the Code of Conduct requires Members to provide the name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a donation ” .
The shadow minister for the Cabinet Office wrote : “ Transparency is crucial to ensuring that the public have confidence that elected Members of this House have not been unduly influenced by any donations or gifts that they may receive.
” Trickett also raised the fact that Johnson has a record of failure on this subject .
The Prime Minister , before becoming Tory leader , was forced to apologise in 2019 after not properly declaring his expenses .
At the time , the committee on standards said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration , we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction ” .
Below is the full text of Jon Trickett ’ s letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards .
In the latest Register of Members ’ Financial Interests , the Prime Minister lists accommodation he accepted on the luxury private island resort of Mustique over the Christmas period as a benefit in kind valued at £15,000 .
This is in keeping with the House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states in Chapter 1 , paragraph 33 , that Members must register : “ Any travel or hospitality received in the course of a visit outside the UK , if it relates in any way to their membership of the House or to their parliamentary or political activities , including : … b ) hospitality , including hotel or other accommodation , and meals ” .
The Code of Conduct is also clear that when registering such a donation , Members are required to provide , among other details , “ The name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding the visit ” ( Chapter 1 , paragraph 36 ) .
The Prime Minister has listed a Mr David Ross as the name of the person who funded his accommodation .
However , as reported by the Daily Mail ( February 13 , 2020 ) , a spokesperson for Mr Ross has now categorically denied that he funded the Prime Minister ’ s accommodation , telling the press : “ Boris Johnson did not stay in David Ross ’ s house .
Boris wanted some help to find somewhere in Mustique , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the villas and somebody had dropped out .
So Boris got the use of a villa that was worth £15,000 , but David Ross did not pay any monies whatsoever for this ” .
The spokesperson added that Mr Ross had “ not put his hand in his pocket whatsoever and can obviously prove that ” .
As noted , the Code of Conduct requires Members to provide the name of the person or organisation that actually funded a donation .
The evidence now suggests it was not David Ross .
The entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be incorrect .
Despite this , the Prime Minister ’ s spokesperson this morning insisted that : “ All transparency requirements have been followed , as set out in the register of members ’ financial interests ” .
Clearly this statement provides no clarity to the confusion and will not satisfy public concern surrounding the donation .
A number of questions still need urgently answering : • If all transparency requirements have been followed , what is the source of the discrepancy and confusion between the account provided by Mr Ross and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules have been followed ?
• Did the Prime Minister accept the £15,000 donation without full knowledge of its true source ?
• If the entry is incorrect , did the Prime Minister knowingly make a false entry into the Register ?
• Who was the true source of the £15,000 donation ?
This case has added significance not only because of Mr Johnson ’ s pre-eminent public role as Prime Minister , but because in April 2019 he had to apologise to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Notably , the Committee asserted that “ should we conclude in future that Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration , we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction.
” Transparency is crucial to ensuring that the public have confidence that elected Members of this House have not been unduly influenced by any donations or gifts that they may receive .
For this reason , and the above concerns , I therefore request that you to investigate whether the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this donation .

