labourlist--2020-04-22--PMQs: Starmer calmly dissects coronavirus response in first outing

When Keir Starmer first decided to run for the Labour leadership , winning the contest would not have been a completely astonishing idea .
But nobody could have told him that he would be taking up the new role amid a global pandemic requiring a nationwide lockdown .
He could not have foreseen that he would be putting questions in his first PMQs session to Dominic Raab because the Prime Minister would be recovering from the deadly virus .
Nor that parliament would be making history in half virtual form .
Nor that he would be having to ask about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the country .
Starmer made a big deal of introducing a new style of opposition when he was elected .
In his victory speech video , the Labour leader promised to “ engage constructively with the government , not opposition for opposition ’ s sake ” .
His approach to opposition during the coronavirus crisis has become increasingly controversial within the party , mostly from the left but Alastair Campbell has also urged a different course .
But his chosen style did prove effective at PMQs this afternoon .
Starmer was helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber : there was no jeering from MPs , who are mostly confined to their homes and only contributing via Zoom .
The key difference , though , was that he listened to the answers and responded to the comments made .
Too often , PMQs on both sides of the House has turned into a bid to secure clips of leaders for social media , which means neither politician at the despatch box listens to each other .
Avoiding this method resulted in a coherent head-to-head debate , and gave Starmer his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need correcting because I gave the figure for the actual tests a day , ” he told Raab when the PM ’ s deputy tried to ‘ correct ’ him on numbers .
The Labour leader settled on a question to which nobody seems to have gotten a real answer when he pointed out : “ Demand is there… It ’ s not about driving up demand.
” Just why exactly is the government celebrating increased testing capacity while not being able to show a similar increase for tests conducted daily ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actual tests .
It was necessary but heart-wrenching to hear that 69 NHS workers have died from coronavirus , and then equally crushing to be told that the government doesn ’ t have “ the precise figures ” for care home staff deaths .
Raab did seem rattled by these calmly delivered inquiries .
He started attacking Welsh Labour ’ s Vaughan Gething , which undermines the insistence of many ministers that any kind of scrutiny amounts to mean-spirited ‘ politicising ’ of the public health crisis .
Overall , what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer : a confident and intelligent performance .
The challenge for this Labour leader is whether he can be as skilled at changing the narrative as he is matching the mood of his electorate .

When Keir Starmer first decided to run for the Labour leadership, winning the contest would not have been a completely astonishing idea. But nobody could have told him that he would be taking up the new role amid a global pandemic requiring a nationwide lockdown. He could not have foreseen that he would be putting questions in his first PMQs session to Dominic Raab because the Prime Minister would be recovering from the deadly virus. Nor that parliament would be making history in half virtual form. Nor that he would be having to ask about the numbers of frontline workers dying to protect the country.
Starmer made a big deal of introducing a new style of opposition when he was elected. In his victory speech video, the Labour leader promised to “engage constructively with the government, not opposition for opposition’s sake”. His approach to opposition during the coronavirus crisis has become increasingly controversial within the party, mostly from the left but Alastair Campbell has also urged a different course. But his chosen style did prove effective at PMQs this afternoon.
Starmer was helped by the almost unprecedented silence in the chamber: there was no jeering from MPs, who are mostly confined to their homes and only contributing via Zoom. The key difference, though, was that he listened to the answers and responded to the comments made. Too often, PMQs on both sides of the House has turned into a bid to secure clips of leaders for social media, which means neither politician at the despatch box listens to each other. Avoiding this method resulted in a coherent head-to-head debate, and gave Starmer his sharpest response. “I didn’t need correcting because I gave the figure for the actual tests a day,” he told Raab when the PM’s deputy tried to ‘correct’ him on numbers.
The Labour leader settled on a question to which nobody seems to have gotten a real answer when he pointed out: “Demand is there… It’s not about driving up demand.” Just why exactly is the government celebrating increased testing capacity while not being able to show a similar increase for tests conducted daily? After all, its 100,000-a-day target refers to actual tests. It was necessary but heart-wrenching to hear that 69 NHS workers have died from coronavirus, and then equally crushing to be told that the government doesn’t have “the precise figures” for care home staff deaths.
Raab did seem rattled by these calmly delivered inquiries. He started attacking Welsh Labour’s Vaughan Gething, which undermines the insistence of many ministers that any kind of scrutiny amounts to mean-spirited ‘politicising’ of the public health crisis. Overall, what we saw today is what many expected of Starmer: a confident and intelligent performance. The challenge for this Labour leader is whether he can be as skilled at changing the narrative as he is matching the mood of his electorate.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Government Covid-19 business loan scheme “not working”, says Labour

Ed Miliband has declared that the government ’ s coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is “ not working ” in response to figures released showing that only 16,624 companies have accessed the funding .
Data published today on the uptake of the loans showed that a total of £2.8bn had been lent through the government ’ s business support scheme , but the Shadow Business Secretary has warned that many are “ still missing out ” .
The former Labour leader stated that the loan mechanism is “ inadequate ” for the scale of the crisis , and said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that such a small proportion of the six million UK businesses have been able to receive support .
Commenting on the data released this morning , Miliband said : “ Today ’ s figures show that the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is in no way equal to the scale of economic distress facing our firms .
“ Providing 16,000 loans in four weeks in a country of nearly six million SMEs is not good enough .
In an average week last year there was more than £1bn of new SME lending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now only at that level at a time of the worst economic emergency in our lifetimes is a clear sign that they are inadequate .
The government must recognise the scheme is not working adequately and change it urgently .
The future of many of our small firms depends on its decisions.
” As part of the emergency package of support during the coronavirus crisis , the government announced that it would underwrite 80 % of business loans for companies , with banks taking on the remaining 20 % of the risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take on 100 % of the risk , arguing that applications would be delayed as banks went through the normal commercial underwriting process .
The figures show that applications for support have doubled on the previous week – but only 16,624 loans have been approved out of a total of 36,000 requests , prompting concerns about companies that need access to cash quickly .
Other countries have seen a much larger amount of money , and higher number of loans , issued to their businesses .
In Switzerland , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .

Ed Miliband has declared that the government’s coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is “not working” in response to figures released showing that only 16,624 companies have accessed the funding.
Data published today on the uptake of the loans showed that a total of £2.8bn had been lent through the government’s business support scheme, but the Shadow Business Secretary warned that many are “still missing out”.
The business spokesperson argued that the loan mechanism is “inadequate” for the scale of the crisis, and said it’s “not good enough” that such a small proportion of the six million UK businesses have been able to receive support.
Commenting on the data released this morning, Miliband said: “Today’s figures show that the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is in no way equal to the scale of economic distress facing our firms.
“Providing 16,000 loans in four weeks in a country of nearly six million SMEs is not good enough. In an average week last year there was more than £1bn of new SME lending.
“The fact that CBILS are now only at that level at a time of the worst economic emergency in our lifetimes is a clear sign that they are inadequate. The government must recognise the scheme is not working adequately and change it urgently. The future of many of our small firms depends on its decisions.”
As part of the emergency package of support during the coronavirus crisis, the government announced that it would underwrite 80% of business loans for companies, with banks taking on the remaining 20% of the risk.
Miliband called on the government last week to take on 100% of the risk, arguing that applications would be delayed as banks went through the normal commercial underwriting process.
The figures show that applications for support have doubled on the previous week – but only 16,624 loans have been approved out of a total of 36,000 requests, prompting concerns about companies that need access to cash quickly.
Other countries have seen a much larger amount of money, and higher number of loans, issued to their businesses. In Switzerland, for example, 70,000 business have claimed £12bn in one week.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Do you remember the first time?

Do you remember the first time?

