By Michael Elms

In the run-up to Labour Party conference on 25-29 September, one area where the left (and the Labour right, too) remains split is on the question of Proportional Representation. There has been a major organised push to get PR motions on the conference order paper this year.

Some on the Labour left oppose PR on the grounds that it would make the process of getting a Labour government more complicated, and that the whole idea is often packaged with support for a “progressive alliance”, some sort of electoral non-aggression pact between Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

In a 5 August interview with the Financial Times, Starmer dismisses electoral pacts out of hand. Much as such a pact would drag Labour further right, he seems to calculate that promoting it now would only help Labour votes leak to other parties.

A minority Labour government might well find itself relying on the votes of other parties: but making a deal with them, rather than challenging them to back Labour or face a new election, could only have the effect of letting anti-working-class or nationalist parties dictate Labour policy, or giving Labour right-wingers a lever to prevail.

But if it can be separated from the question of a “progressive alliance”, the left has to support PR. The reason is simple: PR is a more democratic voting system than First Past the Post. Even if it is the case that a better voting system would complicate Labour’s path to forming a government, that is not sufficient grounds to oppose PR.

A reasonable person could see that the left only supports democracy “when it suits them”.

Any weakening of socialists’ principled and absolute support for democracy as a good in itself will ultimately hollow out and weaken the workers’ movement, which needs democracy like oxygen.

By Martin Thomas

Over the longer term, several studies suggest that the biggest factor reducing Covid toll so far has been lower income inequality. In separate studies Annabel Tan and others, and Tim Liao and others have found that for US counties; Carlos Oronce and others and Youyang Gu, for US states; Frank Elgar and others, for countries (among 84 that they studied).

There are obviously many other factors: vaccines, of course, and judicious lockdowns and quarantines which can usefully slow (but on all evidence, not end) Covid spread. Hospitals get less swamped, and, in the meantime, more people get vaccinated.

Israel, Malta, and the Seychelles have all had new Covid surges after widespread vaccination (Seychelles surge centred in June, Malta’s in July, Israel ongoing). That makes it likely that Britain will have new surges too. On the evidence of Israel and Malta, the death rates in new surges will be, not zero, but lower than before widespread vaccination. (The UK’s Covid case fatality rate is now about a tenth of what it was in early 2021, and comparable with the CFR for flu, though Delta-variant Covid spreads much quicker, and more pre-symptoms, than flu).

Israel is giving third booster jabs to all over-60s, with the experts there arguing that they don’t know what difference that will make, but in any case the experiment will give evidence for other countries to go by. Seychelles had a high death rate in its recent surge, which may be down to it using the less effective of the two main Chinese vaccines.

Long term

A discussion of longer-term prospects by Amalio Telenti and others suggests Covid may evolve into a disease which almost everyone gets from time to time, from childhood on, mostly mildly, and with a broadening immunity which can keep pace with variants until old age, when constantly-updated vaccines can protect. But we don’t know, and even if Telenti is right, we don’t know whether it will take only a few years, or many decades, for Covid to evolve that way.

New trials by the WHO and by the UK Recovery project are starting on treatments for Covid, but results are likely to be incremental rather than drastic.

The labour movement needs to keep pushing for the social measures which can transmit into lower income equality and blunt the inevitable Covid surges. Full isolation pay and secure jobs for all. Workers’ control of workplace safety. Affordable uncrowded housing for all. Social care under public ownership and with workers on NHS-level pay and conditions. Fund the NHS to create increased capacity and better conditions for workers and patients.

And for public ownership of Big Pharma, to make patent information and production technologies available worldwide for a full-speed drive to vaccinate worldwide. Worldwide, Covid deaths are still trending up. The world vaccination rate is now up to 0.5 jabs per 100 people per day, but Africa is still on less than 0.1 per 100 per day.

By Todd Hamer

Following pressure from Labour MPs, notably Emily Thornberry, and the Safe and Equal campaign last winter, we were told that “the Department of Health and Social Care has approved the payment of occupational sick pay for periods of self-isolation for all workers at Test Centres. This commitment has also been included in the tender specifications for the new Test Centre contract which commences in July 2021.”