Labour has called for an investigation into the source of funding for the Prime Minister’s luxury holiday to Mustique by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The person named by Boris Johnson as having paid for the holiday, David Ross, denied that he did so though has stated that he “facilitated the accommodation” – which Labour says “leaves questions unanswered”.
In a fresh letter to the relevant commissioner, Labour’s Jon Trickett has noted that “the Code of Conduct requires Members to provide the name of the person or organisation that actually funded a donation”.
The shadow minister for the Cabinet Office wrote: “Transparency is crucial to ensuring that the public have confidence that elected Members of this House have not been unduly influenced by any donations or gifts that they may receive.”
Trickett also raised the fact that Johnson has a record of failure on this subject. The Prime Minister, before becoming Tory leader, was forced to apologise in 2019 after not properly declaring his expenses.
At the time, the committee on standards said that “should we conclude in future that Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration, we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction”.
Below is the full text of Jon Trickett’s letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Dear Commissioner,
In the latest Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the Prime Minister lists accommodation he accepted on the luxury private island resort of Mustique over the Christmas period as a benefit in kind valued at £15,000.
This is in keeping with the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct, which states in Chapter 1, paragraph 33, that Members must register: “Any travel or hospitality received in the course of a visit outside the UK, if it relates in any way to their membership of the House or to their parliamentary or political activities, including: … b) hospitality, including hotel or other accommodation, and meals”.
The Code of Conduct is also clear that when registering such a donation, Members are required to provide, among other details, “The name and address of the person or organisation funding the visit” (Chapter 1, paragraph 36).
The Prime Minister has listed a Mr David Ross as the name of the person who funded his accommodation. However, as reported by the Daily Mail (February 13, 2020), a spokesperson for Mr Ross has now categorically denied that he funded the Prime Minister’s accommodation, telling the press:
“Boris Johnson did not stay in David Ross’s house. Boris wanted some help to find somewhere in Mustique, David called the company who run all the villas and somebody had dropped out. So Boris got the use of a villa that was worth £15,000, but David Ross did not pay any monies whatsoever for this”.
The spokesperson added that Mr Ross had “not put his hand in his pocket whatsoever and can obviously prove that”.
As noted, the Code of Conduct requires Members to provide the name of the person or organisation that actually funded a donation. The evidence now suggests it was not David Ross. The entry made by the Prime Minister therefore appears to be incorrect. Despite this, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson this morning insisted that:
“All transparency requirements have been followed, as set out in the register of members’ financial interests”.
Clearly this statement provides no clarity to the confusion and will not satisfy public concern surrounding the donation. A number of questions still need urgently answering:
If all transparency requirements have been followed, what is the source of the discrepancy and confusion between the account provided by Mr Ross and the Prime Minister’s insistence that the rules have been followed?
Did the Prime Minister accept the £15,000 donation without full knowledge of its true source?
If the entry is incorrect, did the Prime Minister knowingly make a false entry into the Register?
Who was the true source of the £15,000 donation?
This case has added significance not only because of Mr Johnson’s pre-eminent public role as Prime Minister, but because in April 2019 he had to apologise to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards for failing to declare expenses correctly. Notably, the Committee asserted that “should we conclude in future that Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration, we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction.”
Transparency is crucial to ensuring that the public have confidence that elected Members of this House have not been unduly influenced by any donations or gifts that they may receive. For this reason, and the above concerns, I therefore request that you to investigate whether the Prime Minister has followed all transparency requirements when registering this donation.
Yours sincerely,
Jon Trickett MP
Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office


labourlist--2020-02-13--Labour’s next leader must consider the gentrification of our membership

OnLondon recently carried an article about a group of members in Haringey calling for the creation of a “ working-class section ” in response to the gentrification of the Labour Party .
It is important not to rose-tint the past , and from the beginning Labour has had a strong middle-class component , including figures such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb , Stafford Cripps and , of course , Clement Attlee .
My research into Labour ’ s parliamentary recruitment , however , proves that the middle-classes are far more dominant now than they were in the 1970s and ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Tony Blair , Gordon Brown , Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn alike , making it a valid and pressing point to raise .
But a working-class section is not the solution .
The biggest problem is simply deciding who is working-class .
Around 60 % of British people define themselves as working-class when asked , even though less than a quarter now work in traditionally working-class routine or manual jobs .
Nearly half of people in the B and C income groups define themselves as working-class .
Most modern working-class people work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centres , dead-end white-collar admin work or the gig economy .
This presents a problem for those wanting to decide who to let into a working-class section .
Self-defining , as the above numbers show , would be a mockery .
Definitions based on traditional blue-collar work would also fail .
Very few people in Britain are comfortable declaring their income openly , so that would also be problematic .
Nevertheless , there are things that can be done to boost working-class participation in the Labour Party .
Firstly , the championing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the party , of which there are very few .
Research shows that when working-class kids go to university , they adopt middle-class opinions , habits and sensibilities to ‘ blend-in ’ .
So even those with a working-class upbringing will not have the same mindset as non-graduates .
Angela Rayner is one of the very few now at the top of the party .
Giving voices like hers prominence demonstrates that there is still a place for non-graduates in the party , as figures like Alan Johnson and John Prescott did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is resources .
A fund for people to attend conference and other big networking events would run into the same issue of definition , but there are other ways of making them cheaper .
Uniquely amongst UK-wide parties , Labour ’ s conference has not been held in the Midlands since 1932 .
The Tories , Lib Dems , Greens and UKIP have all held their conference in Birmingham in the last decade .
Being central , the Midlands is much cheaper to get to than places like Brighton for many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the holding of branch and constituency party meetings between a weekday evening and weekend afternoon would open the party up to shift workers , carers and single parents .
A mentoring scheme similar to that of the Labour Women ’ s Network would be beneficial , but if formalised would again have the definition issue .
Instead , MPs should be encouraged to support – and crucially hire – non-graduates in the party .
We need a comprehensive scheme of political education , so that our weird and wonderful terminology such as ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and ‘ nem .
con ’ can be explained to people who don ’ t regularly listen to BBC Radio 4 .
An understanding across the party that Labour was founded on the notion of self-interest and collective self-help , and that this is not a bad thing , would also be helpful .
Ideological purity tests put off those who can ’ t afford them .
Lastly , we need to revitalise the trade union movement .
As unions fell back and higher education grew , more and more people had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to events in the workplace but rather due to ideology at university .
We need to bring that union conveyor belt back online if we want more working-class people in the party .
Some of these are relatively simple , others are easier said than done .
But with Labour now debating its role and future direction , the question of whether there is still a place for the working class is both urgent and timely .
It is to be hoped that those vying to lead the party are considering it .