Keir Starmer took to the despatch box for his first Prime Minister ’ s Questions as Labour leader this week .
The chamber was remarkably quiet with parliament in its half-virtual state .
He listened carefully to the responses offered by Dominic Raab , which were largely opaque , and this meant that he could point out when the government wilfully tried to obscure the facts .
I can only imagine how difficult taking in and addressing the minister ’ s response must be when you are as nervous as the new opposition leader surely is in that first session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange in my snap analysis of PMQs here .
We also learnt more about the Labour leadership ’ s views on the crisis during the opposition-led post-PMQs huddle .
( This was very much a virtual huddle , of course , complete with unintelligible robot voices at times .
There was no toilet flush , though , unlike the lobby briefing conference call that morning . )
Asked about rent payments , Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ Labour believe that alongside a halt to evictions , the government should enable the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where people are struggling to keep up , and legislate for a further , manageable period for renters to pay back deferred rent.
” Jeremy Corbyn ’ s Labour had shifted from supporting rent deferrals to suspensions , but it appears that the party position is once again the former .
There were also comments made on the TUC-proposed inquiry and a universal basic income being introducing during Covid-19 .
Labour ’ s national executive committee will hold a special meeting today to discuss the leaked internal report on Labour ’ s handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling body have been given draft terms of reference for the independent investigation announced by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner last week , and they are expected to agree on the scope of that inquiry this afternoon .
Particular attention will be paid to the timeline signed off by the NEC .
It was suggested yesterday that the length of the probe would be “ a matter of months ” , but as one source said , “ we certainly don ’ t want it dragging on or looking like it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To mark St. George ’ s Day , we have published a speech delivered by David Lammy before he was appointed to the shadow cabinet .
At the English Labour Network event in March , the MP for Tottenham explored the themes of English identity and the left , civic rather than ethnic nationalism , and the introduction of a compulsory national civic service .
These are all topics considered in his new book Tribes .
You can read the speech here .
We ’ re also very pleased to hear that Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He said coronavirus “ left me literally gasping for air ” but he is now thankfully on the mend .
Wishing him the best recovery .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Keir Starmer took to the despatch box for his first Prime Minister’s Questions as Labour leader this week. The chamber was remarkably quiet with parliament in its half-virtual state. He listened carefully to the responses offered by Dominic Raab, which were largely opaque, and this meant that he could point out when the government wilfully tried to obscure the facts. I can only imagine how difficult taking in and addressing the minister’s response must be when you are as nervous as the new opposition leader surely is in that first session. You can read all about the exchange in my snap analysis of PMQs here.
We also learnt more about the Labour leadership’s views on the crisis during the opposition-led post-PMQs huddle. (This was very much a virtual huddle, of course, complete with unintelligible robot voices at times. There was no toilet flush, though, unlike the lobby briefing conference call that morning.) Asked about rent payments, Starmer’s spokesperson said: “Labour believe that alongside a halt to evictions, the government should enable the suspension of rental payments during this period where people are struggling to keep up, and legislate for a further, manageable period for renters to pay back deferred rent.” Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour had shifted from supporting rent deferrals to suspensions, but it appears that the party position is once again the former. There were also comments made on the TUC-proposed inquiry and a universal basic income being introducing during Covid-19.
Labour’s national executive committee will hold a special meeting today to discuss the leaked internal report on Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints. Members of the ruling body have been given draft terms of reference for the independent investigation announced by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner last week, and they are expected to agree on the scope of that inquiry this afternoon. Particular attention will be paid to the timeline signed off by the NEC. It was suggested yesterday that the length of the probe would be “a matter of months”, but as one source said, “we certainly don’t want it dragging on or looking like it’s kicked into the long grass”.
To mark St. George’s Day, we have published a speech delivered by David Lammy before he was appointed to the shadow cabinet. At the English Labour Network event in March, the MP for Tottenham explored the themes of English identity and the left, civic rather than ethnic nationalism, and the introduction of a compulsory national civic service. These are all topics considered in his new book Tribes. You can read the speech here.
We’re also very pleased to hear that Labour MP Tony Lloyd has left intensive care. He said coronavirus “left me literally gasping for air” but he is now thankfully on the mend. Wishing him the best recovery. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-04-23--English identity, civic nationalism and a compulsory civic service

The words below were delivered by David Lammy on March 3rd at the English Labour Network ’ s ‘ Politics of England ’ event .
He was speaking in his capacity as MP for Tottenham and author of new book ‘ Tribes ’ .
To mark St. George ’ s Day , we publish his speech… Much has been said about the 2019 election result which I won ’ t repeat , but before we get onto Englishness , Labour must return to getting these three fundamental aspects of opposition right : First , credibility and trust .
Issues of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think there were issues for Ed Miliband and were actually issues for Gordon Brown .
Second , making sure the policy platform that Labour is presenting is chiming with the electorate .
I won ’ t repeat just how problematic our indigestible policy offer was at the last election , which is recognised wherever you are on the left-right axis within Labour .
Thirdly , party discipline .
Again , this precedes Jeremy Corbyn .
The Labour Party has been a leaky bucket where members of parliament and their advisors enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their dirty linen in public , and that has gone on now for well over a decade .
Until those three fundamental things are gripped seriously by a new leader and a party that actually wants to win power , you can forget the English taking the Labour Party seriously .
On a broader sense , I ’ ve been fortunate to be able to find the space over five years to write a new book – Tribes .
The book really begins when I arrived in parliament 20 years ago now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tottenham , which is clearly a very definable , easily understood inner-city constituency with a historic black community ( and the best football club ! )
, yet I found that whilst I obviously had a degree of familiarity with many of my London MP colleagues , actually I got on very , very well MPs representing places outside London – Slough , Reading , Dartford , and Peterborough – partly because I had spent seven years of my life growing up in Peterborough , in middle England .
In some ways , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in middle England that gives me an ease both with the Labour movement and to some extent with the country .
I ’ m actually quite comfortable not just with being British but with being English .
I recall with joy and humour my first pints in the Farmers Arms in Peterborough .
At a certain point in my life I had gone to watch ‘ the Posh ’ , which is Peterborough United , not Spurs !
I spent some of my life as a lawyer in California , and pined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the kind of grey sky and nature of England .
What I mean is that Englishness , it seems to me , is quite important .
Why was I driven to think about this in my book ?
It was because politically careers come like this and they have different incarnations , but in the most recent incarnation , which really begins with the referendum , and the run up to the referendum , I found increasingly many people , particularly on social media , questioning my Englishness .
They would tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England so much ?
Go back to where you come from ” .
Somehow – after a period when they didn ’ t really feel that strongly about it – I represented something that they couldn ’ t stand and couldn ’ t possibly be part of the England that they love and they know .
I don ’ t take that too personally – but it ’ s a sensibility that seems to be quite dominant .
So I got into this business of exploring this subject of Englishness , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this lies in the progressive , liberal and left family vacating the territory that is to do with nationhood , to do with patriotism , to do with pride in who you are .
Totally leaving the ground .
An economic analysis of the inequalities and the injustices that lie in Britain are not sufficient .
Addressing issues of poverty and brutal unfairness because of class are not sufficient .
It seems to me , that you still have to have an account of the nation ; that ’ s really important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist nationalism has been gripping our country – and gripping the United States – and it is a formula that is proving increasingly attractive to parties that have historically been centre right , but that are now reaching into the far right to adopt language because it ’ s a vote winner .
And because this is going on in our own country , it pushes people like me into a place that you can label identity politics .
Because clearly it would be bizarre if I were not defending some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents and those that came to this country and gave us so much .
I have to say , I could not have predicted a decade ago that we would be in this place , that I would so have to constantly defend the Windrush generation , Grenfell , there ’ s a whole number of things that seem to have come up , aspects of the Brexit debate that certainly weren ’ t themes under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown particularly , but they ’ re certainly big themes now .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real challenge for us as a country , and for the Labour Party – and it is what we have seen in the US – is to take on the version of nationhood that is basically an ethnic nationalism .
It appeals to an ethnic purity if you like , even though that doesn ’ t really exist in the context of England , and says that you ’ re sense of nationhood comes from the fact that you are of a certain race , that you are of a certain tribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should get your mojo .
In a sense , the Tories are being quite clever at pandering to that .
But there is another type of nationalism .
We call it lots of different things ; I call it a civic nationalism that is built around shared stories , shared visions , shared ideals , shared institutions .
Labour needs to get really , really serious about that whole agenda , filling in that space .
It ’ s got to have accounts that mean something .
For example , an area of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few years that I really like – the green industrial revolution – intellectually is a great policy idea , but it still needs a lot more filling in to mean something to some of the constituency of the English .
What does it really mean when you ’ re down and dirty in Sunderland ?
What does it mean in Thanet ?
What does that really mean for you , and how can we bind a new institution , a new vision that connects Tottenham with these areas ?
It seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civic nationalism at a time when there ’ s definitely a growing ethnic nationalism that shuts certain people out .
Tribes is not a book that ’ s in any way a manifesto , but it does offer some policy .
There is a section in my book on the 50 % or more who don ’ t go to university and who have less opportunity to mix .
If you come from the North down to Southampton University or down to Reading or you go up to Manchester or Leeds , basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from different backgrounds – not as many different walks as I ’ d like , but some variance at least .
You get to start to feel something about the breadth of this country once you ’ ve left the town , village or city in which you ’ ve grown up .
So I have called in my book for a compulsory national civic service for all .
You can see it ’ s the Peterborough side me that called for that , because the more liberal Tottenham side me would never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an aversion to compulsion in the Labour Party !
But if you ’ re serious about nation building , which is what I think we ’ ve got to be serious about , then you have to be serious about obligation as well as choice .
Choice is an interesting word , because it goes to the heart of the New Labour period and the age of individualism that we ’ re now in .
So I do deliberately talk about compulsion .
I do deliberately talk about duty .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is about civic service , not the armed services , because I think that would be controversial .
But some engagement in our nation , and in building our nation , is important .
In Wales , Northern Ireland and Scotland – despite certain problems still existing – there is an ease with the devolution settlement that I don ’ t detect here in England .
So there is more that we can get out of devolution , and it can ’ t just be about London and the metro mayors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place that ’ s about an English Parliament , but I ’ m attracted to the debate .
You have to flesh out the legal and constitutional basis and how that would work , but I do arrive at a place where we hold English citizen ’ s assembly to debate serious policy with a cross-section of society .
So there ’ s something in England in terms of connecting the people to the establishment , and I think we ’ ve got to be in that territory .
We also need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Bill of Rights – arguments which have been long rehearsed in the Labour Party .
There ’ s one other area of policy that I won ’ t go into in depth – the issue of immigration – which my colleague Lisa Nandy covered well through her leadership campaign .
This is a thorny and difficult issue for the Labour Party , and I have been generally at one end of the debate in the last few years , wanting to defend free movement .
In my book I reflect on countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own and countries – the Fins , the Germans , Belgians – who have more regional immigration .
They allow for more determination at regional level over immigration into that area .
Just think for a moment if Britain were more like that , e.g .
if the North-East taking one view and the South-East taking another .
On exiting the European Union , there will be more immigration from the subcontinents of India , more immigration from countries like China and actually , because we ’ re going to hug America very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suspect even from the United States .
You think about those communities that didn ’ t vote Labour : is that what they think they were voting for ?
So , these issues are not going to go away and are not going to be easily settled with controlling immigration or a soundbite .
There ’ s something in the localism and allowing local communities to go off and do their thing , to come to their own judgments about where they sit on this very , very thorny subject going forward @

