labourlist--2020-09-24--Labour demands action on abandoned oil tanker to “protect people and planet”

Labour has called on the UK government to “ protect people and planet ” by taking urgent action on an abandoned oil tanker currently at risk of spilling 157,000 tonnes of crude oil into the Red Sea .
In a letter to the minister for the Middle East and North Africa , shadow ministers Anna McMorrin and Wayne David have warned that the Safer FSO Oil tanker could exacerbate the long-running humanitarian crisis in Yemen .
In the letter , the shadow ministers have described how any spillage would “ deepen the world ’ s gravest humanitarian emergency in Yemen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country crippled by conflict , Covid-19 and now famine ” .
They added : “ It would also spark an environmental catastrophe , destroy endangered biodiversity , risk the health of local populations , and deliver a crushing economic and logistical setback to many aid-dependent and fragile states reliant on Red Sea shipping.
” The area where the ship has been resting for the past five years is under the control of Houthi rebels fighting the Saudi-backed Yemeni government .
The UN ’ s attempts to inspect the ship have so far been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country began in March 2015 when a Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen on behalf of the government against Houthi rebels aligned with the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh .
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project estimated last year that the civil war , taking place in the Arab world ’ s poorest nation , has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 people over the past five years .
The Labour shadow ministers have explained to minister James Cleverly that the rapid structural deterioration as a result of neglect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanker is significantly vulnerable to a breach and spillage .
Concerns over the ship were heightened after reports emerged that seawater had begun to leak into the 44-year old ship ’ s engine room .
There has been no examination of the vessel and the cause of the leak remains unknown .
The UN has declared that the ship risks one of “ most important repositories of biodiversity on the planet ” .
The Yemeni waters support internationally important species including marine mammals , sea turtles and seabirds .
Below is the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cleverly .
RE : FSO Safer oil tanker humanitarian and environmental threat to Yemen and the Red Sea I am writing to you concerning the ongoing and increasingly urgent situation regarding the decaying and hazardous FSO Safer oil tanker abandoned off the coast of the Yemeni port of Al Hudaydah .
Having fallen into the hands of Houthi rebel forces in 2015 , the rusting tanker has been severely neglected with rapid structural deterioration and the metal work corrosion in the saline waters of the Red Sea .
The condition of the tanker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly vulnerable to a total water breach of its tank , which holds over 1.1 million barrels , 157,000 tonnes , of crude oil .
A breach of the tanker and an oil spillage of any magnitude would deepen the world ’ s gravest humanitarian emergency in Yemen , dealing a significant blow to a country crippled by conflict , Covid-19 and now famine .
It would also spark an environmental catastrophe , destroy endangered biodiversity , risk the health of coastal communities , and deliver a crushing economic and logistical setback to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Red Sea shipping .
As we have discussed on many occasions , the plight of the Yemeni people continues to descend to new lows .
The emergency is eroding what little resilience remains in the country .
24 million civilians require high-level aid-assistance and seven million require treatment for malnutrition .
On health , nationwide hospital and medical service capacity has been halved .
PPE and medical equipment are in short supply and there has been no widespread Covid-19 testing .
The outbreak of cholera across the country continues to rise .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a simultaneous reduction in international funding for the humanitarian crisis , including a decrease in UK funding at the UN pledging conference 2nd June which Labour urged the government against .
In recent days , the UN ’ s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs , Mark Lowcock , has also reiterated his dire warnings regarding aid funding shortfalls .
The humanitarian situation can , therefore , ill afford yet another disaster .
The environmental threat posed by the tanker endangers , what the UN calls ‘ one of the most important repositories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ecocide of this scale would be unconscionable .
A spill also risks the health and livelihoods of coastal communities through polluted waters , land and food chains , displacing communities from their homes .
A clean up of this degree would also shut Al Hudaydah port , a major gateway to lifesaving aid for millions in an area of Yemen which is 90 % aid-dependent .
It would also close shipping lanes in the Red Sea , for up to 12 months , a major artery of trade and commerce in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing for over five years .
The scale of the humanitarian and environmental catastrophe which we are seeing unfold demands a solution .
We are calling on the UK government to use its significant global leadership and position as penholders over Yemen on the UN Security Council to 1 ) secure and preserve funding for a mobilised inspection team for when access is granted to examine this failing tanker and 2 ) use World Maritime Day and the theme to champion new frameworks to remove damaged or decaying tankers or ships from our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international partners to prepare economic , humanitarian , environmental and logistical contingency plans to protect Yemen ’ s most vulnerable .
We must avoid the humanitarian situation being compounded by an irreparable ecological disaster .
People and planet must be protected .
Wayne David Shadow FCO minister for the Middle East and North Africa

Labour has called on the UK government to “protect people and planet” by taking urgent action on an abandoned oil tanker currently at risk of spilling 157,000 tonnes of crude oil into the Red Sea.
In a letter to the minister for the Middle East and North Africa, shadow ministers Anna McMorrin and Wayne David have warned that the Safer FSO Oil tanker could exacerbate the long-running humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
In the letter, the shadow ministers have described how any spillage would “deepen the world’s gravest humanitarian emergency in Yemen, dealing a significant blow to a country crippled by conflict, Covid-19 and now famine”.
They added: “It would also spark an environmental catastrophe, destroy endangered biodiversity, risk the health of local populations, and deliver a crushing economic and logistical setback to many aid-dependent and fragile states reliant on Red Sea shipping.”
The area where the ship has been resting for the past five years is under the control of Houthi rebels fighting the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. The UN’s attempts to inspect the ship have so far been blocked.
The current violence in the country began in March 2015 when a Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen on behalf of the government against Houthi rebels aligned with the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project estimated last year that the civil war, taking place in the Arab world’s poorest nation, has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 people over the past five years.
The Labour shadow ministers have explained to minister James Cleverly that the rapid structural deterioration as a result of neglect of the ship has meant that the decomposing tanker is significantly vulnerable to a breach and spillage.
Concerns over the ship were heightened after reports emerged that seawater had begun to leak into the 44-year old ship’s engine room. There has been no examination of the vessel and the cause of the leak remains unknown.
The UN has declared that the ship risks one of “most important repositories of biodiversity on the planet”. The Yemeni waters support internationally important species including marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to James Cleverly.
Dear James,
RE: FSO Safer oil tanker humanitarian and environmental threat to Yemen and the Red Sea
I am writing to you concerning the ongoing and increasingly urgent situation regarding the decaying and hazardous FSO Safer oil tanker abandoned off the coast of the Yemeni port of Al Hudaydah.
Having fallen into the hands of Houthi rebel forces in 2015, the rusting tanker has been severely neglected with rapid structural deterioration and the metal work corrosion in the saline waters of the Red Sea. The condition of the tanker and its decomposition means the tanker is significantly vulnerable to a total water breach of its tank, which holds over 1.1 million barrels, 157,000 tonnes, of crude oil.
A breach of the tanker and an oil spillage of any magnitude would deepen the world’s gravest humanitarian emergency in Yemen, dealing a significant blow to a country crippled by conflict, Covid-19 and now famine. It would also spark an environmental catastrophe, destroy endangered biodiversity, risk the health of coastal communities, and deliver a crushing economic and logistical setback to many aid-dependent and fragile states reliant on Red Sea shipping.
As we have discussed on many occasions, the plight of the Yemeni people continues to descend to new lows. The emergency is eroding what little resilience remains in the country.
24 million civilians require high-level aid-assistance and seven million require treatment for malnutrition. On health, nationwide hospital and medical service capacity has been halved. PPE and medical equipment are in short supply and there has been no widespread Covid-19 testing. The outbreak of cholera across the country continues to rise.
At this time of maximum vulnerability, there has been a simultaneous reduction in international funding for the humanitarian crisis, including a decrease in UK funding at the UN pledging conference 2nd June which Labour urged the government against. In recent days, the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock, has also reiterated his dire warnings regarding aid funding shortfalls.
The humanitarian situation can, therefore, ill afford yet another disaster.
The environmental threat posed by the tanker endangers, what the UN calls ‘one of the most important repositories of biodiversity on the planet’. Ecocide of this scale would be unconscionable. A spill also risks the health and livelihoods of coastal communities through polluted waters, land and food chains, displacing communities from their homes. A clean up of this degree would also shut Al Hudaydah port, a major gateway to lifesaving aid for millions in an area of Yemen which is 90% aid-dependent. It would also close shipping lanes in the Red Sea, for up to 12 months, a major artery of trade and commerce in the region.
The FSO Safer situation has been ongoing for over five years. The scale of the humanitarian and environmental catastrophe which we are seeing unfold demands a solution.
We are calling on the UK government to use its significant global leadership and position as penholders over Yemen on the UN Security Council to 1) secure and preserve funding for a mobilised inspection team for when access is granted to examine this failing tanker and 2) use World Maritime Day and the theme to champion new frameworks to remove damaged or decaying tankers or ships from our seas. We must work with our international partners to prepare economic, humanitarian, environmental and logistical contingency plans to protect Yemen’s most vulnerable.
We must avoid the humanitarian situation being compounded by an irreparable ecological disaster. People and planet must be protected.
Yours sincerely,
Anna McMorrin MP
Shadow minister for International Development
Wayne David
Shadow FCO minister for the Middle East and North Africa


labourlist--2020-09-24--WATCH: Nadia Whittome says she did not intend to quit Labour frontbench