OnLondon recently carried an article about a group of members in Haringey calling for the creation of a “working-class section” in response to the gentrification of the Labour Party. It is important not to rose-tint the past, and from the beginning Labour has had a strong middle-class component, including figures such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Stafford Cripps and, of course, Clement Attlee.
My research into Labour’s parliamentary recruitment, however, proves that the middle-classes are far more dominant now than they were in the 1970s and ’80s. Gentrification has been steadily increasing under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn alike, making it a valid and pressing point to raise. But a working-class section is not the solution.
The biggest problem is simply deciding who is working-class. Around 60% of British people define themselves as working-class when asked, even though less than a quarter now work in traditionally working-class routine or manual jobs. Nearly half of people in the B and C income groups define themselves as working-class. Most modern working-class people work in jobs like social care, call centres, dead-end white-collar admin work or the gig economy.
This presents a problem for those wanting to decide who to let into a working-class section. Self-defining, as the above numbers show, would be a mockery. Definitions based on traditional blue-collar work would also fail. Very few people in Britain are comfortable declaring their income openly, so that would also be problematic. Nevertheless, there are things that can be done to boost working-class participation in the Labour Party.
Firstly, the championing of working-class and non-graduate voices at the top of the party, of which there are very few. Research shows that when working-class kids go to university, they adopt middle-class opinions, habits and sensibilities to ‘blend-in’. So even those with a working-class upbringing will not have the same mindset as non-graduates. Angela Rayner is one of the very few now at the top of the party. Giving voices like hers prominence demonstrates that there is still a place for non-graduates in the party, as figures like Alan Johnson and John Prescott did for New Labour.
The next big thing is resources. A fund for people to attend conference and other big networking events would run into the same issue of definition, but there are other ways of making them cheaper. Uniquely amongst UK-wide parties, Labour’s conference has not been held in the Midlands since 1932. The Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP have all held their conference in Birmingham in the last decade. Being central, the Midlands is much cheaper to get to than places like Brighton for many people.
On the local level, alternating the holding of branch and constituency party meetings between a weekday evening and weekend afternoon would open the party up to shift workers, carers and single parents. A mentoring scheme similar to that of the Labour Women’s Network would be beneficial, but if formalised would again have the definition issue. Instead, MPs should be encouraged to support – and crucially hire – non-graduates in the party.
We need a comprehensive scheme of political education, so that our weird and wonderful terminology such as ‘factions’, ‘all woman shortlists’ and ‘nem. con’ can be explained to people who don’t regularly listen to BBC Radio 4. An understanding across the party that Labour was founded on the notion of self-interest and collective self-help, and that this is not a bad thing, would also be helpful. Ideological purity tests put off those who can’t afford them.
Lastly, we need to revitalise the trade union movement. As unions fell back and higher education grew, more and more people had their moment of politicisation happen not due to events in the workplace but rather due to ideology at university. We need to bring that union conveyor belt back online if we want more working-class people in the party.
Some of these are relatively simple, others are easier said than done. But with Labour now debating its role and future direction, the question of whether there is still a place for the working class is both urgent and timely. It is to be hoped that those vying to lead the party are considering it.