The words below were delivered by David Lammy on March 3rd at the English Labour Network’s ‘Politics of England’ event. He was speaking in his capacity as MP for Tottenham and author of new book ‘Tribes’. To mark St. George’s Day, we publish his speech…
Much has been said about the 2019 election result which I won’t repeat, but before we get onto Englishness, Labour must return to getting these three fundamental aspects of opposition right:
First, credibility and trust. Issues of credibility and trust started before Jeremy Corbyn, I think there were issues for Ed Miliband and were actually issues for Gordon Brown. Second, making sure the policy platform that Labour is presenting is chiming with the electorate. I won’t repeat just how problematic our indigestible policy offer was at the last election, which is recognised wherever you are on the left-right axis within Labour. Thirdly, party discipline. Again, this precedes Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party has been a leaky bucket where members of parliament and their advisors enjoy having a chat with journalists and airing their dirty linen in public, and that has gone on now for well over a decade.
Until those three fundamental things are gripped seriously by a new leader and a party that actually wants to win power, you can forget the English taking the Labour Party seriously.
Englishness and the left
On a broader sense, I’ve been fortunate to be able to find the space over five years to write a new book – Tribes. The book really begins when I arrived in parliament 20 years ago now. I was elected as the MP for Tottenham, which is clearly a very definable, easily understood inner-city constituency with a historic black community (and the best football club!), yet I found that whilst I obviously had a degree of familiarity with many of my London MP colleagues, actually I got on very, very well MPs representing places outside London – Slough, Reading, Dartford, and Peterborough – partly because I had spent seven years of my life growing up in Peterborough, in middle England.
In some ways, it’s the experience of growing up in middle England that gives me an ease both with the Labour movement and to some extent with the country. I’m actually quite comfortable not just with being British but with being English. I recall with joy and humour my first pints in the Farmers Arms in Peterborough. At a certain point in my life I had gone to watch ‘the Posh’, which is Peterborough United, not Spurs! I spent some of my life as a lawyer in California, and pined for Ribena, Walker’s crisps, the kind of grey sky and nature of England. What I mean is that Englishness, it seems to me, is quite important.
Why was I driven to think about this in my book? It was because politically careers come like this and they have different incarnations, but in the most recent incarnation, which really begins with the referendum, and the run up to the referendum, I found increasingly many people, particularly on social media, questioning my Englishness. They would tweet often, “why do you hate England so much? Go back to where you come from”. Somehow – after a period when they didn’t really feel that strongly about it – I represented something that they couldn’t stand and couldn’t possibly be part of the England that they love and they know.
I don’t take that too personally – but it’s a sensibility that seems to be quite dominant. So I got into this business of exploring this subject of Englishness, and it’s absolutely the case that part of this lies in the progressive, liberal and left family vacating the territory that is to do with nationhood, to do with patriotism, to do with pride in who you are. Totally leaving the ground. An economic analysis of the inequalities and the injustices that lie in Britain are not sufficient. Addressing issues of poverty and brutal unfairness because of class are not sufficient. It seems to me, that you still have to have an account of the nation; that’s really important.
Ethnic nationalism vs civic nationalism
Yet over the past few years populist nationalism has been gripping our country – and gripping the United States – and it is a formula that is proving increasingly attractive to parties that have historically been centre right, but that are now reaching into the far right to adopt language because it’s a vote winner. And because this is going on in our own country, it pushes people like me into a place that you can label identity politics. Because clearly it would be bizarre if I were not defending some of the turf that was ploughed over by my parents and those that came to this country and gave us so much.
I have to say, I could not have predicted a decade ago that we would be in this place, that I would so have to constantly defend the Windrush generation, Grenfell, there’s a whole number of things that seem to have come up, aspects of the Brexit debate that certainly weren’t themes under Tony Blair or Gordon Brown particularly, but they’re certainly big themes now.
So we’re in a place where the real challenge for us as a country, and for the Labour Party – and it is what we have seen in the US – is to take on the version of nationhood that is basically an ethnic nationalism. It appeals to an ethnic purity if you like, even though that doesn’t really exist in the context of England, and says that you’re sense of nationhood comes from the fact that you are of a certain race, that you are of a certain tribe, and that’s where you should get your mojo. In a sense, the Tories are being quite clever at pandering to that.
But there is another type of nationalism. We call it lots of different things; I call it a civic nationalism that is built around shared stories, shared visions, shared ideals, shared institutions. Labour needs to get really, really serious about that whole agenda, filling in that space. It’s got to have accounts that mean something. For example, an area of policy that’s come in the last few years that I really like – the green industrial revolution – intellectually is a great policy idea, but it still needs a lot more filling in to mean something to some of the constituency of the English. What does it really mean when you’re down and dirty in Sunderland? What does it mean in Thanet? What does that really mean for you, and how can we bind a new institution, a new vision that connects Tottenham with these areas?
It seems to me that we need to promote a civic nationalism at a time when there’s definitely a growing ethnic nationalism that shuts certain people out.
Compulsory national civic service
Tribes is not a book that’s in any way a manifesto, but it does offer some policy.
There is a section in my book on the 50% or more who don’t go to university and who have less opportunity to mix. If you come from the North down to Southampton University or down to Reading or you go up to Manchester or Leeds, basically you are going to meet young people from different backgrounds – not as many different walks as I’d like, but some variance at least. You get to start to feel something about the breadth of this country once you’ve left the town, village or city in which you’ve grown up.
So I have called in my book for a compulsory national civic service for all. You can see it’s the Peterborough side me that called for that, because the more liberal Tottenham side me would never have used the word compulsory because there’s an aversion to compulsion in the Labour Party! But if you’re serious about nation building, which is what I think we’ve got to be serious about, then you have to be serious about obligation as well as choice. Choice is an interesting word, because it goes to the heart of the New Labour period and the age of individualism that we’re now in. So I do deliberately talk about compulsion. I do deliberately talk about duty. But, let me just be clear, this is about civic service, not the armed services, because I think that would be controversial. But some engagement in our nation, and in building our nation, is important.
Devolution and constitutional issues
In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland – despite certain problems still existing – there is an ease with the devolution settlement that I don’t detect here in England. So there is more that we can get out of devolution, and it can’t just be about London and the metro mayors. I don’t land in a place that’s about an English Parliament, but I’m attracted to the debate. You have to flesh out the legal and constitutional basis and how that would work, but I do arrive at a place where we hold English citizen’s assembly to debate serious policy with a cross-section of society. So there’s something in England in terms of connecting the people to the establishment, and I think we’ve got to be in that territory. We also need to look again at a written constitution and a Bill of Rights – arguments which have been long rehearsed in the Labour Party.
Attitudes towards immigration
There’s one other area of policy that I won’t go into in depth – the issue of immigration – which my colleague Lisa Nandy covered well through her leadership campaign. This is a thorny and difficult issue for the Labour Party, and I have been generally at one end of the debate in the last few years, wanting to defend free movement. In my book I reflect on countries that have been less centralised that our own and countries – the Fins, the Germans, Belgians – who have more regional immigration. They allow for more determination at regional level over immigration into that area. Just think for a moment if Britain were more like that, e.g. if the North-East taking one view and the South-East taking another.
On exiting the European Union, there will be more immigration from the subcontinents of India, more immigration from countries like China and actually, because we’re going to hug America very close in a trade deal, immigration I suspect even from the United States. You think about those communities that didn’t vote Labour: is that what they think they were voting for? So, these issues are not going to go away and are not going to be easily settled with controlling immigration or a soundbite. There’s something in the localism and allowing local communities to go off and do their thing, to come to their own judgments about where they sit on this very, very thorny subject going forward.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Labour’s ruling body agrees scope of investigation into leaked report