Nadia Whittome said she did not intend to resign from her position as a parliamentary private secretary on Labour ’ s frontbench last night when confronted with the news that breaking the whip had lost her the post .
On ITV ’ s Peston on Wednesday evening , the MP told viewers she had voted against the government ’ s overseas operation bill as a “ matter of conscience ” .
She described it as “ anti-veterans ” and “ anti-human rights ” .
But it is understood that Whittome , as well as Beth Winter and Olivia Blake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told that if they voted against the bill they would be resigning their roles due to a one-line Labour whip to abstain .
15 other Labour MPs also defied the whip to vote against : Diane Abbott , Apsana Begum , Richard Burgon , Ian Byrne , Jeremy Corbyn , Ian Lavery , Rebecca Long-Bailey , John McDonnell , Kate Osamor , Kate Osborne , Bell Ribeiro-Addy , Lloyd Russell-Moyle , Zarah Sultana , Jon Trickett and Claudia Webbe .
Commenting on the bill , Whittome said : “ I thought that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I understand why colleagues came to a different conclusion and thought that we can amend this at committee stage and that ’ s perfectly reasonable .
“ But I felt that given all the major human rights organisations – Amnesty , Human Rights Watch – and given that even the British Legion and veterans themselves opposed this bill .
And these are all arguments that our frontbench made today .
“ We don ’ t agree with this bill .
And we think it ’ s anti-veteran , it ’ s anti-human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s why I voted against it.
” Labour warned on Wednesday that 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 the party did not vote against it .
In a vote on its second reading , the legislation passed with 331 MPs voting in favour and 77 against .
It will now proceed to committee stage , at which point Labour and other opposition MPs will attempt to amend the @ @

Nadia Whittome said she did not intend to resign from her position as a parliamentary private secretary on Labour’s frontbench last night when confronted with the news that breaking the whip had lost her the post.
On ITV’s Peston on Wednesday evening, the MP told viewers she had voted against the government’s overseas operation bill as a “matter of conscience”. She described it as “anti-veterans” and “anti-human rights”.
But it is understood that Whittome, as well as Beth Winter and Olivia Blake, all Labour PPSs until yesterday, were told that if they voted against the bill they would be resigning their roles due to a one-line Labour whip to abstain.
15 other Labour MPs also defied the whip to vote against: Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Jeremy Corbyn, Ian Lavery, Rebecca Long-Bailey, John McDonnell, Kate Osamor, Kate Osborne, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Zarah Sultana, Jon Trickett and Claudia Webbe.
Commenting on the bill, Whittome said: “I thought that the bill was a matter of conscience. I understand why colleagues came to a different conclusion and thought that we can amend this at committee stage and that’s perfectly reasonable.
“But I felt that given all the major human rights organisations – Amnesty, Human Rights Watch – and given that even the British Legion and veterans themselves opposed this bill. And these are all arguments that our frontbench made today.
“We don’t agree with this bill. And we think it’s anti-veteran, it’s anti-human rights. It would effectively decriminalise torture and that’s why I voted against it.”
Labour warned on Wednesday that 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 the party did not vote against it.
In a vote on its second reading, the legislation passed with 331 MPs voting in favour and 77 against. It will now proceed to committee stage, at which point Labour and other opposition MPs will attempt to amend the bill.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Labour urges action as NHS staff lose 500,000 days to mental illness

Labour ’ s Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has urged the government to do more to support NHS workers after new figures revealed that staff took over 500,000 mental health sick days in May alone .
The shadow mental health minister said the figures should serve as a “ wake up call ” for the government and called on the Health Department to meet with her to discuss urgent measures to support NHS workers .
Anxiety , stress , depression and other mental illnesses accounted for 510,281 full-time equivalent sick days in May according to NHS figures , making up 28.3 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For comparison , Covid-related absences accounted for just under 10 % fewer sick days than mental health , with only 340,900 days lost as a result of infection by the novel coronavirus .
Commenting on the statistics , Allin-Khan said : “ These statistics must serve as a wakeup call for the government .
At a time when Covid-19 related sickness absences were going down , mental ill-health absences were soaring .
“ Our health and care staff have sacrificed so much during this pandemic – it demonstrates why Labour ’ s ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital .
Dedicated mental health support should be available for all health and care staff .
“ Since launching the package in June , I have requested meetings with the government – it is a disgrace that this offer has not been taken up .
I urge the government to reconsider our offer .
“ Ahead of winter and a second spike , the government must learn the lessons of this spring .
We must fight for the mental health of those who have supported us so courageously during this crisis.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Carers ’ campaign in June to push the government to adopt policies to support the mental health of the over three million NHS staff who have been fighting Covid .
It called on the government to offer carers : • “ A new national hotline available 24 hours a day , seven days a week • “ Follow-up and sign-posted to external services , such as alcohol and addiction services ” At the launch of the programme , Allin-Khan said : “ Many NHS and social care staff have been scared of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost patients and colleagues .
It has been heartbreaking to witness the toll this virus has taken on staff mental health.
” The Labour frontbencher and doctor previously warned the government of a “ pending mental health crisis ” among the general population after a BMJ report showed a significant increase in the number of people suffering from mental health problems .
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has claimed he is in “ regular contact ” with mental health services , but a freedom of information ( FOI ) request filed by Allin-Khan this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case during the early lockdown period .
The FOI revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care had only met with NHS mental health trusts and other groups twice during the first three months of lockdown , and Hancock refused to confirm if he had attended either meeting .

Labour’s Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has urged the government to do more to support NHS workers after new figures revealed that staff took over 500,000 mental health sick days in May alone.
The shadow mental health minister said the figures should serve as a “wake up call” for the government and called on the Health Department to meet with her to discuss urgent measures to support NHS workers.
Anxiety, stress, depression and other mental illnesses accounted for 510,281 full-time equivalent sick days in May according to NHS figures, making up 28.3% of all sickness absences that month.
For comparison, Covid-related absences accounted for just under 10% fewer sick days than mental health, with only 340,900 days lost as a result of infection by the novel coronavirus.
Commenting on the statistics, Allin-Khan said: “These statistics must serve as a wakeup call for the government. At a time when Covid-19 related sickness absences were going down, mental ill-health absences were soaring.
“Our health and care staff have sacrificed so much during this pandemic – it demonstrates why Labour’s ‘Care for Carers’ package is so vital. Dedicated mental health support should be available for all health and care staff.
“Since launching the package in June, I have requested meetings with the government – it is a disgrace that this offer has not been taken up. I urge the government to reconsider our offer.
“Ahead of winter and a second spike, the government must learn the lessons of this spring. We must fight for the mental health of those who have supported us so courageously during this crisis.”
The shadow cabinet member launched her ‘Care for Carers’ campaign in June to push the government to adopt policies to support the mental health of the over three million NHS staff who have been fighting Covid.
It called on the government to offer carers:
“A new national hotline available 24 hours a day, seven days a week “Follow-up support, including specialist assessments and referrals “Intervention and treatment, including specialised PTSD support “Follow-up and sign-posted to external services, such as alcohol and addiction services”
At the launch of the programme, Allin-Khan said: “Many NHS and social care staff have been scared of going to work, and they have lost patients and colleagues. It has been heartbreaking to witness the toll this virus has taken on staff mental health.”
The Labour frontbencher and doctor previously warned the government of a “pending mental health crisis” among the general population after a BMJ report showed a significant increase in the number of people suffering from mental health problems.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has claimed he is in “regular contact” with mental health services, but a freedom of information (FOI) request filed by Allin-Khan this month showed this had not been the case during the early lockdown period.
The FOI revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care had only met with NHS mental health trusts and other groups twice during the first three months of lockdown, and Hancock refused to confirm if he had attended either meeting.


labourlist--2020-09-24--The first Labour party political broadcasts of Starmer’s predecessors