labourlist--2020-02-13--5 dividing lines from the second televised Labour leadership debate

Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey took markedly different positions to Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry , which reflected their stances on Brexit over the last few years .
Nandy reminded everyone that she was a Remainer initially , but respected the outcome of the referendum .
Long-Bailey talked about the “ palpable ” anger from people in her constituency , and made the case for looking beyond Brexit to a future outside Europe .
Starmer also tried to do this but fell down a bit as he couldn ’ t quite rule out customs union or single market membership when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
Similarly , Thornberry only wanted to emphasise that the UK should keep a close relationship with its EU neighbours .
Long-Bailey , Nandy and Starmer all cited tackling antisemitism as their first priority as the next leader .
Asked whether as Labour leader they would see suspended national executive committee representative Pete Willsman expelled from the party , both Starmer and Thornberry answered emphatically yes .
Nandy and Long-Bailey chose to point out that – under the new disciplinary process to which all candidates have signed up – this would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but of an independent body .
Thornberry ’ s Newsnight claim that Long-Bailey had not spoken out on antisemitism in the shadow cabinet was raised again .
The Shadow Business Secretary insisted that she had done so , before adding : “ We can have a competition between us all about who spoke out the most..
But all of us did not do enough on this issue .
I take responsibility for that.
” Taking a swipe at her frontbencher rivals , Nandy said : “ Sitting in the shadow cabinet , asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying silent is not good enough.
” Long-Bailey had a question directed solely at her about whether she had supported the IHRA definition of antisemitism .
She said yes , but admitted that she had not been pushing for the examples , which was central to the arguments over the summer on this subject .
Meanwhile , Thornberry offered further insights into her poor relations with the leader ’ s office .
She claimed that when she tried to raise the issue , staffers said it was “ none of her business ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidates were asked to support a set of pledges circulated on social media that committed to expelling members for expressing transphobic views .
Long-Bailey and Nandy reiterated their support for the pledges .
Starmer maintained his line that “ trans rights are human rights ” but he would not commit either way on the pledges .
Long-Bailey directly challenged an audience member supportive of Woman ’ s Place UK to say that “ trans women are women and trans men are men ” , for which she received a round of applause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Labour leader , three cited antisemitism first .
Starmer also talked about unity – after all , the frontrunner has consistently pitched himself as the unity candidate .
He asserted that the party had to “ pull together ” no less than three times throughout the debate and twice in his opening statement .
Nandy said she would “ get investment back into areas that have seen 40 years of economic decline ” , mirroring her focus on towns in the northern and midlands ex-Labour heartlands lost in December .
Thornberry said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition , which aligns with her emphasis on being the candidate with the most fight and therefore best-placed to beat Boris Johnson .
Long-Bailey highlighted her interest in policy , saying she would develop a “ transformational ” programme .
Starmer refused to be drawn on the commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 , stating that time was against the Labour Party on this considering that they would not be in power until 2024 at the earliest .
The Holborn MP said that he would want to commit to the target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election… if we can reach that in six years , then great ” .
Thornberry agreed with Starmer and simply said that “ we lost the opportunity to take a leadership role ” .
Nandy claimed “ you can ’ t answer yes/no ” on the matter .
But Long-Bailey replied with an emphatic “ yes ” , declaring that she has a plan and that the party needed to be “ unambiguous ” with its members on this issue .