Labour ’ s ruling body met this afternoon and agreed the terms of reference of the independent investigation announced by the leadership into the recently leaked report .
The national executive committee held its first meeting since Keir Starmer ’ s election as Labour leader via Zoom .
It was attended by six newly elected and appointed members .
It was arranged specifically to discuss the scope of the inquiry that was commissioned last week after a document on Labour ’ s handling of antisemitism was made public .
After the NEC meeting , a Labour spokesperson said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terms of reference for the independent investigation into the circumstances , contents and release of an internal report .
“ The NEC will meet again in due course to agree the individuals who will be appointed to lead the investigation.
” It is understood that the terms of reference will be published in full shortly – once amendments that were accepted during the NEC meeting have been taken into account .
The NEC agreed today that the investigation into the leaked report , which will be led by an as yet unknown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own report being published by mid-July .
There have been concerns raised by activists particularly on the left of the party that the probe could be used to “ kick the report into the long grass ” and prioritise the leaking of the report over its contents .
But , according to LabourList sources , during the meeting it was made clear by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner that the inquiry does not preclude disciplinary action by the party .
One source said the new leadership team was not trying to discourage such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with normal processes , and in fact “ they ’ re encouraged ” to do so .
It is not expected that the newly elected leaders would comment on specific cases that should be brought forward , particularly as both are in favour of introducing an independent complaints system .
NEC youth representative Lara McNeill tweeted after the meeting : “ This investigation does not stop the party taking disciplinary action .
We will chase this up with the general secretary ” .
Commenting after the meeting , a Momentum spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s commitment to disciplinary action against people named in the report.
” LabourList understands that several amendments were passed by the NEC , including one moved by Rayner that referred to the offer of whistleblower protections .
On this point , a Momentum spokesperson added : “ We also welcome the guarantees for whistleblowers that have been enshrined in the terms of reference .
While the report should not have been leaked unredacted , Labour is Britain ’ s largest political party and the contents were clearly in the public interest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ members deserved to know what was happening at the top of their party , and those involved in bringing these actions to light must not be penalised.
” LabourList understands , however , that the whistleblower amendment has been interpreted by others as protecting former staffers who act as witnesses in the investigation .
Sources say the independent investigation will not focus on the leaking of the report in terms of identifying the leaker ( s ) , though how and why the leak occurred will be considered .
LabourList was told by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the terms of reference was accepted that reordered the words so that the content of the report is listed as the first subject being looked into by the inquiry .
• Some had pointed out that the original statement an order of priorities that put the commissioning of the report ahead of its contents .
According to NEC sources , this view was taken into account and the wording changed as a result .
• An amendment was accepted that allowed the inquiry to raise issues about structures but clarified that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference and the NEC .
• Ann Henderson moved an amendment , which was then amended by Jon Lansman and passed by the NEC , to specifically allude to ‘ discriminatory behaviour ’ in the terms of reference .
• Rayner proposed a change to clarify and ensure that the inquiry was reporting back to the NEC rather than the party leadership , and that its report would be made fit for publication .
While there were arguments between NEC members during the meeting , and votes were mostly along factional lines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acrimonious one overall .
LabourList will be publishing the full terms of reference once due diligence has been completed – with amendments included – and they are released .

Labour’s ruling body met this afternoon and agreed the terms of reference of the independent investigation announced by the leadership into the recently leaked report.
The national executive committee held its first meeting since Keir Starmer’s election as Labour leader via Zoom. It was attended by eight newly elected and appointed members.
It was arranged specifically to discuss the scope of the inquiry that was commissioned last week after a document on Labour’s handling of antisemitism was made public.
After the NEC meeting, a Labour spokesperson said: “The national executive committee has today agreed the terms of reference for the independent investigation into the circumstances, contents and release of an internal report.
“The NEC will meet again in due course to agree the individuals who will be appointed to lead the investigation.”
It is understood that the terms of reference will be published in full shortly – once amendments that were accepted during the NEC meeting have been taken into account.
The NEC agreed today that the investigation into the leaked report, which will be led by an as yet unknown independent investigator, should conclude with its own report being published by mid-July.
There have been concerns raised by activists particularly on the left of the party that the probe could be used to “kick the report into the long grass” and prioritise the leaking of the report over its contents.
But, according to LabourList sources, during the meeting it was made clear by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner that the inquiry does not preclude disciplinary action by the party.
One source said the new leadership team was not trying to discourage such action from being taken by the party in line with normal processes, and in fact “they’re encouraged” to do so.
It is not expected that the newly elected leaders would comment on specific cases that should be brought forward, particularly as both are in favour of introducing an independent complaints system.
NEC youth representative Lara McNeill tweeted after the meeting: “This investigation does not stop the party taking disciplinary action. We will chase this up with the general secretary”.
Commenting after the meeting, a Momentum spokesperson said: “We welcome Keir Starmer’s commitment to disciplinary action against people named in the report.”
LabourList understands that several amendments were passed by the NEC, including one moved by Rayner that referred to the offer of whistleblower protections.
On this point, a Momentum spokesperson added: “We also welcome the guarantees for whistleblowers that have been enshrined in the terms of reference. While the report should not have been leaked unredacted, Labour is Britain’s largest political party and the contents were clearly in the public interest.
“Labour’s half a million members deserved to know what was happening at the top of their party, and those involved in bringing these actions to light must not be penalised.”
LabourList understands, however, that the whistleblower amendment has been interpreted by others as protecting former staffers who act as witnesses in the investigation.
Sources say the independent investigation will not focus on the leaking of the report in terms of identifying the leaker(s), though how and why the leak occurred will be considered.
LabourList was told by well-placed sources that:
An amendment to the terms of reference was accepted that reordered the words so that the content of the report is listed as the first subject being looked into by the inquiry.
Some had pointed out that the original statement implied an order of priorities that put the commissioning of the report ahead of its contents. According to NEC sources, this view was taken into account and the wording changed as a result.
an order of priorities that put the commissioning of the report ahead of its contents. According to NEC sources, this view was taken into account and the wording changed as a result. An amendment was accepted that allowed the inquiry to raise issues about structures but clarified that any structural changes remain under the remit of conference and the NEC.
Ann Henderson moved an amendment, which was then amended by Jon Lansman and passed by the NEC, to specifically allude to ‘discriminatory behaviour’ in the terms of reference.
Rayner proposed a change to clarify and ensure that the inquiry was reporting back to the NEC rather than the party leadership, and that its report would be made fit for publication.
While there were arguments between NEC members during the meeting, and votes were mostly along factional lines, LabourList understands that it was not an acrimonious one overall.
LabourList will be publishing the full terms of reference once due diligence has been completed – with amendments included – and they are released.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Let’s renew funding and support for research as a public good