Keir Starmer aired his first party political broadcast ( PPB ) as Labour leader on Wednesday , which readers can watch here .
Titled ‘ A New Leadership ’ , the video features Starmer outside his childhood home in Surrey describing why he is proud of Britain and how his values match up with those of voters .
To mark the occasion , LabourList has delved into the archives to find the first PPB from each of the new Labour leader ’ s predecessors – from Jeremy Corbyn through to John Smith… ‘ Straight talking , honest politics ‘ was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn won the leadership election in 2015 .
The then Labour leader used the broadcast to highlight his defence of human rights and social justice , and it talks about the new leader receiving the support of “ ordinary people across the country ” .
With a focus on campaigning and the rising membership of the party , it feels at times as if the video is more directed at potential party activists than voters .
That tone is probably best expressed in the final line : “ It ’ s fun to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead the party , my job is to enthuse the party .
Come and help me.
” The first broadcast from Ed Miliband , called ‘ Labour ’ s New Generation ‘ , strikes a similar tone to that of Starmer in that it aims to communicate a clean break from the past .
Peppered with interviews of young , newly elected Labour MPs such as Liz Kendall ( a future leadership contender ) and Chuka Umunna ( a future defector to the Lib Dems ) , the PPB emphasises the party ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters after losing the 2010 election .
Much of the video centres on immigration , which foreshadows how Miliband ’ s Labour later went big on backing migration controls – to the extent that the leadership decided to print the policy on a mug .
It prominently features a speech from Miliband saying : “ I get it .
People weren ’ t prejudiced about immigration , people felt anxious and insecure.
” The then Prime Minister ’ s first PPB , simply called ‘ Strength ‘ , aired just under three months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street .
It leans heavily into his personal history , including the story of how he partially lost his sight .
In an interview from Brown ’ s home , occasionally spliced with footage of him out meeting ‘ the people ’ , the PM describes how his vision was only restored thanks to the “ skills of the doctors , the care of the nurses and the compassion and support of the NHS staff ” .
For a politician who was often seen as cold and mechanical , the broadcast works hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It shows Brown talking about his family , and he describes a meeting with a child called Max who overcame his own struggles with reading thanks to a Labour-provided tutor .
Party broadcasts are often accused of being fluff pieces , which are light on detail , but Blair ’ s first PPB from September 1994 is far from that .
He talks within the first minute about building a “ successful modern business economy ” and how we need to see “ the public sector and the private sector actually work together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film to outline Labour ’ s key pledges on the NHS , schools and the economy , which is interspersed with glowing descriptions of the leader by politicians and members of the public .
He also cracks out one of the earliest examples of the quintessential New Labour slogan : “ Tough on crime , tough on the causes of crime.
” The first PPB featuring John Smith dates back to December 1992 , and it focuses on the newly signed Maastricht Treaty .
The film explains that Labour wants to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market place ” .
How times have changed .
It criticises the then Prime Minister John Major ’ s failures as President of the European Council and ends with a speech from Smith in which he accused the Conservatives of being too focused on Europe and failing to have an “ active government at home ” .

Keir Starmer aired his first party political broadcast (PPB) as Labour leader on Wednesday, which readers can watch here. Titled ‘A New Leadership’, the video features Starmer outside his childhood home in Surrey describing why he is proud of Britain and how his values match up with those of voters.
To mark the occasion, LabourList has delved into the archives to find the first PPB from each of the new Labour leader’s predecessors – from Jeremy Corbyn through to John Smith…
Jeremy Corbyn
‘Straight talking, honest politics‘ was released less than a month after Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership election in 2015. The then Labour leader used the broadcast to highlight his defence of human rights and social justice, and it talks about the new leader receiving the support of “ordinary people across the country”.
With a focus on campaigning and the rising membership of the party, it feels at times as if the video is more directed at potential party activists than voters. That tone is probably best expressed in the final line: “It’s fun to campaign together. My job is to lead the party, my job is to enthuse the party. Come and help me.”
Ed Miliband
The first broadcast from Ed Miliband, called ‘Labour’s New Generation‘, strikes a similar tone to that of Starmer in that it aims to communicate a clean break from the past. Peppered with interviews of young, newly elected Labour MPs such as Liz Kendall (a future leadership contender) and Chuka Umunna (a future defector to the Lib Dems), the PPB emphasises the party’s preparedness to “listen” to voters after losing the 2010 election.
Much of the video centres on immigration, which foreshadows how Miliband’s Labour later went big on backing migration controls – to the extent that the leadership decided to print the policy on a mug. It prominently features a speech from Miliband saying: “I get it. People weren’t prejudiced about immigration, people felt anxious and insecure.”
Gordon Brown
The then Prime Minister’s first PPB, simply called ‘Strength‘, aired just under three months after he took over at 10 Downing Street. It leans heavily into his personal history, including the story of how he partially lost his sight. In an interview from Brown’s home, occasionally spliced with footage of him out meeting ‘the people’, the PM describes how his vision was only restored thanks to the “skills of the doctors, the care of the nurses and the compassion and support of the NHS staff”.
For a politician who was often seen as cold and mechanical, the broadcast works hard to present a more human figure. It shows Brown talking about his family, and he describes a meeting with a child called Max who overcame his own struggles with reading thanks to a Labour-provided tutor.
Tony Blair
Party broadcasts are often accused of being fluff pieces, which are light on detail, but Blair’s first PPB from September 1994 is far from that. He talks within the first minute about building a “successful modern business economy” and how we need to see “the public sector and the private sector actually work together”.
Blair goes on in the film to outline Labour’s key pledges on the NHS, schools and the economy, which is interspersed with glowing descriptions of the leader by politicians and members of the public. He also cracks out one of the earliest examples of the quintessential New Labour slogan: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.”
John Smith
The first PPB featuring John Smith dates back to December 1992, and it focuses on the newly signed Maastricht Treaty. The film explains that Labour wants to make the European Union “more than just a market place”. How times have changed.
It criticises the then Prime Minister John Major’s failures as President of the European Council and ends with a speech from Smith in which he accused the Conservatives of being too focused on Europe and failing to have an “active government at home”.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Why Rishi Sunak’s new support scheme is not up to the job

The new job support scheme unveiled by Rishi Sunak today will allow businesses to apply for partial wage subsidies for their staff .
Under the programme , employees must work at least 33 % of their normal hours , which their employer pays for .
Then the government covers a third of the pay for their unworked hours – capped at £697.92 – and their employer covers another third .
As a result , the worker loses a third of the pay for their unworked hours , while the business is required to make a payment towards hours not worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentive .
The scheme will not encourage employers to cut hours rather than cut jobs because , in short , it makes it less attractive to employ more employees part-time than fewer on a full-time basis .
Under the new scheme , it would cost an employer 33 % more to employ two people for half their hours than one person full time , assuming an annual wage of £17,000 , Torsten Bell points out .
One argument against the first point above , which might entice employers to hang on to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job retention bonus .
The scheme announced earlier this year means that the government makes a one-off £1,000 payment to an employer for each employee who was furloughed and remains continuously employed until January 31st .
( To qualify , the employee must work at least 14 hours a week . )
Sunak has confirmed that employers can access the job support scheme he unveiled this afternoon while also taking advantage of the bonus .
Employers would see a benefit in retaining the worker , as long as the cost of keeping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Sunak ’ s winter plan unveiled today simply kicks the can further down the road .
When January 31st rolls around , employers will be faced with a choice between paying more for fewer hours worked or sacking staff .
If you are a self-employed worker , it is pretty hard to come away from this latest announcement without feeling like you have been left out again .
Sunak told the Commons this afternoon that the self-employed grant will be extended “ on similar terms and conditions as the new job support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will now run from November to January next year , is set to cover only 20 % of average monthly profits , capped at £1,875 .
Another grant will be brought in to cover February to April , but details are unknown as yet .
Sunak ’ s announcement made no reference to the three million self-employed workers who have fallen through the gaps of the government ’ s previous support offers in the pandemic .
The Chancellor confirmed instead that the eligibility conditions outlined in the grant for the self-employed will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refinements to make sure that businesses are still trading over the winter ” .
This means existing problems with the self-employment income support scheme , such as its discrimination against women who have recently taken maternity leave , will be carried over into this newly unveiled programme .
4 .
It is simply too late… As Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds highlighted in her response to Sunak ’ s statement , Labour has called for targeted wage support 40 times , and the government has in turn refused on 20 separate occasions over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too late for many people who have already lost their jobs , ” she told MPs this afternoon .
Many employers will have made decisions about their workers already , as there has been no indication from government until this week that there would be post-furlough support .
The deadline for redundancy consultations for companies with large workforces to take place before the end of the furlough scheme has already passed .
As Dodds told MPs this afternoon , this date “ came and went last week without a word from this government @ @