As Safe and Equal activists have visited Test Centres across the country, we have found that the situation is more complicated. The government has outsourced the Test Centres to G4S, Serco, Sodexo, Mitie. But those firms have often further outsourced staffing their Test Centres to agencies.

The workers directly employed by the main contractors may get isolation pay; but many workers we have talked with are employed via agencies on zero hours contracts. Some were unsure about the pay arrangements if they had to take time off to isolate. Others told us that they got paid to isolate if they could provide evidence of a positive test but not for other reasons e.g. a member of their household was ill.

One worker was sent home to isolate due to being a close contact of a confirmed positive case and was not paid for this time.

In March 2020, NHS bosses were told they needed to arrange full isolation pay for subcontractors and bank staff. In May 2020, the PCS union negotiated full isolation pay for outsourced workers operating in civil service buildings. In June 2020, the government introduced the Infection Control Fund for care homes that included provision for full isolation pay for care workers.

The new on-paper agreement for full isolation pay for Test Centre workers is a further admission that exploitative employment practices and the UK’s desultory Statutory Sick Pay scheme are undermining attempts to control the virus. However, instead of addressing the problem at its root and legislating to ensure all workers are entitled to full sick pay (as in many European countries), the government has introduced sector-by-sector isolation pay quietly and half-heartedly, leaving plenty of workers excluded from the provision.

Part of the issue here is that the work-from-home boss class believe that paying workers to take time off to isolate will encourage absenteeism. In reality, “presenteeism” is a far greater problem. Workers attending work when they are unwell allows all sorts of infectious diseases to spread and accidents to occur.

Head of Test and Trace, Dido Harding told Emily Thornberry MP that she was “making changes to increase the financial support available to staff during periods of isolation” in recognition of the “immense contribution” of frontline Test Centre workers. But sick pay and isolation pay are not rewards for hard work: they are necessary health and safety measure to slow the spread of the virus.

By Katy Dollar

“Despite their courage and sacrifice throughout COVID-19, council and school workers have been offered 1.75%. With inflation at 3.9%, that’s a real terms pay cut.” With those words, the public services union Unison is launching a consultation with a strong recommendation to reject.

On 27 July the Employers’ Side of the National Joint Council (NJC) wrote to the unions with a final pay offer for 2021.

• An increase of 2.75% for those on pay point 1

• An increase of 1.75% for everyone else

• Completion of the outstanding work of the joint Term-Time-Only review group

• Discussions on joint framework guidance on homeworking (but no offer of a homeworking allowance)

• Discussions on joint guidance on mental health

• Incorporation of new statutory provisions for neo-natal leave and pay into the Green Book.

Unison’s consultation will start in late August. But this will be a particularly difficult pay campaign. During the coronavirus pandemic some 82% of UK local authority staff have been working from home, compared to just 5% before, so usual organising methods such as walkabouts, postering, and leafleting are less effective. Reps will need to build online meetings, covid-distanced demonstrations and other alternative modes. Strong local campaigns will put pressure on employers and prepare the ground towards a strike ballot.

A coordinated campaign across the public sector would ramp up pressure on the government and reanimate sectoral campaigns which have so far been low energy despite real term pay cuts. Rank-and-file militants across all public sector unions will be agitating for that approach.

This CLP opposes the policy at the NEC to proscribe Socialist Appeal, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour in Exile, and Resist.

Antisemitism remains a serious problem in the Labour party and across the left. The issue is best dealt with through political education and free debate. Some cases may require disciplinary action: that should be on the basis of individual charges and due process.

We oppose bans which render members subject to summary expulsion just for casual association with this or that group.

Standing Together (@omdimbeyachad) is a left-wing social movement in Israel, involving Palestinian Arab and Jewish citizens. In the past week, it has been organising cross-communal demonstrations across Israel, demanding an immediate ceasefire, opposing occupation, racism, and war, and supporting equality and solidarity between Arabs and Jews. 