There has rarely been a time when science was so prevalent in our minds – leading daily news bulletins and dominating so many of our conversations .
As the shadow minister for science , I have been intrigued by the government ’ s claim to be “ following the science ” – relying on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) advice from epidemiologists , virologists , public health experts and many others to make decisions at this key time .
Our world-leading researchers in universities and the private sector are part of international collaborative efforts on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while others work to make the levels of testing promised by the government a reality .
But these are difficult times for everyone , and science is no exception .
There are many sources of anxiety .
Universities face a significant funding problem with the prospect of lower student numbers this September , compounded by the fact that social distancing measures make many forms of research impossible to conduct .
The proliferation of short-term contracts means many researchers are concerned that they will not be able to find work in the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As is true in other areas , the challenges presented to researchers by Covid-19 are exacerbated by longer standing problems .
In the days when these things were still possible , I hosted the launch of a report on the casualisation of work within UK universities that detailed the impact of the use of fixed-term and ‘ teaching-only ’ contracts , which account for over a third of the academic workforce .
This group of workers are disproportionately women and BAME , and after years of moving from short-term job to short-term job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hiring freeze .
Research funding is also a concern – even as it is rising .
Labour ’ s pledge to grow research and development spending to 3 % of GDP , part of creating an ‘ innovation nation ’ , is needed now more than ever .
The Tories only promised to raise it to 2.4 % .
But the virus is already reducing GDP forecasts , and there is still the looming uncertainty of how Brexit will affect funding and collaborative research projects .
The Research Excellence Framework ( REF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to focus on tackling Covid-19 .
My colleague Emma Hardy has argued that the REF isn ’ t fit for purpose , and I believe we need to carefully consider how the government supports our world-class research .
Covid-19 has made it very clear that scientific research is a public good .
It is driven by public funding , and government priorities have a significant role in determining both what and how research is produced .
The REF is central to allocating government funding , but it also encourages a competitive environment with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentives to game the system , and can be used to put intense pressure on casualised staff .
They can still have their research outputs submitted even when a university lets them go after their short-term contract ends .
Obviously , there needs to be accountability of public money and a transparent way of assessing research funding .
But we need to better facilitate collaboration between researchers , institutions , communities and industry .
This requires strategic direction from the government in terms of setting key societal priorities to allow long term and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a more equitable funding formula that provides support for more localised and specialist research that the REF currently undervalues .
It should be a criteria of public research funding that institutions provide secure work for researchers and close gender and BAME pay gaps .
The current pandemic will not be the last we face , and there are other challenges that need confronting .
Our societies must change significantly over the next decades to tackle the climate emergency , which will require government support , public buy-in and researchers to be focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see universities and scientific research enabling new industries – particularly in manufacturing – that can respond to public health crises as well as decarbonise the economy .
What I want to see in the future is research informing policy and important social change , rather than academics filling in extensive submissions .
Any temporary stagnation in funding and support for research risks weakening our response to both this pandemic and the looming climate crisis .
The UK punches well above its weight in science , and must continue to do so in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just as we need to renew public funding and support for the NHS , we also need to renew public funding and support for research as a public good , integral to facing problems like pandemics and climate change in the long term , as well as enriching our understanding of the world and each other .

There has rarely been a time when science was so prevalent in our minds – leading daily news bulletins and dominating so many of our conversations. As the shadow minister for science, I have been intrigued by the government’s claim to be “following the science” – relying on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) advice from epidemiologists, virologists, public health experts and many others to make decisions at this key time. Our world-leading researchers in universities and the private sector are part of international collaborative efforts on a vaccine and treatments that will save lives, while others work to make the levels of testing promised by the government a reality.
But these are difficult times for everyone, and science is no exception. There are many sources of anxiety. Universities face a significant funding problem with the prospect of lower student numbers this September, compounded by the fact that social distancing measures make many forms of research impossible to conduct. The proliferation of short-term contracts means many researchers are concerned that they will not be able to find work in the coming years as job opportunities become limited.
As is true in other areas, the challenges presented to researchers by Covid-19 are exacerbated by longer standing problems. In the days when these things were still possible, I hosted the launch of a report on the casualisation of work within UK universities that detailed the impact of the use of fixed-term and ‘teaching-only’ contracts, which account for over a third of the academic workforce. This group of workers are disproportionately women and BAME, and after years of moving from short-term job to short-term job, they now face the prospect of a hiring freeze.
Research funding is also a concern – even as it is rising. Labour’s pledge to grow research and development spending to 3% of GDP, part of creating an ‘innovation nation’, is needed now more than ever. The Tories only promised to raise it to 2.4%. But the virus is already reducing GDP forecasts, and there is still the looming uncertainty of how Brexit will affect funding and collaborative research projects. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) has been suspended to allow researchers to focus on tackling Covid-19. My colleague Emma Hardy has argued that the REF isn’t fit for purpose, and I believe we need to carefully consider how the government supports our world-class research.
Covid-19 has made it very clear that scientific research is a public good. It is driven by public funding, and government priorities have a significant role in determining both what and how research is produced. The REF is central to allocating government funding, but it also encourages a competitive environment with its use in league tables, creates incentives to game the system, and can be used to put intense pressure on casualised staff. They can still have their research outputs submitted even when a university lets them go after their short-term contract ends.
Obviously, there needs to be accountability of public money and a transparent way of assessing research funding. But we need to better facilitate collaboration between researchers, institutions, communities and industry. This requires strategic direction from the government in terms of setting key societal priorities to allow long term and innovative research across disciplines, as well as a more equitable funding formula that provides support for more localised and specialist research that the REF currently undervalues. It should be a criteria of public research funding that institutions provide secure work for researchers and close gender and BAME pay gaps.
The current pandemic will not be the last we face, and there are other challenges that need confronting. Our societies must change significantly over the next decades to tackle the climate emergency, which will require government support, public buy-in and researchers to be focused towards important goals. I want to see universities and scientific research enabling new industries – particularly in manufacturing – that can respond to public health crises as well as decarbonise the economy.
What I want to see in the future is research informing policy and important social change, rather than academics filling in extensive submissions. Any temporary stagnation in funding and support for research risks weakening our response to both this pandemic and the looming climate crisis.
The UK punches well above its weight in science, and must continue to do so in the new world that coronavirus is shaping. Just as we need to renew public funding and support for the NHS, we also need to renew public funding and support for research as a public good, integral to facing problems like pandemics and climate change in the long term, as well as enriching our understanding of the world and each other.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Momentum urges people to chant “give them PPE” at 8pm

Left-wing Labour-backing organisation Momentum is urging supporters to chant “ give them PPE ” when they join the ‘ Clap for our Carers ’ applause at 8pm on Thursday .
In an email to members today , the group said : “ With so many frontline healthcare workers still unable to access proper personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , yesterday 80 health professionals signed an open letter outlining their concerns regarding the government ’ s handling of the pandemic .
“ They ’ re asking that tonight at 8pm , instead of just applauding healthcare workers from our doorsteps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Click below to join the Facebook event , invite your friends , and tap to share the image below on Twitter !
” A public Facebook event has been set up for the initiative .
Called ‘ Chant For PPE tonight , 8pm !
’ , it is hosted by Guardian writer Owen Jones and over 500 so far have said they are ‘ going ’ or ‘ interested ’ .
At Prime Minister ’ s Questions on Wednesday , Keir Starmer said the UK had been “ slow into lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPE and now slow to take up offers [ of protective equipment ] from firms ” .
Labour said dozens of British companies had offered much-needed personal protective equipment but been “ ignored ” by government , with such 36 firms contacting the opposition party in a few days .
The TUC has called for a public inquiry looking into the “ grotesque ” failure to provide frontline workers with adequate PPE .
The federation of trade unions has said it should be set up by the end of the year .

Left-wing Labour-backing organisation Momentum is urging supporters to chant “give them PPE” when they join the ‘Clap for our Carers’ applause at 8pm on Thursday.
In an email to members today, the group said: “With so many frontline healthcare workers still unable to access proper personal protective equipment (PPE), yesterday 80 health professionals signed an open letter outlining their concerns regarding the government’s handling of the pandemic.
“They’re asking that tonight at 8pm, instead of just applauding healthcare workers from our doorsteps, we chant “give them PPE”. Click below to join the Facebook event, invite your friends, and tap to share the image below on Twitter!”
A public Facebook event has been set up for the initiative. Called ‘Chant For PPE tonight, 8pm!’, it is hosted by Guardian writer Owen Jones and over 500 so far have said they are ‘going’ or ‘interested’.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer said the UK had been “slow into lockdown, slow on testing, slow on PPE and now slow to take up offers [of protective equipment] from firms”.
Labour said dozens of British companies had offered much-needed personal protective equipment but been “ignored” by government, with such 36 firms contacting the opposition party in a few days.
The TUC has called for a public inquiry looking into the “grotesque” failure to provide frontline workers with adequate PPE. The federation of trade unions has said it should be set up by the end of the year.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Fragmentation of bus market has led to unclear Covid-19 guidance, says Labour