1. Perverse incentives…
The new job support scheme unveiled by Rishi Sunak today will allow businesses to apply for partial wage subsidies for their staff. Under the programme, employees must work at least 33% of their normal hours, which their employer pays for. Then the government covers a third of the pay for their unworked hours – capped at £697.92 – and their employer covers another third. As a result, the worker loses a third of the pay for their unworked hours, while the business is required to make a payment towards hours not worked.
This leaves us with a perverse incentive. The scheme will not encourage employers to cut hours rather than cut jobs because, in short, it makes it less attractive to employ more employees part-time than fewer on a full-time basis. Under the new scheme, it would cost an employer 33% more to employ two people for half their hours than one person full time, assuming an annual wage of £17,000, Torsten Bell points out.
2. It presents a new cliff edge…
One argument against the first point above, which might entice employers to hang on to a staff member, is the already announced job retention bonus. The scheme announced earlier this year means that the government makes a one-off £1,000 payment to an employer for each employee who was furloughed and remains continuously employed until January 31st. (To qualify, the employee must work at least 14 hours a week.)
Sunak has confirmed that employers can access the job support scheme he unveiled this afternoon while also taking advantage of the bonus. Employers would see a benefit in retaining the worker, as long as the cost of keeping the staff member does not exceed £1,000. But Sunak’s winter plan unveiled today simply kicks the can further down the road. When January 31st rolls around, employers will be faced with a choice between paying more for fewer hours worked or sacking staff.
3. The self-employed are short-changed again…
If you are a self-employed worker, it is pretty hard to come away from this latest announcement without feeling like you have been left out again. Sunak told the Commons this afternoon that the self-employed grant will be extended “on similar terms and conditions as the new job support scheme”. But the grant, which will now run from November to January next year, is set to cover only 20% of average monthly profits, capped at £1,875. Another grant will be brought in to cover February to April, but details are unknown as yet.
Sunak’s announcement made no reference to the three million self-employed workers who have fallen through the gaps of the government’s previous support offers in the pandemic. The Chancellor confirmed instead that the eligibility conditions outlined in the grant for the self-employed will “remain as they are, with refinements to make sure that businesses are still trading over the winter”. This means existing problems with the self-employment income support scheme, such as its discrimination against women who have recently taken maternity leave, will be carried over into this newly unveiled programme.
4. It is simply too late…
As Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds highlighted in her response to Sunak’s statement, Labour has called for targeted wage support 40 times, and the government has in turn refused on 20 separate occasions over the past few months. “This comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs,” she told MPs this afternoon.
Many employers will have made decisions about their workers already, as there has been no indication from government until this week that there would be post-furlough support. The deadline for redundancy consultations for companies with large workforces to take place before the end of the furlough scheme has already passed. As Dodds told MPs this afternoon, this date “came and went last week without a word from this government”.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Is Labour finally overcoming its fiscal credibility problem?

Labour can now accuse the Tories of wasting public money without provoking widespread sniggering and disbelief .
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds planted a flag on the fiscal credibility high-ground at Labour ’ s online ‘ Connected ’ conference earlier this week .
Laying out the case against the government , she presented a “ file of failure ” .
This is no small thing .
For any opposition , accusing a government of wasteful spending is a crucial , even decisive , line of attack .
But until now it has failed the ‘ people in glass houses ’ test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s negative association with spending .
Dodds ’ predecessors over the last decade have also sought to move into this territory but fell short .
The Miliband-Balls years imposed a tight fiscal straight-jacket on the frontbench .
They found clever ways to switch money around and had to concede ground on day-to-day public spending .
Even then , the electorate didn ’ t buy it : 2010 was too recent , Labour was led by two prominent Brownites , and austerity fatigue had not yet set in .
More importantly , fiscal credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the eyes of the electorate , the party was perceived as facing both ways – lacking not only fiscal credibility but integrity and authenticity , too .
During his tenure as Shadow Chancellor , John McDonnell showed that he understood the importance of fiscal credibility , to a point .
But it was all drowned out by the noise of announcement after expensive policy announcement , just as the public was tuning in .
In 2019 , despite apparently costing all policy in the ‘ grey book ’ , all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend .
But Labour ’ s recent steps toward fiscal credibility have been much firmer .
Now led by the class of 2015 ( and 2017 ) , and under the banner of ‘ A New Leadership ’ , Labour is unencumbered by time in government and aided by a general sense of competence .
It ’ s not just Labour that has changed .
Fiscal profligacy has become a prominent feature of Boris Johnson ’ s premiership – even before the pandemic hit .
For a year now , he has charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so far , it has worked very well for him .
People have sat up and seen a new , optimistic kind of Tory , who will spend big to ‘ level up ’ the country .
The Prime Minister is said to have parked his tanks on Labour ’ s ‘ Red Wall ’ lawns , and to have found the sweet spot of economic interventionism and authoritarianism of the cross-pressured voters , who make up the new , working conception of the centre ground .
Like any big move , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He either thinks the Conservatives are inherently seen as the party of fiscal credibility , or he thinks they have built up enough of that credibility over a decade of austerity to start spending some of it .
Whether Johnson ’ s gamble will still pay out in 2024 , we can ’ t yet tell .
But it has exposed a vulnerable underbelly .
Why does this all matter ?
Because , while it won ’ t get activists ’ pulses racing , fiscal credibility grants Labour a hearing for any spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hinted at what can be built if you lay a solid foundation .
First , and most importantly , she decoupled fiscal credibility from its association with austerity : it was an attack on wasteful or mismanaged spending , not on public spending itself .
Some on the left pushed back on this speech , even before it was delivered , because they still make the connection between fiscal credibility and austerity .
But we have come a long way since 2015 – so have the electorate , and so have the Tories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between fiscal credibility and specifically wasteful spending .
There is no conflict of principle here , and it frees the party from having to disingenuously propose austerity to get a hearing , as in 2015 and 2010 .
It also introduces cronyism and competence as a measure by which to judge the government – a strong combination .
Fiscal credibility is hard-won and easily lost , and this was just one speech .
We can expect to hear much more about it from the new leadership .
It is a powerful line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy programme to come .
Members and activists need to get used to talking about it .
This government is spending fiscal credibility like there ’ s no tomorrow – but Labour has finally turned a corner and started to earn some of it back .

Labour can now accuse the Tories of wasting public money without provoking widespread sniggering and disbelief. Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds planted a flag on the fiscal credibility high-ground at Labour’s online ‘Connected’ conference earlier this week. Laying out the case against the government, she presented a “file of failure”. This is no small thing. For any opposition, accusing a government of wasteful spending is a crucial, even decisive, line of attack. But until now it has failed the ‘people in glass houses’ test – or worse, reinforced Labour’s negative association with spending.
Dodds’ predecessors over the last decade have also sought to move into this territory but fell short. The Miliband-Balls years imposed a tight fiscal straight-jacket on the frontbench. They found clever ways to switch money around and had to concede ground on day-to-day public spending. Even then, the electorate didn’t buy it: 2010 was too recent, Labour was led by two prominent Brownites, and austerity fatigue had not yet set in. More importantly, fiscal credibility and austerity were seen to be synonymous. In the eyes of the electorate, the party was perceived as facing both ways – lacking not only fiscal credibility but integrity and authenticity, too.
During his tenure as Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell showed that he understood the importance of fiscal credibility, to a point. But it was all drowned out by the noise of announcement after expensive policy announcement, just as the public was tuning in. In 2019, despite apparently costing all policy in the ‘grey book’, all the electorate heard was spend, spend, spend. But Labour’s recent steps toward fiscal credibility have been much firmer. Now led by the class of 2015 (and 2017), and under the banner of ‘A New Leadership’, Labour is unencumbered by time in government and aided by a general sense of competence.
It’s not just Labour that has changed. Fiscal profligacy has become a prominent feature of Boris Johnson’s premiership – even before the pandemic hit. For a year now, he has charged around the country making big promises and, so far, it has worked very well for him. People have sat up and seen a new, optimistic kind of Tory, who will spend big to ‘level up’ the country.
The Prime Minister is said to have parked his tanks on Labour’s ‘Red Wall’ lawns, and to have found the sweet spot of economic interventionism and authoritarianism of the cross-pressured voters, who make up the new, working conception of the centre ground. Like any big move, it is also a big gamble. He either thinks the Conservatives are inherently seen as the party of fiscal credibility, or he thinks they have built up enough of that credibility over a decade of austerity to start spending some of it. Whether Johnson’s gamble will still pay out in 2024, we can’t yet tell. But it has exposed a vulnerable underbelly. Why does this all matter? Because, while it won’t get activists’ pulses racing, fiscal credibility grants Labour a hearing for any spending plans they make.
Dodds’ speech hinted at what can be built if you lay a solid foundation. First, and most importantly, she decoupled fiscal credibility from its association with austerity: it was an attack on wasteful or mismanaged spending, not on public spending itself. Some on the left pushed back on this speech, even before it was delivered, because they still make the connection between fiscal credibility and austerity. But we have come a long way since 2015 – so have the electorate, and so have the Tories.
Labour must now forge an association between fiscal credibility and specifically wasteful spending. There is no conflict of principle here, and it frees the party from having to disingenuously propose austerity to get a hearing, as in 2015 and 2010. It also introduces cronyism and competence as a measure by which to judge the government – a strong combination.
Fiscal credibility is hard-won and easily lost, and this was just one speech. We can expect to hear much more about it from the new leadership. It is a powerful line of attack and provides the foundation of the policy programme to come. Members and activists need to get used to talking about it. This government is spending fiscal credibility like there’s no tomorrow – but Labour has finally turned a corner and started to earn some of it back.