The UK’s post-Brexit future
Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey took markedly different positions to Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, which reflected their stances on Brexit over the last few years. Nandy reminded everyone that she was a Remainer initially, but respected the outcome of the referendum. Long-Bailey talked about the “palpable” anger from people in her constituency, and made the case for looking beyond Brexit to a future outside Europe. Starmer also tried to do this but fell down a bit as he couldn’t quite rule out customs union or single market membership when asked ‘yes or no’ several times. Similarly, Thornberry only wanted to emphasise that the UK should keep a close relationship with its EU neighbours.
Labour’s handling of antisemitism
Long-Bailey, Nandy and Starmer all cited tackling antisemitism as their first priority as the next leader. Asked whether as Labour leader they would see suspended national executive committee representative Pete Willsman expelled from the party, both Starmer and Thornberry answered emphatically yes. Nandy and Long-Bailey chose to point out that – under the new disciplinary process to which all candidates have signed up – this would not be the decision of the Labour leader but of an independent body.
Thornberry’s Newsnight claim that Long-Bailey had not spoken out on antisemitism in the shadow cabinet was raised again. The Shadow Business Secretary insisted that she had done so, before adding: “We can have a competition between us all about who spoke out the most.. But all of us did not do enough on this issue. I take responsibility for that.”Taking a swipe at her frontbencher rivals, Nandy said: “Sitting in the shadow cabinet, asking for reports, not receiving them and staying silent is not good enough.”
Long-Bailey had a question directed solely at her about whether she had supported the IHRA definition of antisemitism. She said yes, but admitted that she had not been pushing for the examples, which was central to the arguments over the summer on this subject. Meanwhile, Thornberry offered further insights into her poor relations with the leader’s office. She claimed that when she tried to raise the issue, staffers said it was “none of her business”.
Signing the trans rights pledges
Transgender rights came up again as the candidates were asked to support a set of pledges circulated on social media that committed to expelling members for expressing transphobic views. Long-Bailey and Nandy reiterated their support for the pledges. Starmer maintained his line that “trans rights are human rights” but he would not commit either way on the pledges. Long-Bailey directly challenged an audience member supportive of Woman’s Place UK to say that “trans women are women and trans men are men”, for which she received a round of applause.
Key priorities as Labour leader
Asked what their priorities would be as Labour leader, three cited antisemitism first. Starmer also talked about unity – after all, the frontrunner has consistently pitched himself as the unity candidate. He asserted that the party had to “pull together” no less than three times throughout the debate and twice in his opening statement. Nandy said she would “get investment back into areas that have seen 40 years of economic decline”, mirroring her focus on towns in the northern and midlands ex-Labour heartlands lost in December. Thornberry said she would focus on fighting back in opposition, which aligns with her emphasis on being the candidate with the most fight and therefore best-placed to beat Boris Johnson. Long-Bailey highlighted her interest in policy, saying she would develop a “transformational” programme.
Net-zero by 2030
Starmer refused to be drawn on the commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, stating that time was against the Labour Party on this considering that they would not be in power until 2024 at the earliest. The Holborn MP said that he would want to commit to the target but “we just lost a general election… if we can reach that in six years, then great”.
Thornberry agreed with Starmer and simply said that “we lost the opportunity to take a leadership role”. Nandy claimed “you can’t answer yes/no” on the matter. But Long-Bailey replied with an emphatic “yes”, declaring that she has a plan and that the party needed to be “unambiguous” with its members on this issue.


labourlist--2020-02-14--Left-wing TSSA union nominates Starmer and Rayner for leadership

The Transport Salaried Staffs ’ Association , a left-wing trade union affiliated to the Labour Party , has decided to nominate Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner for the party leadership roles .
The rail and travel union balloted all members of its political fund on the basis of a shortlist drawn up by the executive , which offered a choice between Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey for leader and Rayner and Rosena Allin-Khan for deputy .
Commenting on the result , TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes said : “ Our union has decided to nominate Keir Starmer for leader of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – following a ballot of members paying into the political fund .
“ I ’ m delighted for both Keir and Angela – they are fantastic candidates both of whom have made commitments to public ownership of our railways .
“ I ’ d also like to say well done to Rebecca Long-Bailey and Rosena Allin-Khan respectively , both of whom got down to the final ballot after being interviewed by our Executive Committee and who drew a lot of interest from our members .
“ I ’ m now encouraging all Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in the election itself to make their voices heard on who becomes the next leader of our party.
” Responding to the endorsement , Starmer said : “ I ’ m honoured to have been nominated by TSSA to be the next Labour leader and I would like to thank the membership for their support .
“ TSSA has been at the forefront of campaigns to invest in our railways and bring them back into public ownership .
“ If I ’ m elected leader , I promise to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and take the fight to the Tories.
” TSSA has also chosen to back Matt Kerr , the Labour left candidate standing against Jackie Baillie in Scottish Labour ’ s deputy leadership race .

The Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, a left-wing trade union affiliated to the Labour Party, has decided to nominate Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner for the party leadership roles.
The rail and travel union balloted all members of its political fund on the basis of a shortlist drawn up by the executive, which offered a choice between Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey for leader and Rayner and Rosena Allin-Khan for deputy.
TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes announced the outcome of the vote in a comment piece for LabourList, in which he recommended that members “give their second preferences to Rebecca and Rosena”.
Commenting on the result, Cortes said: “Our union has decided to nominate Keir Starmer for leader of the Labour Party and Angela Rayner as deputy – following a ballot of members paying into the political fund.
“I’m delighted for both Keir and Angela – they are fantastic candidates both of whom have made commitments to public ownership of our railways.
“I’d also like to say well done to Rebecca Long-Bailey and Rosena Allin-Khan respectively, both of whom got down to the final ballot after being interviewed by our executive committee and who drew a lot of interest from our members.
“I’m now encouraging all Labour Party members and affiliate members to take part in the election itself to make their voices heard on who becomes the next leader of our party.”
Responding to the endorsement, Starmer said: “I’m honoured to have been nominated by TSSA to be the next Labour leader and I would like to thank the membership for their support.
“TSSA has been at the forefront of campaigns to invest in our railways and bring them back into public ownership.
“If I’m elected leader, I promise to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our trade unions to unite our movement and take the fight to the Tories.”
Deputy leadership race frontrunner Rayner added: “I’m delighted to have been nominated by TSSA members. I’ve long-supported the brilliant work they’ve done on transport issues and women’s rights across the whole of the UK.
“As deputy leader, I look forward to campaigning alongside them to bring Britain’s railways back into public ownership.”
TSSA has also chosen to back Glasgow councillor Matt Kerr, the Labour left candidate standing against Jackie Baillie in Scottish Labour’s deputy leadership race.
Starmer has been endorsed by five affiliated trade unions – TSSA, UNISON, Usdaw, Community and the Musicians’ Union – as well as 370 local parties. Rayner is nominated by eight unions – UNISON, NUM, Usdaw, GMB, Community, CWU, TSSA, ASLEF – and 355 local parties so far.


labourlist--2020-02-14--Jewish Labour Movement nominates Lisa Nandy and Ian Murray

Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has been nominated by the party ’ s only officially affiliated Jewish organisation , the Jewish Labour Movement , today after a ballot of its members .
The Wigan MP won JLM ’ s internal election on the first round , gaining a majority with 52.3 % of the vote .
She impressed members at the hustings held on Thursday evening .
Mike Katz , national chair of JLM , said : “ We would like to thank all of our members for taking part in this process .
The last few years have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members .
We hope that today is the beginning of a healing process .
“ I am happy to announce that we will be formally nominating Lisa Nandy for Leader and Ian Murray for Deputy Leader .
Both demonstrated at our hustings events that they understand the issues facing the party and the need for radical change .
“ Lisa Nandy understands that without a change in the culture of our party , our party might have no future .
We would also like to thank all of the candidates for taking part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London and Manchester.
“ Nandy served in the shadow cabinet under the leadership of Ed Miliband , and also briefly under Jeremy Corbyn until the leadership challenge in 2016 , when she chaired the campaign of Owen Smith .
The leadership hopeful has served as chair and vice-chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East for nine years .
She also co-founded the Centre for Towns think tank .
Ian Murray , who represents Edinburgh South , is Labour ’ s only Scottish MP following the 2019 general election .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current leadership and also resigned from the shadow cabinet in 2016 .

Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has been nominated by the party’s only officially affiliated Jewish organisation, the Jewish Labour Movement, today after a ballot of its members.
The Wigan MP won JLM’s internal election on the first round, gaining a majority with 50.9% of the vote. She impressed members at the hustings held on Thursday evening.
Mike Katz, national chair of JLM, said: “We would like to thank all of our members for taking part in this process. The last few years have been soul destroying for too many Jewish Labour members. We hope that today is the beginning of a healing process.
“I am happy to announce that we will be formally nominating Lisa Nandy for leader and Ian Murray for deputy leader. Both demonstrated at our hustings events that they understand the issues facing the party and the need for radical change.
“Lisa Nandy understands that without a change in the culture of our party, our party might have no future. We would also like to thank all of the candidates for taking part in this process and our hustings in London and Manchester.“
Commenting on the endorsement, Nandy said: “I am proud to have received the backing of the Jewish Labour Movement and the thousands of party members they represent.
“JLM has been affiliated to the Labour Party for a century, and I am honoured that they have put their trust in me to lead our Party back to power.”
Leadership
First round
Lisa Nandy 50.9%
Keir Starmer 45.3%
Emily Thornberry 1.9%
Rebecca Long-Bailey 1.4%
Do not nominate 0.5%
Deputy leadership
First round
Ian Murray 39.0%
Rosena Allin-Khan 35.7%
Angela Rayner 18.7%
Dawn Butler 2.5%
Richard Burgon 1.0%
Do not nominate 3.1%
Final round
Ian Murray 50.2%
Rosena Allin-Khan 49.8%
Nandy served in the shadow cabinet under the leadership of Ed Miliband, and also briefly under Jeremy Corbyn until the leadership challenge in 2016, when she chaired the campaign of Owen Smith.
The leadership hopeful has served as chair and vice-chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East for nine years. She also co-founded the Centre for Towns think tank.
Ian Murray, who represents Edinburgh South, is Labour’s only Scottish MP following the 2019 general election. He has been an outspoken critic of the current leadership and also resigned from the shadow cabinet in 2016.


labourlist--2020-02-14--TSSA is backing Keir for a Labour government set on public ownership of our railways

The policy scope of the current Labour leadership contest is a tribute to how far our party has travelled under Jeremy Corbyn .
The two main candidates vying for its leadership – Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey – are promoting his radical economic policies , and the debate has fundamentally shifted since Jeremy won in 2015 .
Take our rail industry , which is the mainstay for my union , TSSA .
Our union has only one pre-condition for a candidate to qualify for our nomination towards a Labour Party position , and it is this : our support is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our railways .
This seems such a modest ask in 2020 .
But it wasn ’ t always so .
In 2010 , our union backed Diane Abbott for leader .
Was it because she was the most left-wing , socialist voice ?
Because she was the only woman or BAME candidate ?
All of those were important factors , but she was also the only one who met our number one priority .
None of the others – David Miliband , Ed Balls , Andy Burnham , and even ‘ Red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of them could say they wholeheartedly backed public ownership of our railways .
Diane was the only one who did .
And so we nominated Diane .
Fast forward to 2020 , and we have candidates falling over themselves to explain why they are so enthusiastically supportive of rail being in public ownership .
Every single one of the candidates put their commitment in writing .
From Keir , we had : “ the case for bringing the railways back into public ownership is unarguable and I will continue to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in rail was “ crucial ” and that she wanted to see “ a fully integrated public transport network linking up rail and bus services ” .
Music to our ears !
Lisa Nandy wrote to us saying she “ fully support [ s ] the renationalisation of our rail network ” , while Emily declared her “ wholehearted backing [ of ] public ownership of rail ” .
In the deputy race , again all candidates put in black and white their commitment to public ownership of rail .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rail , ” said Richard Burgon and Rosena Allin-Khan .
Angela Rayner gave us some credit by saying “ because of TSSA ’ s work , public ownership of our rail and transport system is seen as common sense ” .
Thanks , we ’ ll take that .
Ian Murray and Dawn Butler , too , said “ the only way forward is public ownership ” .
Right across the Labour spectrum – and the political spectrum as a whole – that argument has been fought and won , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our railways .
We ’ ve long said it ’ s the best and only way to achieve an integrated , efficient transport network that keeps fares down and improves services across the board .
But it took the support for progressive policy development under Jeremy ’ s leadership to get the rest of our party on board .
How many other policies , once considered controversial or too radical , have now become the mainstream ?
From education to regional investment , gone are the days of ‘ austerity-light ’ policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Labour leader who declared the climate emergency in parliament that our union so passionately campaigns on .
And it was Jeremy ’ s shadow cabinet that spoke out against the hostile environment under the Tories .
As we go forward in this election campaign , there are many reasons to be cheerful and to be hopeful .
But the progressive , socialist policies that were developed under Jeremy ’ s stewardship and that we know are so popular with the public must not be abandoned .
Whether it ’ s public ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal , free school meals or abolishing tuition fees , these are things we wouldn ’ t have without Jeremy .
Our members have chosen two excellent candidates to nominate in the Labour leadership election : Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner .
We ’ ll be encouraging our members to vote them through , and give their second preferences to Rebecca and Rosena .
Onwards for public ownership of our railways under a Keir Starmer-led Labour government .