Jim McMahon has said that the fragmentation of the bus market has resulted in a “ lack of clear guidance and advice ” for drivers , and called on the government to provide clarity for the transport workers throughout the Covid-19 crisis .
In a letter to the government today , Labour ’ s new transport spokesperson urged Grant Shapps to set out clear guidance on issues ranging from whether cash should be banned on buses to how social distancing can be effectively managed .
He expressed concerns about the differing approaches being taken by operators and backed calls by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national operators ’ forum to bring together the government , the various bus companies and unions .
McMahon wrote : “ There is a mix of overlapping and at times contradictory scientific advice and guidance in circulation .
While this is understandable during an unprecedented time , the job of government should surely be to cut through that noise and give those that need it clear , unified and constant guidance and direction .
“ The fact that different bus operators have diverging views on the best approach is confusing matters further .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all transport operators which is then published and publicised by your department .
“ There is concern relating to the provision of PPE , and which approach provides the best protection , the risk in transmission through cash handling , and how passengers can be managed as the lock down is lifted and patronage increases.
” In the correspondence , the Shadow Transport Secretary outlined the issues that he states the guidance should cover but not be limited to : • Whether drivers should be handling cash or should there now be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buses , if the latter is supported then that can only be realistically achieved by the government covering all revenue risk , in the same way it has with train operators ; • Whether drivers should be issued with gloves , masks , and other PPE items as standard , what specification this PPE should be and , if there isn ’ t sufficient PPE , whether buses should still run ; • Whether physical barriers ( ie .
screens ) should be in place for all operating buses , and if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective installation ; • How frequently buses should be cleaned and to what standard this cleaning should be , including routine deep cleaning ; • The need for drivers to have additional breaks , where social distancing can be applied , built into shifts ; • Whether a set number of seats from the driver should be unusable to ensure the driver is a minimum distance from passengers ; • How social distancing can be effectively managed on buses ( and for that matter within all modes of public transport ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide a safe environment for passengers and workers ; • Whether , if possible , all passengers should board from doors other than the front , as is the case in London .
The intervention from McMahon follows accounts of bus drivers having fallen ill with Covid-19 over a period of several weeks .
Trade unions have been calling for the transport workers to be provided with PPE throughout the crisis .
The number of recorded coronavirus cases in the UK is 138,078 – but with low levels of testing , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher .
Confirmed hospital deaths from the virus have reached 18,738 .
Below is the full text of the letter sent by McMahon to the government today .
I am sure you will join me in paying tribute to transport , distribution and logistics staff across the country .
Without them our country would grind to a halt and we could not hope to respond to beat Covid-19 .
With all our frontline workers , they are the very best of us .
Across the country people are shocked and saddened by increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Covid-19 .
Our thoughts are with the families of these brave professionals .
Our drivers are keeping the country going in extremely difficult circumstances , and they will be central to our economic recovery .
I appreciate it is a tremendously difficult time for those in your Department and you ’ ll recognise the constructive approach that the Opposition is taking .
I do , though , feel after weeks of this situation escalating , that it ’ s right to ask for clarity on a number of concerns that I , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is a mix of overlapping and at times contradictory scientific advice and guidance in circulation .
While this is understandable during an unprecedented time , the job of government should surely be to cut through that noise and give those that need it clear , unified and constant guidance and direction .
The fact that different bus operators have diverging views on the best approach is confusing matters further .
This can only be achieved with guidance for all transport operators which is then published and publicised by your department .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of PPE , and which approach provides the best protection , the risk in transmission through cash handling , and how passengers can be managed as the lock down is lifted and patronage increases .
I believe such clear guidance should include but not be limited to : • Whether drivers should be handling cash or should there now be a total ban on using cash on buses , if the latter is supported then that can only be realistically achieved by the government covering all revenue risk , in the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivers should be issued with gloves , masks , and other PPE items as standard , what specification this PPE should be and , if there isn ’ t sufficient PPE , whether buses should still run • Whether physical barriers ( ie .
screens ) should be in place for all operating buses , and if the government will provide specification on the most effective installation • How frequently buses should be cleaned and to what standard this cleaning should be , including routine deep cleaning • The need for drivers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be applied , built into shifts .
• Whether a set number of seats from the driver should be unusable to ensure the driver is a minimum distance from passengers • How social distancing can be effectively managed on buses ( and for that matter within all modes of public transport ) , and how queuing and boarding can be managed to provide a safe environment for passengers and workers • Whether , if possible , all passengers should board from doors other than the front , as is the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fragmentation of the bus market has , in part , caused the lack of clear guidance and advice from being passed both from government to drivers but also from drivers up to your Department .
I support calls from our trade union representatives that a national operator ’ s forum with government , operators and unions with driver and other bus workers ’ representatives would greatly help in understanding the frontline issues , varying approaches , and practical solutions .
Finally , I know everyone in government is working hard to do all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ d be grateful if you could pass on my thanks to those that work in your department .
I am raising these issues in the spirit of constructive engagement .
I thank you for the continued dialogue that we ’ ve shared over the previous fortnight .

Jim McMahon has said that the fragmentation of the bus market has resulted in a “lack of clear guidance and advice” for drivers, and called on the government to provide clarity for the transport workers throughout the Covid-19 crisis.
In a letter to the government today, Labour’s new transport spokesperson urged Grant Shapps to set out clear guidance on issues ranging from whether cash should be banned on buses to how social distancing can be effectively managed.
He expressed concerns about the differing approaches being taken by operators and backed calls by trade unions for the creation of a national operators’ forum to bring together the government, the various bus companies and unions.
McMahon wrote: “There is a mix of overlapping and at times contradictory scientific advice and guidance in circulation. While this is understandable during an unprecedented time, the job of government should surely be to cut through that noise and give those that need it clear, unified and constant guidance and direction.
“The fact that different bus operators have diverging views on the best approach is confusing matters further. This can only be achieved with guidance for all transport operators which is then published and publicised by your department.
“There is concern relating to the provision of PPE, and which approach provides the best protection, the risk in transmission through cash handling, and how passengers can be managed as the lock down is lifted and patronage increases.”
In the correspondence, the Shadow Transport Secretary outlined the issues that he states the guidance should cover but not be limited to:
Whether drivers should be handling cash or should there now be a total ban on using cash on buses, if the latter is supported then that can only be realistically achieved by the government covering all revenue risk, in the same way it has with train operators;
Whether drivers should be issued with gloves, masks, and other PPE items as standard, what specification this PPE should be and, if there isn’t sufficient PPE, whether buses should still run;
Whether physical barriers (ie. screens) should be in place for all operating buses, and if the government will provide specification on the most effective installation;
How frequently buses should be cleaned and to what standard this cleaning should be, including routine deep cleaning;
The need for drivers to have additional breaks, where social distancing can be applied, built into shifts;
Whether a set number of seats from the driver should be unusable to ensure the driver is a minimum distance from passengers;
How social distancing can be effectively managed on buses (and for that matter within all modes of public transport), and how queuing and boarding can be managed to provide a safe environment for passengers and workers;
Whether, if possible, all passengers should board from doors other than the front, as is the case in London.
The intervention from McMahon follows accounts of bus drivers having fallen ill with Covid-19 over a period of several weeks. Trade unions have been calling for the transport workers to be provided with PPE throughout the crisis.
The number of recorded coronavirus cases in the UK is 138,078 – but with low levels of testing, the true figure is thought to be much higher. Confirmed hospital deaths from the virus have reached 18,738.
Below is the full text of the letter sent by McMahon to the government today.
Dear Grant,
I am sure you will join me in paying tribute to transport, distribution and logistics staff across the country. Without them our country would grind to a halt and we could not hope to respond to beat Covid-19. With all our frontline workers, they are the very best of us.
Across the country people are shocked and saddened by increasing reports of bus drivers losing their lives to Covid-19. Our thoughts are with the families of these brave professionals. Our drivers are keeping the country going in extremely difficult circumstances, and they will be central to our economic recovery.
I appreciate it is a tremendously difficult time for those in your Department and you’ll recognise the constructive approach that the Opposition is taking. I do, though, feel after weeks of this situation escalating, that it’s right to ask for clarity on a number of concerns that I, council leaders and drivers’ unions have.
There is a mix of overlapping and at times contradictory scientific advice and guidance in circulation. While this is understandable during an unprecedented time, the job of government should surely be to cut through that noise and give those that need it clear, unified and constant guidance and direction. The fact that different bus operators have diverging views on the best approach is confusing matters further. This can only be achieved with guidance for all transport operators which is then published and publicised by your department.
There is concern relating to the provision of PPE, and which approach provides the best protection, the risk in transmission through cash handling, and how passengers can be managed as the lock down is lifted and patronage increases. I believe such clear guidance should include but not be limited to:
Whether drivers should be handling cash or should there now be a total ban on using cash on buses, if the latter is supported then that can only be realistically achieved by the government covering all revenue risk, in the same way it has with train operators
Whether drivers should be issued with gloves, masks, and other PPE items as standard, what specification this PPE should be and, if there isn’t sufficient PPE, whether buses should still run
Whether physical barriers (ie. screens) should be in place for all operating buses, and if the government will provide specification on the most effective installation
How frequently buses should be cleaned and to what standard this cleaning should be, including routine deep cleaning
The need for drivers to have additional breaks, where social distancing can be applied, built into shifts.
Whether a set number of seats from the driver should be unusable to ensure the driver is a minimum distance from passengers
How social distancing can be effectively managed on buses (and for that matter within all modes of public transport), and how queuing and boarding can be managed to provide a safe environment for passengers and workers
Whether, if possible, all passengers should board from doors other than the front, as is the case in London.
It does appear that the fragmentation of the bus market has, in part, caused the lack of clear guidance and advice from being passed both from government to drivers but also from drivers up to your Department. I support calls from our trade union representatives that a national operator’s forum with government, operators and unions with driver and other bus workers’ representatives would greatly help in understanding the frontline issues, varying approaches, and practical solutions.
Finally, I know everyone in government is working hard to do all they can in this trying time, and I’d be grateful if you could pass on my thanks to those that work in your department.
I am raising these issues in the spirit of constructive engagement. I thank you for the continued dialogue that we’ve shared over the previous fortnight.
Yours Sincerely,
Jim


labourlist--2020-04-23--There’s an awareness campaign. What now for victims of domestic abuse?