labourlist--2020-09-24--Labour should fight to give everyone the right to work from home

When we talk about changing the UK ’ s economic model , it is often accompanied by cries telling us that Labour wants to take us back to the 19-somethings – usually the ’ 70s .
And for the past four general elections , the public has indeed seen our manifestos as more of the same , or as unreasonable , expensive and impractical .
As a movement , we must admit that we ’ ve failed , four times in a row , to connect with the electorate on the economy .
It is why , even after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party is still more trusted on the economy than Labour .
But a new economic model may have just fallen into our lap .
The consequences of Covid-19 and the changing work patterns brought with it have actually proven rather popular with the public .
Take the furlough scheme : it has been necessary to prevent a complete economic collapse , but could also be a blueprint for a future unemployment policy .
Remote working has resulted in lower greenhouse gas emissions , cleaner air and less time spent commuting .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without the geographic restrictions of your employment .
The Tories quickly realised the consequences of this new normal and how it is deeply damaging to their landed interests .
The hyper-financialised economy , built on concentrating wealth in the hands of a few , relies on the long commute to the expensive city office with sky-high rents .
This is why , in the face of all medical advice earlier this month , we were being told to return to city centres en-masse .
To the Tories , the old model was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Rather than sit on the fence , Labour must be bold and capitalise on these building blocks of a new economic model .
Our next policy platform should ensure that all workers have the right to request flexible working hours and locations that suit them – not just white-collar office workers .
Wherever possible , workers should be able to work remotely if they can prove that they can do the job effectively , and employers should have no recourse to refuse them that right .
We would be wrong to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from home ’ revolution .
The remote working idea must be tied into a larger economic agenda – one that brings with it expanding and improving broadband access , as well as improving education and opportunities for high-value tech jobs .
This will require a comprehensive retraining programme that offers the in-demand skills of the 21st century .
But crucially , whilst telling the public about our new model , we must make the case that this would redistribute wealth away from large city centres and towards towns up and down the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more free time , lower greenhouse gas emissions , cleaner air , greater employment rights , skills and education , greater opportunities and redistribution of wealth across the country .
This is the change that Britain has been so desperately crying out for .
It is the change that Labour must offer at the next election .

When we talk about changing the UK’s economic model, it is often accompanied by cries telling us that Labour wants to take us back to the 19-somethings – usually the ’70s. And for the past four general elections, the public has indeed seen our manifestos as more of the same, or as unreasonable, expensive and impractical. As a movement, we must admit that we’ve failed, four times in a row, to connect with the electorate on the economy. It is why, even after the deepest recession for 300 years, the Conservative Party is still more trusted on the economy than Labour.
But a new economic model may have just fallen into our lap. The consequences of Covid-19 and the changing work patterns brought with it have actually proven rather popular with the public. Take the furlough scheme: it has been necessary to prevent a complete economic collapse, but could also be a blueprint for a future unemployment policy. Remote working has resulted in lower greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air and less time spent commuting. You can now live anywhere in the UK, without the geographic restrictions of your employment.
The Tories quickly realised the consequences of this new normal and how it is deeply damaging to their landed interests. The hyper-financialised economy, built on concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, relies on the long commute to the expensive city office with sky-high rents. This is why, in the face of all medical advice earlier this month, we were being told to return to city centres en-masse. To the Tories, the old model was working well. Why should it change?
Rather than sit on the fence, Labour must be bold and capitalise on these building blocks of a new economic model. Our next policy platform should ensure that all workers have the right to request flexible working hours and locations that suit them – not just white-collar office workers. Wherever possible, workers should be able to work remotely if they can prove that they can do the job effectively, and employers should have no recourse to refuse them that right.
We would be wrong to think that this is just a ‘working from home’ revolution. The remote working idea must be tied into a larger economic agenda – one that brings with it expanding and improving broadband access, as well as improving education and opportunities for high-value tech jobs. This will require a comprehensive retraining programme that offers the in-demand skills of the 21st century. But crucially, whilst telling the public about our new model, we must make the case that this would redistribute wealth away from large city centres and towards towns up and down the country.
A higher standard of living, more free time, lower greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air, greater employment rights, skills and education, greater opportunities and redistribution of wealth across the country. This is the change that Britain has been so desperately crying out for. It is the change that Labour must offer at the next election.


labourlist--2020-09-25--How Labour can build a new foreign policy consensus for the UK

We know well the challenges facing those building a strategy for Britain ’ s engagement with the rest of the globe .
The world is more complex , less democratic and less secure than it once was .
We face Brexit at home , US-China tensions abroad , inequality affecting every part of the globe , well-overdue climate change action and , as the United Nations holds its 75th general assembly this week , the striking weakening of global institutions .
Ahead of the launch of the Labour Foreign Policy Group last week , Guardian diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on foreign policy beyond elite think tanks stops just short of abysmal .
So regardless of party politics , the launch today of a new Labour Foreign Policy Group might lift horizons beyond SW1A 0AA ” .
The gauntlet has been thrown down .
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy emphasised at our launch event that there has been a lack of real foreign policy since William Hague , with only a lens of trade and growth used since .
And so the question of that evening ’ s event , in conversation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallstrom , of ‘ What is progressive foreign policy in action ?
’ could not have been more relevant .
There are , of course , no easy answers .
But the event helped draw out two things .
A dual invitation stands before Labour : an invitation to reimagine , and an invitation to foster hope .
On reimagining , Monday ’ s conversation gave us plenty to chew over .
Firstly , what if workers in Bolton weren ’ t pitted against workers in Bangladesh ?
What if the bridge between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more about workers across the world seeing global solutions make a difference to local problems and local lives ?
What if we started talking about human flourishing and not only profit ?
Secondly , what if there were more women in positions of power , who would be able to show the kind of leadership we ’ ve seen during Covid-19 ?
What if there were more women shaping foreign policy and more female negotiators and mediators ?
Because who participates in foreign policy matters .
What if we built more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly women , in the midst of bringing change to their countries ?
Thirdly , in a world that has never felt more unstable , what if security led you to a broader view that includes but is not restricted to defence ?
What if you considered common security to include climate change , opportunities for young people , low pay and insecure employment ?
These are all critical issues that fuel insecurity and conflict .
Finally , what if Britain took inspiration from Sweden and found a new way of framing foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led other countries to follow ?
This is something Sweden did with its feminist foreign policy , which led Canada , Mexico and others also to focus on gender equality and women ’ s rights in their international work .
There would be significant difficulties in trying to replicate the Swedish experience – namely that they benefited from a consensus at home on foreign policy , whereas the post-Brexit UK is far from united on that subject .
But there are lessons to be learnt , too .
Sweden achieved nuance in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Union and United Nations , and invested in diplomacy as well as defence , bringing embassies behind its vision as key implementers .
Reimagining is crucial , but so is hope .
As Lisa Nandy rightly pointed out , we have never had to restart in this way .
Our greatest challenge , on both the right and the left , is defeatism .
The right claims that we can only survive by sheltering behind the US or China , but defending British interests means building global alliances that work towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially for Remainers , a sense of despair has crept in that somehow if we are outside of the EU then we are not internationalists .
Yet , as Nandy says , we are and we continue to be .
Britain must be able to stand up for values and speak from a place of strategic independence , taking the role – as Labour MP Stephen Kinnock is fond of saying – of an alliance-maker , not an alliance-breaker .
There is a rallying call : we may not be in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world want to engage with us , even as an opposition party .
There is a coalition of the willing , and it doesn ’ t need to wait until we are in government .
There is hard work to be done , hard debate ( “ you can disagree without being disagreeable ” , as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said ) and real frameworks and policies that need to be created almost from scratch .
But as Baroness Jan Royall summarised , these conversations give us “ immense hope for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are going to help our country change course ” .
The Labour Foreign Policy Group invites you to join .