UK solidarity campaign in support of Israel’s Jewish-Arab grassroots movement for peace, equality and social justice. Follow them on Twitter

London Labour Party conference passed this motion from the Communication Workers’ Union. Below is the speech for the motion given by the CWU’s Maria Exall.

Particularly given the Labour right took control of the London Labour board, it will take a fight for this and other left-wing demands to be acknowledged, yet alone campaigned for.

CLP section 150 for the motion, 5 against, 6 abstentions
Affiliates section 51 for, 0 against, 1 abstention

This Regional Conference notes the necessity of broadband services during the COVID pandemic. The ‘digital divide’ has meant that many working class children in London have been denied equal access to necessary IT services and equipment which has affected their learning and their opportunities to connect with others during lockdowns. We also note that many poorer and more vulnerable adults in London are also denied the services they need to access everything from Government services and benefits to online shopping.

We call on the GLA and Local Authorities to support widening access for London children and adults to telecoms services and IT. We believe that Labour Local Government should invest in services that can help tackle the digital divide, aid community cohesion and help overcome inequalities.

We recognise that telecommunication is an essential service for citizens in London and welcome the 2019 Labour Manifesto commitment to public ownership and democratic control of broadband infrastructure. We aspire to a capital City which provides free broadband for all.

***

Maria Exall’s speech

The CWU has long raised the problem of a growing digital divide. Here in London this divide restricts local economic development and makes worse existing social inequalities. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the urgent need for universal access to broadband services. But the UK is on course to miss its latest target for the roll-out of full-fibre broadband by 2025.

Only a publicly funded, owned and accountable service will get the job done and boost other public services and the wider economy. Public investment and ownership is necessary as after nearly 40 years privatisation has failed to deliver services worthy of a leading capital City. In the end it is public ownership and democratic control that can improve the quality of services in our region and within our local communities as we build back from the pandemic.

But the current remit for telecoms regulation is a competitive market model that leads to downward pressure on pay and conditions for us as workers in the industry and mega profits for the leading companies in the sector, BT, VM, Sky.

The major telecoms firms divvy up the spoils for their shareholders rather than invest and develop the services that we as local residents need. They use outsourcing and casualised labour with all that implies. They cut costs which means site closures in London, with permanent skilled jobs exported to other parts of the UK and abroad. At present we in the CWU are fighting to keep highly skilled BT jobs in London. It is wrong that one day you are a key worker the next you are made redundant.

Conference, it could all be so different.

We could be freeing up the real potential of new technologies to tackle class inequality, prioritising improving access for those isolated and vulnerable and bring our communities closer together; to build a new collectivity for the 21^st century.

We could have job security and quality training for the next generation of telecoms workers in London.

We could be using technologies to deal with local environmental concerns. Digital inclusion is necessary for a just future.

During the pandemic Labour Councils have done their best to facilitate the provision of both computer hardware and connectivity to the internet to assist school children and young people with remote learning. But much more fundamental change is needed.

Everyone is entitled to high speed access and IT equipment that allows them to work and learn from home, connect with others in their communities and access vital local services.

It is the right time to restate the Labour Party’s pledge for publicly owned free full-fibre broadband.

Please support our motion.

Telecoms is an essential service and it should be a public utility run for the common good.

By Martin Thomas

The Labour Party leadership have drafted the “skeleton” of a new complaints procedure and indicated that they want rule changes at the conference in September.

Cases to do with sexism, racism, antisemitism etc. will go to National Executive Committee (NEC) panels, and appeals to a new Appeal Board, replacing the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), and appointed, not elected: four lawyers, four HR people, four appointed party members.

This is a response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) calling for an independent procedure. It looks like the EHRC has ok’d it.

Less independence

But it makes the General Secretary the manager of prosecutions and of the appointment of judges. It makes disciplinary procedures less independent of the Leader’s Office and the General Secretary than they were before. And it’s not clear when people would have a right to appeal, even to the new appointed Appeals Board.