Between March 23rd and April 13th , the Count Dead Women project recorded 16 domestic abuse killings : over twice the ordinary , awful average , which is approximately five deaths a week .
According to the project ’ s founder , Karen Ingala Smith , the number of women killed by men in the first three weeks of lockdown are the highest figures of any 21 day-period since she began tracking fatal violence against women over a decade ago .
Domestic abuse charities have also highlighted a spike in requests for help since the coronavirus lockdown was put in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistics from Essex showed that the police had responded to over 300 incidents of domestic abuse in the past month .
The Home Secretary finally spoke about the issue last week in one of daily press conferences .
In the government ’ s first reference to the increasing violence within people ’ s homes , Priti Patel launched a public awareness campaign for those at risk of abuse , with the hashtag # YouAreNotAlone , and pledged an extra £2m for domestic abuse helplines .
However , as yet , there has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accommodation or increased refuge funding for those who make the calls and need to leave .
In short , the government ’ s response has committed itself to little more than a publicised helpline .
It is apparent from Patel ’ s approach that she would rather see perpetrators removed from the home than invest in the support needed for victims who decide to flee .
This is to ignore reality .
Particularly in the case of mothers facing abuse , many would rather put up with their situation than make their children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative , others will not risk contacting the police .
Isabel Hardman ’ s recent question to the Health Secretary made the stark point that even before lockdown , refuges were turning away around 90 women a night .
Last year , the Women ’ s Aid annual audit showed that 64 % of refuge referrals were declined .
In London , Solace Women ’ s Aid ’ s 23 refuges are now full due to the unprecedented demand .
The Victims ’ Commissioner Vera Baird QC and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the government to support making hotel rooms available to those fleeing domestic abuse .
These calls have been echoed by the Labour Party , with the new Shadow Home Secretary , Nick Thomas-Symonds , and shadow minister for domestic violence , Jess Phillips , both campaigning for the government to protect those at risk by utilising available accommodation , such as hotels .
There has been no response .
Indeed , hotel and hostel chains have accused the government of ignoring their offers of shelter .
Three weeks ago , alongside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Aid , the Labour Campaign for Human Rights sent a letter to the Ministry of Housing , Communities and Local Government about the need to ring-fence funding to house domestic abuse survivors during lockdown .
Despite mounting pressure to support victims of domestic violence at a time of increased risk , funding has not been allocated .
To secure the emergency accommodation required for those suffering domestic abuse during the lockdown , we are encouraging the government to seek an urgent amendment to the 1996 Housing Act ( also known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that those escaping abuse are automatically treated as a priority need .
Over a year has passed since Theresa May ’ s government first introduced the Domestic Violence Bill .
This proposed legislation fell in September 2019 , when her successor prorogued parliament .
It would be wise to prioritise its replacement .
You can add your name to our call for the Housing Act amendment and for ring-fenced emergency funds here .
Run by Women ’ s Aid and Refuge , the freephone 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline is 0808 2000 @ @

Between March 23rd and April 13th, the Count Dead Women project recorded 16 domestic abuse killings: over twice the ordinary, awful average, which is approximately five deaths a week. According to the project’s founder, Karen Ingala Smith, the number of women killed by men in the first three weeks of lockdown are the highest figures of any 21 day-period since she began tracking fatal violence against women over a decade ago.
Domestic abuse charities have also highlighted a spike in requests for help since the coronavirus lockdown was put in place last month. On Tuesday, statistics from Essex showed that the police had responded to over 300 incidents of domestic abuse in the past month.
The Home Secretary finally spoke about the issue last week in one of daily press conferences. In the government’s first reference to the increasing violence within people’s homes, Priti Patel launched a public awareness campaign for those at risk of abuse, with the hashtag #YouAreNotAlone, and pledged an extra £2m for domestic abuse helplines.
However, as yet, there has been no announcement from the government on additional accommodation or increased refuge funding for those who make the calls and need to leave. In short, the government’s response has committed itself to little more than a publicised helpline.
It is apparent from Patel’s approach that she would rather see perpetrators removed from the home than invest in the support needed for victims who decide to flee. This is to ignore reality. Particularly in the case of mothers facing abuse, many would rather put up with their situation than make their children homeless. If there is no safe alternative, others will not risk contacting the police.
Isabel Hardman’s recent question to the Health Secretary made the stark point that even before lockdown, refuges were turning away around 90 women a night. Last year, the Women’s Aid annual audit showed that 64% of refuge referrals were declined. In London, Solace Women’s Aid’s 23 refuges are now full due to the unprecedented demand.
The Victims’ Commissioner Vera Baird QC and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales Nicole Jacobs have called on the government to support making hotel rooms available to those fleeing domestic abuse. These calls have been echoed by the Labour Party, with the new Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, and shadow minister for domestic violence, Jess Phillips, both campaigning for the government to protect those at risk by utilising available accommodation, such as hotels. There has been no response. Indeed, hotel and hostel chains have accused the government of ignoring their offers of shelter.
Three weeks ago, alongside the Public Interest Law Centre and Solace Women’s Aid, the Labour Campaign for Human Rights sent a letter to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the need to ring-fence funding to house domestic abuse survivors during lockdown. Despite mounting pressure to support victims of domestic violence at a time of increased risk, funding has not been allocated.
To secure the emergency accommodation required for those suffering domestic abuse during the lockdown, we are encouraging the government to seek an urgent amendment to the 1996 Housing Act (also known as the Homelessness Act). This would ensure that those escaping abuse are automatically treated as a priority need.
Over a year has passed since Theresa May’s government first introduced the Domestic Violence Bill. This proposed legislation fell in September 2019, when her successor prorogued parliament. It would be wise to prioritise its replacement.
You can add your name to our call for the Housing Act amendment and for ring-fenced emergency funds here.
Run by Women’s Aid and Refuge, the freephone 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline is 0808 2000 247.


labourlist--2020-04-23--Government coronavirus business loan scheme “not working”, says Labour

Ed Miliband has declared that the government ’ s coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is “ not working ” in response to figures released showing that only 16,624 companies have accessed the funding .
Data published today on the uptake of the loans showed that a total of £2.8bn had been lent through the government ’ s business support scheme , but the Shadow Business Secretary warned that many are “ still missing out ” .
The business spokesperson argued that the loan mechanism is “ inadequate ” for the scale of the crisis , and said it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small proportion of the six million UK businesses have been able to receive support .
Commenting on the data released this morning , Miliband said : “ Today ’ s figures show that the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme is in no way equal to the scale of economic distress facing our firms .
“ Providing 16,000 loans in four weeks in a country of nearly six million SMEs is not good enough .
In an average week last year there was more than £1bn of new SME lending .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that level at a time of the worst economic emergency in our lifetimes is a clear sign that they are inadequate .
The government must recognise the scheme is not working adequately and change it urgently .
The future of many of our small firms depends on its decisions.
” As part of the emergency package of support during the coronavirus crisis , the government announced that it would underwrite 80 % of business loans for companies , with banks taking on the remaining 20 % of the risk .
Miliband called on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 % of the risk , arguing that applications would be delayed as banks went through the normal commercial underwriting process .
The figures show that applications for support have doubled on the previous week – but only 16,624 loans have been approved out of a total of 36,000 requests , prompting concerns about companies that need access to cash quickly .
Other countries have seen a much larger amount of money , and higher number of loans , issued to their businesses .
In Switzerland , for example , 70,000 business have @ @ @ @ @ @


labourlist--2020-04-24--Black men in Labour are marginalised, sidelined and ignored. That must change