We know well the challenges facing those building a strategy for Britain’s engagement with the rest of the globe. The world is more complex, less democratic and less secure than it once was. We face Brexit at home, US-China tensions abroad, inequality affecting every part of the globe, well-overdue climate change action and, as the United Nations holds its 75th general assembly this week, the striking weakening of global institutions.
Ahead of the launch of the Labour Foreign Policy Group last week, Guardian diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour tweeted: “The quality of UK debate on foreign policy beyond elite think tanks stops just short of abysmal. So regardless of party politics, the launch today of a new Labour Foreign Policy Group might lift horizons beyond SW1A 0AA”. The gauntlet has been thrown down.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy emphasised at our launch event that there has been a lack of real foreign policy since William Hague, with only a lens of trade and growth used since. And so the question of that evening’s event, in conversation with former foreign affairs minister for Sweden Margot Wallstrom, of ‘What is progressive foreign policy in action?’ could not have been more relevant.
There are, of course, no easy answers. But the event helped draw out two things. A dual invitation stands before Labour: an invitation to reimagine, and an invitation to foster hope. On reimagining, Monday’s conversation gave us plenty to chew over. Firstly, what if workers in Bolton weren’t pitted against workers in Bangladesh? What if the bridge between local and international was less about competition, and more about workers across the world seeing global solutions make a difference to local problems and local lives? What if we started talking about human flourishing and not only profit?
Secondly, what if there were more women in positions of power, who would be able to show the kind of leadership we’ve seen during Covid-19? What if there were more women shaping foreign policy and more female negotiators and mediators? Because who participates in foreign policy matters. What if we built more solidarity with others around the world, particularly women, in the midst of bringing change to their countries?
Thirdly, in a world that has never felt more unstable, what if security led you to a broader view that includes but is not restricted to defence? What if you considered common security to include climate change, opportunities for young people, low pay and insecure employment? These are all critical issues that fuel insecurity and conflict.
Finally, what if Britain took inspiration from Sweden and found a new way of framing foreign policy that was fresh and bold and led other countries to follow? This is something Sweden did with its feminist foreign policy, which led Canada, Mexico and others also to focus on gender equality and women’s rights in their international work.
There would be significant difficulties in trying to replicate the Swedish experience – namely that they benefited from a consensus at home on foreign policy, whereas the post-Brexit UK is far from united on that subject. But there are lessons to be learnt, too. Sweden achieved nuance in its position as friendly but critical members of the European Union and United Nations, and invested in diplomacy as well as defence, bringing embassies behind its vision as key implementers.
Reimagining is crucial, but so is hope. As Lisa Nandy rightly pointed out, we have never had to restart in this way. Our greatest challenge, on both the right and the left, is defeatism. The right claims that we can only survive by sheltering behind the US or China, but defending British interests means building global alliances that work towards the common good. On the left, especially for Remainers, a sense of despair has crept in that somehow if we are outside of the EU then we are not internationalists. Yet, as Nandy says, we are and we continue to be. Britain must be able to stand up for values and speak from a place of strategic independence, taking the role – as Labour MP Stephen Kinnock is fond of saying – of an alliance-maker, not an alliance-breaker.
There is a rallying call: we may not be in power but we are not powerless. Governments around the world want to engage with us, even as an opposition party. There is a coalition of the willing, and it doesn’t need to wait until we are in government. There is hard work to be done, hard debate (“you can disagree without being disagreeable”, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said) and real frameworks and policies that need to be created almost from scratch. But as Baroness Jan Royall summarised, these conversations give us “immense hope for our influence in the world” and “we are going to help our country change course”.
The Labour Foreign Policy Group invites you to join.


labourlist--2020-09-25--Sunak tells us to “live without fear” – but offers little comfort to low-paid workers

Labour welcomed another government “ U-turn ” as Rishi Sunak unveiled a new job support scheme to parliament yesterday .
With furlough ending next month , the Chancellor announced that its replacement would protect “ viable jobs ” in the next stage of the coronavirus crisis , as many businesses and whole industries face lower demand due to restrictions .
Echoing the views of anti-lockdown Tory MPs , as well as Labour ’ s John Spellar , Sunak even declared that everyone “ must learn to live without fear ” .
Unfortunately , the economic measures fall far short of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors , and there is much for people to fear over the coming months .
Anneliese Dodds offered an immediate response to the economic update in the chamber .
She used it to stress that Labour has been calling for the introduction of a targeted wage support system repeatedly , and that the new scheme “ comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs ” .
The Shadow Chancellor also pointed out that Sunak said little of training and retraining , which are crucial if the economy is changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of suspended animation , the government is now aiming only to protect “ viable jobs ” .
Perhaps most importantly , though , Dodds questioned whether the new jobs scheme truly incentivises short-hours working .
Does it make employers want to retain more staff on reduced hours than retain some full-time and make others redundant ?
The truth is that in many cases no such incentive is presented – and we are talking here particularly about low-paid work .
As highlighted by the Resolution Foundation and outlined in our piece on why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the job , if we ’ re talking about a £17k a year job , it would cost an employer more to employ two people part-time under this scheme than it would to employ one full-time person .
That is because it will see employers pay 55 % of the salary of a worker who will work only 33 % of the hours they are being paid for , rather than the one fifth that employers contribute now under furlough .
Ministers say the new scheme needs to be considered alongside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only way it actually works , but the bonus is set to end in January whereas this scheme runs for six months .
What is a “ viable job ” , according to the Chancellor ?
You would assume that “ viable ” means any jobs that could exist once the pandemic is over , or there is a vaccine , or there is an incredibly effective test and trace system .
But many jobs that fit into this category will still go down the pan next month because this new scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its level of government support .
And there was no mention by Sunak of improving Universal Credit , or otherwise helping the unemployed .
There is no V-shaped recovery in sight here , but for many UK workers there is much reason to live with fear .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Labour welcomed another government “U-turn” as Rishi Sunak unveiled a new job support scheme to parliament yesterday. With furlough ending next month, the Chancellor announced that its replacement would protect “viable jobs” in the next stage of the coronavirus crisis, as many businesses and whole industries face lower demand due to restrictions. Echoing the views of anti-lockdown Tory MPs, as well as Labour’s John Spellar, Sunak even declared that everyone “must learn to live without fear”. Unfortunately, the economic measures fall far short of what is required by those in hard-hit sectors, and there is much for people to fear over the coming months.
Anneliese Dodds offered an immediate response to the economic update in the chamber. She used it to stress that Labour has been calling for the introduction of a targeted wage support system repeatedly, and that the new scheme “comes too late for many people who have already lost their jobs”. The Shadow Chancellor also pointed out that Sunak said little of training and retraining, which are crucial if the economy is changing drastically for the foreseeable – and if instead of suspended animation, the government is now aiming only to protect “viable jobs”. Perhaps most importantly, though, Dodds questioned whether the new jobs scheme truly incentivises short-hours working. Does it make employers want to retain more staff on reduced hours than retain some full-time and make others redundant?
The truth is that in many cases no such incentive is presented – and we are talking here particularly about low-paid work. As highlighted by the Resolution Foundation and outlined in our piece on why the new support scheme isn’t up to the job, if we’re talking about a £17k a year job, it would cost an employer more to employ two people part-time under this scheme than it would to employ one full-time person. That is because it will see employers pay 55% of the salary of a worker who will work only 33% of the hours they are being paid for, rather than the one fifth that employers contribute now under furlough. Ministers say the new scheme needs to be considered alongside the job retention bonus, which is the only way it actually works, but the bonus is set to end in January whereas this scheme runs for six months.
What is a “viable job”, according to the Chancellor? You would assume that “viable” means any jobs that could exist once the pandemic is over, or there is a vaccine, or there is an incredibly effective test and trace system. But many jobs that fit into this category will still go down the pan next month because this new scheme is nothing like the German Kurzarbeit in its level of government support. And there was no mention by Sunak of improving Universal Credit, or otherwise helping the unemployed. There is no V-shaped recovery in sight here, but for many UK workers there is much reason to live with fear. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-09-25--Government policy is set to cause a homelessness crisis over winter