The policy scope of the current Labour leadership contest is a tribute to how far our party has travelled under Jeremy Corbyn. The two main candidates vying for its leadership – Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey – are promoting his radical economic policies, and the debate has fundamentally shifted since Jeremy won in 2015.
Take our rail industry, which is the mainstay for my union, TSSA. Our union has only one pre-condition for a candidate to qualify for our nomination towards a Labour Party position, and it is this: our support is dependent on candidates wholeheartedly backing public ownership of our railways.
This seems such a modest ask in 2020. But it wasn’t always so. In 2010, our union backed Diane Abbott for leader. Was it because she was the most left-wing, socialist voice? Because she was the only woman or BAME candidate? All of those were important factors, but she was also the only one who met our number one priority. None of the others – David Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, and even ‘Red Ed’ Miliband – not a single one of them could say they wholeheartedly backed public ownership of our railways. Diane was the only one who did. And so we nominated Diane.
Fast forward to 2020, and we have candidates falling over themselves to explain why they are so enthusiastically supportive of rail being in public ownership. Every single one of the candidates put their commitment in writing. From Keir, we had: “the case for bringing the railways back into public ownership is unarguable and I will continue to make it”. Rebecca told us that investment in rail was “crucial” and that she wanted to see “a fully integrated public transport network linking up rail and bus services”. Music to our ears! Lisa Nandy wrote to us saying she “fully support[s] the renationalisation of our rail network”, while Emily declared her “wholehearted backing [of] public ownership of rail”.
In the deputy race, again all candidates put in black and white their commitment to public ownership of rail. “I’m fully supportive of backing public ownership of rail,” said Richard Burgon and Rosena Allin-Khan. Angela Rayner gave us some credit by saying “because of TSSA’s work, public ownership of our rail and transport system is seen as common sense”. Thanks, we’ll take that. Ian Murray and Dawn Butler, too, said “the only way forward is public ownership”.
Right across the Labour spectrum – and the political spectrum as a whole – that argument has been fought and won, with a majority of the public backing public ownership of our railways. We’ve long said it’s the best and only way to achieve an integrated, efficient transport network that keeps fares down and improves services across the board. But it took the support for progressive policy development under Jeremy’s leadership to get the rest of our party on board.
How many other policies, once considered controversial or too radical, have now become the mainstream? From education to regional investment, gone are the days of ‘austerity-light’ policy “solutions”. It was Jeremy as Labour leader who declared the climate emergency in parliament that our union so passionately campaigns on. And it was Jeremy’s shadow cabinet that spoke out against the hostile environment under the Tories.
As we go forward in this election campaign, there are many reasons to be cheerful and to be hopeful. But the progressive, socialist policies that were developed under Jeremy’s stewardship and that we know are so popular with the public must not be abandoned. Whether it’s public ownership of our railways, the Green New Deal, free school meals or abolishing tuition fees, these are things we wouldn’t have without Jeremy.
Our members have chosen two excellent candidates to nominate in the Labour leadership election: Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. We’ll be encouraging our members to vote them through, and give their second preferences to Rebecca and Rosena. Onwards for public ownership of our railways under a Keir Starmer-led Labour government.