“ You see our problem is that Black people are not a priority in the Labour Party and trade union movement at the moment.
” You would be forgiven for assuming that this comment was made in the last week .
But these were the words of the late Bernie Grant during the 1984 Labour Party annual conference , when he talked about the treatment of black people and the issues they face within the Labour Party .
20 years after Grant ’ s death , his words still ring true .
We have recently learnt of allegations concerning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism – of black MPs Diane Abbott , Clive Lewis and Dawn Butler .
As a movement , it begs the question : how can we call ourselves an anti-racist party that fights for equality and justice when we have have racism , inequality and injustice within our own movement ?
And as young black men , the question is : how are we supposed to stand by and represent a party that doesn ’ t represent , nor stand by , us ?
Neither the Labour Party nor the trade union movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and represent black men – and that needs to improve .
The numbers are pretty damning : since 1987 , only four black men have been elected as Labour MPs and currently there are just three black male MPs across the whole Parliamentary Labour Party – representing a measly 1.49 % of the current members .
There are just two black male Labour members of the House of Lords : Lord Bill Morris , and Lord Paul Boateng .
Ahead of the 2017 general election , Labour selected no black men as new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint to the then general secretary , Iain McNicol , but no action was taken .
On a local government level , according to an audit carried out last year by Operation Black Vote , just 81 of 1,026 BAME councillors are black men of African/Caribbean descent .
And the last time a black man was a Labour representative on the Greater London Assembly , or sat on Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) , was over 20 years ago .
Alongside such depressing statistics , internal representation is equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2017 BuzzFeed article , director of Operation Black Vote Simon Woolley said : “ The trouble is Labour has so many internal problems and no black people , no [ black ] senior policy people in the Labour Party central office.
” The 1987 Caucus Movement believes it is crucial to ensure that our voices are heard at the decision-making table .
But why does it matter ?
What will black representation achieve at the end of the day ?
Young black men are more likely to be stopped and searched , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be arrested , charged and jailed for harsher and longer sentences than their white counterparts for the same crime .
Similar disparities are seen across education , employment , health and housing .
You only have to look at the way prominent black male figures such as Raheem Sterling , Stormzy and Dave have been treated by the media .
These observations only scratch the surface of the problem , but they reveal uncomfortable truths about institutional racism and a clear racial bias in our country .
Several articles have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , on its failure to address the lack of black male representation .
But here we are – in 2020 – having to create the 1987 Caucus Movement because , as a community , we have felt so voiceless .
We believe black men within the party have been marginalised , sidelined and ignored .
This needs to change .
The new organisation is a collective and network of young black men in the Labour Party , inspired by the historic election of 1987 that saw the first black men elected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black male representation at all levels of the party , to campaign to tackle racism , injustice and inequality , and to ensure that black issues are at the forefront of the Labour ’ s agenda .
It will be a safe space for young black men to express their concerns and discuss the issues we face .
We aim to contribute to policy development , but ultimately to empower and support our young black men to apply , run and put themselves forward for positions .
Many Labour members have understandably questioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been criticised for not being robust enough in its response to the leaked report , being too slow to call for an investigation into coronavirus BAME deaths , being hesitant to implement Labour ’ s democracy review recommendations and changes to Chapter 14 of the rulebook ( rules for ethnic minorities forums ) , and handling NEC BAME elections poorly .
At the 1987 Caucus , we decided to use this anger to organise !
Our appeal is directed towards any and every young black man who is a member of the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Join us , and let ’ s build the network to ensure that our voices are heard .
Our second appeal is to the new party leadership : work with us to ensure that we improve representation and campaign on the issues that black communities face – or risk losing them forever .
• expands the successful Bernie Grant Leadership Programme , which helps organise , encourage and support BAME activists across the party ; • reviews the process for recommendations to the House of Lords to ensure that more BAME members are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chapter 14 in the rule book and all recommendations in the democracy review ; • improves the way that it collects data on new party members from ethnic minorities ; • sees Labour HQ put forward a plan of action to improve representation in the workforce , especially at senior management level ; • allows all internal BAME elections to allow only BAME members to vote under a one-member-one-vote system ; • and that the wider labour movement diversifies the top level positions in trade unions , and does more to encourage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @

“You see our problem is that Black people are not a priority in the Labour Party and trade union movement at the moment.” You would be forgiven for assuming that this comment was made in the last week. But these were the words of the late Bernie Grant during the 1984 Labour Party annual conference, when he talked about the treatment of black people and the issues they face within the Labour Party.
20 years after Grant’s death, his words still ring true. We have recently learnt of allegations concerning the abuse and disgusting treatment – drenched in racism – of black MPs Diane Abbott, Clive Lewis and Dawn Butler. As a movement, it begs the question: how can we call ourselves an anti-racist party that fights for equality and justice when we have have racism, inequality and injustice within our own movement? And as young black men, the question is: how are we supposed to stand by and represent a party that doesn’t represent, nor stand by, us?
Neither the Labour Party nor the trade union movement is doing enough to support, encourage and represent black men – and that needs to improve. The numbers are pretty damning: since 1987, only four black men have been elected as Labour MPs and currently there are just three black male MPs across the whole Parliamentary Labour Party – representing a measly 1.49% of the current members. There are just two black male Labour members of the House of Lords: Lord Bill Morris, and Lord Paul Boateng.
Ahead of the 2017 general election, Labour selected no black men as new candidates. This led to a formal complaint to the then general secretary, Iain McNicol, but no action was taken. On a local government level, according to an audit carried out last year by Operation Black Vote, just 81 of 1,026 BAME councillors are black men of African/Caribbean descent. And the last time a black man was a Labour representative on the Greater London Assembly, or sat on Labour’s national executive committee (NEC), was over 20 years ago.
Alongside such depressing statistics, internal representation is equally as important as external representation. In a 2017 BuzzFeed article, director of Operation Black Vote Simon Woolley said: “The trouble is Labour has so many internal problems and no black people, no [black] senior policy people in the Labour Party central office.”
The 1987 Caucus Movement believes it is crucial to ensure that our voices are heard at the decision-making table. But why does it matter? What will black representation achieve at the end of the day?
Young black men are more likely to be stopped and searched, and three and a half times more likely to be arrested, charged and jailed for harsher and longer sentences than their white counterparts for the same crime. Similar disparities are seen across education, employment, health and housing. You only have to look at the way prominent black male figures such as Raheem Sterling, Stormzy and Dave have been treated by the media. These observations only scratch the surface of the problem, but they reveal uncomfortable truths about institutional racism and a clear racial bias in our country.
Several articles have been written, and complaints submitted to the party, on its failure to address the lack of black male representation. But here we are – in 2020 – having to create the 1987 Caucus Movement because, as a community, we have felt so voiceless. We believe black men within the party have been marginalised, sidelined and ignored. This needs to change.
The new organisation is a collective and network of young black men in the Labour Party, inspired by the historic election of 1987 that saw the first black men elected to parliament. Our aim is to improve black male representation at all levels of the party, to campaign to tackle racism, injustice and inequality, and to ensure that black issues are at the forefront of the Labour’s agenda. It will be a safe space for young black men to express their concerns and discuss the issues we face. We aim to contribute to policy development, but ultimately to empower and support our young black men to apply, run and put themselves forward for positions.
Many Labour members have understandably questioned their membership recently. The party has been criticised for not being robust enough in its response to the leaked report, being too slow to call for an investigation into coronavirus BAME deaths, being hesitant to implement Labour’s democracy review recommendations and changes to Chapter 14 of the rulebook (rules for ethnic minorities forums), and handling NEC BAME elections poorly. At the 1987 Caucus, we decided to use this anger to organise!
Our appeal is directed towards any and every young black man who is a member of the Labour Party. Our movement is growing. Join us, and let’s build the network to ensure that our voices are heard. Our second appeal is to the new party leadership: work with us to ensure that we improve representation and campaign on the issues that black communities face – or risk losing them forever.
We demand that Labour:
looks into all-BAME parliamentary selection lists;
expands the successful Bernie Grant Leadership Programme, which helps organise, encourage and support BAME activists across the party;
reviews the process for recommendations to the House of Lords to ensure that more BAME members are appointed;
implements the changes to Chapter 14 in the rule book and all recommendations in the democracy review;
develop a complaints procedure that recognises structural racism and Afrophobia;
entirely reform and democratise BAME Labour;
improves the way that it collects data on new party members from ethnic minorities;
sees Labour HQ put forward a plan of action to improve representation in the workforce, especially at senior management level;
allows all internal BAME elections to allow only BAME members to vote under a one-member-one-vote system;
and that the wider labour movement diversifies the top level positions in trade unions, and does more to encourage and empower black workers within the movement.
@1987Caucus | email: [email protected]