As the second wave of this pandemic approaches , the government ’ s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable continues to falter .
The ban on evictions ended this week , which means tens of thousands of families are at risk of losing their homes .
The government ’ s decision is likely to cause a homelessness crisis over winter .
Citizens Advice has warned of a huge surge in contact from private renters worried about arrears , with a 332 % increase in demand for support since lockdown .
Research shows that over 300,000 adult private tenants have fallen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the furlough scheme coming to an end next month , and a recession about to hit the country hard , these numbers are likely to only increase in the coming months .
The government have developed ‘ sticking plaster ’ policies when robust initiatives were required .
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has introduced mitigating measures that may help to delay an increase in homelessness but do not go far enough to prevent it .
They have extended the period of notice required before bringing possession proceedings to six months from 29th August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what of those who were served notice prior to this announcement ?
Generation Rent , a charity led by Labour peer Baroness Kennedy , has warned that over 55,000 households have already been served notice .
These families will face automatic evictions upon the reactivation of notice , as a winter recession looms .
Under the new measures , others will merely be able to wait a little longer .
The government has also amended civil procedure ( technical but critical rules that aim to ensure the fair but efficient execution of civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for possession must set out the landlord ’ s ‘ knowledge as to the effect of the coronavirus pandemic ’ on the tenant .
As expertly explained by housing solicitor Giles Peaker , the provision is flimsy .
It aims to ensure that a judge can adjourn any application for possession that involves a tenant ’ s ability to pay rent due to the pandemic .
But the provision is a farce : there is no duty to undertake any investigation into the tenant ’ s circumstances , nor is there criteria to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfy the rule by stating : “ I don ’ t know.
” The provision is a farce .
The government measures are dwarfed by the scale of the challenge to avoid homelessness .
They should have extended the ban for a further six months to protect families during unprecedented times , and then not just kicked the can further down the road but developed a substantial package of support for vulnerable families – with interest-free loans where appropriate , substantial packages of support for local councils , and emergency funds for families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition of campaigners , including Crisis , Shelter and the National Residential Landlords Association , estimated the cost of such a package would be £270m , just 0.013 % of GDP – pennies in the context of the billions in pandemic spending .
The long-term scourge of homelessness costs us more , both socially and economically .
But preventing and ending homelessness is not a Tory priority .
Rough sleeping in England is up 165 % since David Cameron walked into Downing Street in 2010 .
Child homelessness has increased by 80 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures from local councils show that – despite the ban on evictions – there has been an increase of 20,000 in homelessness during the pandemic , as families have been moved into temporary and emergency accommodation with mounting arrears after losing their jobs .
The Children ’ s Society has revealed that emergency accommodation funds for local councils have fallen by 86 % since 2010 , which leads to increasingly precarious accommodation being provided for families .
The financial pressures of the pandemic , combined with the lack of investment in housing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the legal process of eviction was suspended .
Whilst the pandemic produces new pressures for renters , in one aspect of the homelessness challenge – ‘ rough sleeping ’ or ‘ street homelessness ’ – lockdown offered an opportunity .
The Housing Secretary claimed that the government ’ s ‘ Everyone In ’ scheme had successfully taken 90 % of rough sleepers off the street .
The government invested just £3.2m in the project – less than the value of Jenrick ’ s property portfolio – and the scheme ’ s efficacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was undoubtedly an opportunity to make dents into the scourge of those living on the streets .
As the hotels that were housing the homeless opened their doors to paying customers , many lockdown occupants have now returned to the streets .
This was a missed opportunity : there are a myriad of services and challenges required to support those who sleep without a roof over their heads ( from mental health services to drug abuse and domestic violence support workers ) and , for a brief moment , a large proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known to the authorities .
An imaginative and functional government would have taken advantage .
The homelessness situation is even more frustrating when considering the legacy that the Conservatives inherited .
During the election campaign last year , the Tories had to admit that the then Chancellor Sajid Javid had “ misremembered ” when stating that homelessness peaked under the last Labour government .
In fact , statutory homelessness fell dramatically under the Labour government and , as powerfully set out by Dan Corry , rough sleeping was all but eliminated .
Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families vulnerable to eviction and warned that thousands of people would lose their homes without an extension to the ban .
The government itself has been given notice .
The failure of ministers to meet the challenge – and the human cost – will be on them .

As the second wave of this pandemic approaches, the government’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable continues to falter. The ban on evictions ended this week, which means tens of thousands of families are at risk of losing their homes. The government’s decision is likely to cause a homelessness crisis over winter.
Citizens Advice has warned of a huge surge in contact from private renters worried about arrears, with a 332% increase in demand for support since lockdown. Research shows that over 300,000 adult private tenants have fallen behind with their rent since lockdown. With the furlough scheme coming to an end next month, and a recession about to hit the country hard, these numbers are likely to only increase in the coming months.
The government have developed ‘sticking plaster’ policies when robust initiatives were required. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick has introduced mitigating measures that may help to delay an increase in homelessness but do not go far enough to prevent it. They have extended the period of notice required before bringing possession proceedings to six months from 29th August 2020. This is welcome, but what of those who were served notice prior to this announcement? Generation Rent, a charity led by Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, has warned that over 55,000 households have already been served notice. These families will face automatic evictions upon the reactivation of notice, as a winter recession looms. Under the new measures, others will merely be able to wait a little longer.
The government has also amended civil procedure (technical but critical rules that aim to ensure the fair but efficient execution of civil justice) to ensure that any claim for possession must set out the landlord’s ‘knowledge as to the effect of the coronavirus pandemic’ on the tenant. As expertly explained by housing solicitor Giles Peaker, the provision is flimsy. It aims to ensure that a judge can adjourn any application for possession that involves a tenant’s ability to pay rent due to the pandemic. But the provision is a farce: there is no duty to undertake any investigation into the tenant’s circumstances, nor is there criteria to be considered. A landlord can simply satisfy the rule by stating: “I don’t know.” The provision is a farce.
The government measures are dwarfed by the scale of the challenge to avoid homelessness. They should have extended the ban for a further six months to protect families during unprecedented times, and then not just kicked the can further down the road but developed a substantial package of support for vulnerable families – with interest-free loans where appropriate, substantial packages of support for local councils, and emergency funds for families facing homelessness to reduce arrears. A coalition of campaigners, including Crisis, Shelter and the National Residential Landlords Association, estimated the cost of such a package would be £270m, just 0.013% of GDP – pennies in the context of the billions in pandemic spending. The long-term scourge of homelessness costs us more, both socially and economically.
But preventing and ending homelessness is not a Tory priority. Rough sleeping in England is up 165% since David Cameron walked into Downing Street in 2010. Child homelessness has increased by 80%. Even during the pandemic, recent figures from local councils show that – despite the ban on evictions – there has been an increase of 20,000 in homelessness during the pandemic, as families have been moved into temporary and emergency accommodation with mounting arrears after losing their jobs. The Children’s Society has revealed that emergency accommodation funds for local councils have fallen by 86% since 2010, which leads to increasingly precarious accommodation being provided for families. The financial pressures of the pandemic, combined with the lack of investment in housing, has continued to have an effect even when the legal process of eviction was suspended.
Whilst the pandemic produces new pressures for renters, in one aspect of the homelessness challenge – ‘rough sleeping’ or ‘street homelessness’ – lockdown offered an opportunity. The Housing Secretary claimed that the government’s ‘Everyone In’ scheme had successfully taken 90% of rough sleepers off the street. The government invested just £3.2m in the project – less than the value of Jenrick’s property portfolio – and the scheme’s efficacy has been questioned by charities, but there was undoubtedly an opportunity to make dents into the scourge of those living on the streets.
As the hotels that were housing the homeless opened their doors to paying customers, many lockdown occupants have now returned to the streets. This was a missed opportunity: there are a myriad of services and challenges required to support those who sleep without a roof over their heads (from mental health services to drug abuse and domestic violence support workers) and, for a brief moment, a large proportion of them were housed and their whereabouts known to the authorities. An imaginative and functional government would have taken advantage.
The homelessness situation is even more frustrating when considering the legacy that the Conservatives inherited. During the election campaign last year, the Tories had to admit that the then Chancellor Sajid Javid had “misremembered” when stating that homelessness peaked under the last Labour government. In fact, statutory homelessness fell dramatically under the Labour government and, as powerfully set out by Dan Corry, rough sleeping was all but eliminated.
Labour has consistently called for more support for families vulnerable to eviction and warned that thousands of people would lose their homes without an extension to the ban. The government itself has been given notice. The failure of ministers to meet the challenge – and the human cost – will be on them.


labourlist--2020-09-25--Diane Abbott: “Give moderates a chance? Don’t be ridiculous”

Former Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has rebuffed calls to let moderates have their chance running Labour , telling viewers at an online event : “ Give moderates a chance ?
Don ’ t be ridiculous.
” Abbott , the UK ’ s first Black female MP , also suggested at the event by The World Transformed – held with US politician Ilhan Omar on Friday – that a swing to the right would hurt “ Black and brown people ” the most .
Asked whether it was time for the Labour left to “ let the moderates have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Give moderates a chance ?
Don ’ t be ridiculous .
First of all , what would happen if we left things to the right ?
“ It would be terrible for people who are mine and Ilhan ’ s colour , it would be Black and brown people that will suffer the most if you just let politics move to the right without offering any resistance… so we have to put up a fight.
” Members on Labour ’ s left have criticised new leader Keir Starmer this week after he talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech and whipped MPs to abstain on the second reading of the overseas operations bill .
18 Labour MPs from the party ’ s socialist campaign group rebelled in the Commons vote , including Abbott and former leader Jeremy Corbyn , citing concerns that the bill would effectively decriminalise torture .
Three of the rebellious MPs , Nadia Whittome , Beth Winter and Olivia Blake , were stood down from their frontbench roles as parliamentary private secretaries to shadow cabinet members .
On the future of the left , Abbott said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , we can make advances again .
And it is absolutely essential for ordinary people that we continue to struggle and we continue to push ahead.
” And on the potential clash between identity politics and class politics , the former Labour frontbencher told the event : “ First of all , I hate the phrase ‘ identity politics ’ .
White men coined that phrase .
“ What they mean by it is any time we talk about race or women or sexuality , because the people who talk about identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity , and that ’ s theirs – white men who already have power.
” Abbott added : “ All my life I ’ ve struggled mostly with men on the left who felt that racial justice was somehow a different and perhaps more marginal issue than class politics .
And I think racial justice has to be at the heart of your class politics.
” The online event was hosted by activist and writer Ash Sarkar as part of The World Transformed , an annual left-wing conference sponsored by Momentum .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Covid-19 .