There are no rules or guidance about proportionality of sanctions to offences, so the machinery can still expel some people for minor offences while leaving others unscathed or only reprimanded.

Even where the rule is fairly clear-cut, as in prohibiting support for anti-Labour candidates in elections, there is a lot that is arbitrary in the rulebook. A number of people were excluded in 2015-6 because they had recently opposed the Labour Party electorally. Or rather, because they had done that and lost. If they had won and then sought to cross the floor, they would have been accepted straight off.

The rules most used for exclusions are even more arbitrary. You can be excluded for association with any political group other than an official Labour one, so in principle anyone could be expelled for supporting Friends of the Earth, or CND… or Progress (and with “support” defined vaguely). There’s no defence, there’s no appeal.

Multiple channels for exclusion

So the Labour Party is developing a series of channels for exclusions. There’s the new complaints procedure, for cases involving “protected characteristics”. Then a second channel is set up by the new bans, for auto-exclusions to be done in bulk and at speed.

A third channel: the new ban doesn’t supersede the old blanket power to auto-exclude anyone associated with any group other than an “official Labour” one. Two Socialist Appeal people were recently excluded under that old blanket power, even before the new bans.

Channel four is indefinite suspensions: hundreds of people suspended, often without clear charges, for long periods, and with a warning that talking publicly about their suspension will be considered a disciplinary case.

Ann Black, a member of the NEC who voted for three of the bans and abstained on Socialist Appeal, reports “nearly 100 members still suspended after more than 18 months… more than 1000 complaints… unresolved”.

And the fifth channel, presumably, is a disciplinary process for charges not to do with racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc., and not subject to “auto-exclusion”, plain old misbehaviour like mishandling party funds.

The big issue here straightforward bullying and cheating by full time officers. There remains pretty much no way to deal with that. On the contrary, we’re beginning to get to the position where we cannot discuss the performance of Labour Party staff because it’s subject to a staff agreement.

There is a current rulebook provision for Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) to initiate disciplinary cases, but it is not really workable, and in practice is not used. Remedies for straightforward rule breaking, ability to hold full time staff to account, and right of fair treatment for members, are non-existent.

Around the same time we’ve heard that the Labour Party is proposing to make redundant a quarter of its staff and employ dozens of agency workers to process complaints.

How are the agency staff trained? Who is accountable for the work? Who owns the agency? Who’s making a profit on this?

There is no review process for the handling of complaints and nothing that we have seen has anything has tried to remedy that lack. When the staff make a decision to prosecute, no-one knows if it’s fair.

The EHRC discovered that in the 70 cases that they looked at, as a sample, a significant number had no documentation, no records of the interviews…

No to court cases

As a matter of political approach, we’re against taking the Labour Party to court. We want to resolve issues within the party. Others will think differently; but even on practical grounds their prospects are poor.

There was a court case about unjust procedures recently taken by a number of people who had been either suspended or accused of antisemitism. Fundamentally, they lost. That will give the Labour Party leadership massive confidence that the bars for action to be defined as capricious, perverse or arbitrary or irrational are exceedingly high.

A court permitted Iain McNicol (general secretary 2011-18) to kick 125,000 members out of the 2016 leadership election. In 2016 a Socialist Appeal supporter, Jack Halinski-Fitzpatrick, raised £10,000 to get an injunction against his suspension, and he lost.

Sadly, we missed chances to change things in the Corbyn era: a rule change to delete the “auto-exclusion” clause, for example, was defeated after getting no support from the party leadership and the scrappiest of debates. The Labour Party’s unfair procedures with rule changes will make the pushback a long battle.

CLPs can get rule changes considered only after long delays, and often have their proposals ruled out of order capriciously. The NEC has the power, and often uses it, to push through large rule changes at conference with only a few days’ or hours’ previous notice.

It’s a long battle, part of the bigger long battle to transform the labour movement into a force capable of winning socialism.