Former Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has rebuffed calls to let moderates have their chance running Labour, telling viewers at an online event: “Give moderates a chance? Don’t be ridiculous.”
Abbott, the UK’s first Black female MP, also suggested at the event by The World Transformed – held with US politician Ilhan Omar on Friday – that a swing to the right would hurt “Black and brown people” the most.
Asked whether it was time for the Labour left to “let the moderates have a go”, she said: “Give moderates a chance? Don’t be ridiculous. First of all, what would happen if we left things to the right?
“It would be terrible for people who are mine and Ilhan’s colour, it would be Black and brown people that will suffer the most if you just let politics move to the right without offering any resistance… so we have to put up a fight.”
Members on Labour’s left have criticised new leader Keir Starmer this week after he talked about patriotism in his ‘Connected’ speech and whipped MPs to abstain on the second reading of the overseas operations bill.
18 Labour MPs from the party’s socialist campaign group rebelled in the Commons vote, including Abbott and former leader Jeremy Corbyn, citing concerns that the bill would effectively decriminalise torture.
Three of the rebellious MPs, Nadia Whittome, Beth Winter and Olivia Blake, were stood down from their frontbench roles as parliamentary private secretaries to shadow cabinet members.
On the future of the left, Abbott said: “The left has made advances in the past, we can make advances again. And it is absolutely essential for ordinary people that we continue to struggle and we continue to push ahead.”
And on the potential clash between identity politics and class politics, the former Labour frontbencher told the event: “First of all, I hate the phrase ‘identity politics’. White men coined that phrase.
“What they mean by it is any time we talk about race or women or sexuality, because the people who talk about identity politics say there is only one valid identity, and that’s theirs – white men who already have power.”
Abbott added: “All my life I’ve struggled mostly with men on the left who felt that racial justice was somehow a different and perhaps more marginal issue than class politics. And I think racial justice has to be at the heart of your class politics.”
The online event was hosted by activist and writer Ash Sarkar as part of The World Transformed, an annual left-wing conference sponsored by Momentum. This year the events were held virtually due to Covid-19.


labourlist--2020-09-25--Why the Tribune group will be an important forum over the coming years

The Tribune group has three candidates standing for Labour ’ s national executive committee elections this year , for the first time in our history : Theresa Griffin , Liz McInnes and Paula Sherriff .
Three women who know from long personal experience about campaigning and the fight we have to win in areas we lost .
Three strong , courageous , determined women with bucketloads of integrity , who will stand up for socialist values on the NEC .
Many people are interested in who we are and what we stand for .
We thought it might be useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tribune group represents people of the left of the Labour Party who want to work with others to see our socialist values realised in government .
We want a unified movement with a radical agenda .
Our members have been fighting for social justice for decades and include many of the strongest parliamentary advocates for policies including : • None close links to our trade union comrades , a real living wage and new workers ’ rights ; • None a Green New Deal and an industrial strategy that includes every community and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a society of equality for all ; We are internationalists , and we are co-operators .
Many Tribunites in Parliament , including Keir Starmer , served our party on the frontbench throughout the last five years , and were major contributors to our 2017 and 2019 manifestos .
Social justice , equality and solidarity are Tribune values , and our existing policies are a solid foundation on which an agenda for the 2020s can be built .
At the last election , voters were angry with us because we failed to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for .
The Tories exploited divisions in Labour and in our country with ruthless efficiency , and they will continue to divide , conquer and destroy – if we allow them to do so .
The growing disillusionment with the Tories is beginning to be felt across the country .
The public can see that the Prime Minister isn ’ t serious , and his party isn ’ t up to the job , but we still have a huge challenge ahead to rebuild trust .
As Keir said , Covid-19 thrives on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is more important than ever that we work together to eradicate racism and inequality .
And the peril in which the education of the young and the care of the old have been placed during this crisis powerfully makes the argument for radical Labour change .
This could and should be the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in .
Labour can make a huge difference , even after our defeat last year , if we unite .
Infighting and tearing each other down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values of decency , fairness , opportunity , compassion and security are the public ’ s values .
Our first task is putting forward candidates who can articulate and stand up for those values and that voters can trust at every level of government and right across Britain .
The Tribune group will be an important forum over the coming years for left-of-centre members within Labour to come together , listen to our communities and construct a narrative with relevant radical policies to inspire hope and trust in the electorate .
We derive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoulders we stand , the great radical reformers and socialists of our past who created positive and sustainable change for working people .
Throughout its history , Tribune MPs have striven to be a constructive voice for socialist values within the Labour Party .
We will help rebuild trust and credibility in Labour as a government in waiting , and we want you to be part of that .
Our three candidates for the NEC have the political experience and the left-of-centre Labour values that we share as Tribunites .
If they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with Keir to achieve his clearly stated aims : to unify Labour , to rebuild trust in our party across our country , to create a radical and credible policy agenda , to win the next election and implement it .

The Tribune group has three candidates standing for Labour’s national executive committee elections this year, for the first time in our history: Theresa Griffin, Liz McInnes and Paula Sherriff. Three women who know from long personal experience about campaigning and the fight we have to win in areas we lost. Three strong, courageous, determined women with bucketloads of integrity, who will stand up for socialist values on the NEC.
Many people are interested in who we are and what we stand for. We thought it might be useful to have a quick guide. The Tribune group represents people of the left of the Labour Party who want to work with others to see our socialist values realised in government. We want a unified movement with a radical agenda.
Our members have been fighting for social justice for decades and include many of the strongest parliamentary advocates for policies including:
social housing and against homelessness;
close links to our trade union comrades, a real living wage and new workers’ rights;
a Green New Deal and an industrial strategy that includes every community and region;
Black Lives Matter and a society of equality for all;
and a social security system that ends poverty.
We are internationalists, and we are co-operators. Many Tribunites in Parliament, including Keir Starmer, served our party on the frontbench throughout the last five years, and were major contributors to our 2017 and 2019 manifestos. Social justice, equality and solidarity are Tribune values, and our existing policies are a solid foundation on which an agenda for the 2020s can be built.
At the last election, voters were angry with us because we failed to offer them an alternative government they could vote for. The Tories exploited divisions in Labour and in our country with ruthless efficiency, and they will continue to divide, conquer and destroy – if we allow them to do so. The growing disillusionment with the Tories is beginning to be felt across the country. The public can see that the Prime Minister isn’t serious, and his party isn’t up to the job, but we still have a huge challenge ahead to rebuild trust.
As Keir said, Covid-19 thrives on the structural inequalities that we must defeat. It is more important than ever that we work together to eradicate racism and inequality. And the peril in which the education of the young and the care of the old have been placed during this crisis powerfully makes the argument for radical Labour change. This could and should be the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in.
Labour can make a huge difference, even after our defeat last year, if we unite. Infighting and tearing each other down makes this so much harder. Labour values of decency, fairness, opportunity, compassion and security are the public’s values. Our first task is putting forward candidates who can articulate and stand up for those values and that voters can trust at every level of government and right across Britain.
The Tribune group will be an important forum over the coming years for left-of-centre members within Labour to come together, listen to our communities and construct a narrative with relevant radical policies to inspire hope and trust in the electorate. We derive our basic politics from those on whose shoulders we stand, the great radical reformers and socialists of our past who created positive and sustainable change for working people. Throughout its history, Tribune MPs have striven to be a constructive voice for socialist values within the Labour Party.
We will help rebuild trust and credibility in Labour as a government in waiting, and we want you to be part of that. Our three candidates for the NEC have the political experience and the left-of-centre Labour values that we share as Tribunites. If they are elected to the NEC, they will work with Keir to achieve his clearly stated aims: to unify Labour, to rebuild trust in our party across our country, to create a radical and credible policy agenda, to win the next election and implement it.