Starmer vs the workers: the real Brexit betrayal
Keir Starmer looked blank. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, seemed confused. Only the old Stalinist Seumas Milne seemed really to understand.
It was 2019. Labour's front bench team, and their leader Jeremy Corbyn's close advisers, were being upbraided – from the left. Why were they putting the interests of international capital ahead of our workers? Why were they abandoning the chance to implement a meaningful industrial policy? Why were they giving up on the chance to save British steel, to give all support necessary to our manufacturing sector, to make a stand against neo-liberalism?
The person in the room making the challenge, over ginger beer and sandwiches, was not Owen Jones, James O'Brien or Mick Lynch. It was me.
The occasion was one of the ill-fated talks between Labour and the government in the last days of Theresa May's premiership. Our failure to command enough Conservative votes to get a Brexit deal through parliament had driven the cabinet to see if compromise was possible with the opposition. It was never likely to be. But the government was running out of time, opportunities and indeed ministers, so one last throw was attempted.
Most of the time I kept uncharacteristically schtum, except for one moment when the tragically limited, anaemically timid, intellectually impoverished, morally pusill-animous, pre-emptively cringing nature of Labour's position provoked me.
Starmer was once again laying down Labour's 'red lines'. To nods from his colleagues, he stressed how important it was to be in the European Union's single market. In other words, to accept that a newly sovereign Britain could not control its borders, could not direct investment to infant enterprises, could not alter regulations, could not change procurement rules to favour British business, and in all these and thousands of other areas would have to accept foreign jurisdiction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
5 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
Rhyl Journal
9 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Gerry Adams to donate 100,000 euros to Irish language and Palestinian charities
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. Last Friday a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. During an eight-minute video posted on the official Sinn Fein YouTube channel, Mr Adams accused the BBC of showing 'arrogance' when it did not resolve the dispute after he issued legal letters nine years ago. In Putting Manners On The BBC – The Gerry Adams Blog, Mr Adams said that the BBC has been held accountable for the content it broadcasts. Mr Adams said: 'As for the money that the jury awarded me in damages, I will donate this to good causes. 'These will include the children of Gaza, groups in Ireland involved in helping the homeless, Cumann Carad, the Irish language sector and other projects like this in west Belfast.' He added: 'When the case began six weeks ago, the BBC's legal strategy was evident very quickly. Their narrative was that pursued by successive British and Irish governments for years. 'They blamed everything during the conflict on Irish Republicans and by extension, during this trial, on me. 'The BBC lawyers embarked on a Jesuitical presentation of the case that tried to convince the jurors that the words broadcast and published by the British Broadcasting Corporation, that I had sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson, did not, in fact, mean that I sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson. 'They were, they said, that's the British Broadcasting Corporation, not defending the truth of the accusation. 'Instead they were defending, they claimed, their journalism, which they said was fair and reasonable, in the public interest and made in good faith. 'They concluded their case by trying to exert moral pressure on the jurors by claiming that a defeat for the British Broadcasting Corporation would be a blow to freedom of speech and a setback to victims. 'In the end the jury didn't buy in to any of this. 'On all the key issues the jurors unanimously accepted that the script used by the Spotlight programme did mean that I had sanctioned and approved the murder of Denis Donaldson.' He said that after the BBC's decision to air the Spotlight programme, he decided to sue the broadcaster. Mr Adams said the BBC could have resolved the dispute there and then. 'They chose not to. Why? That's a question to be asked. Why did they not resolve this issue when they could have? 'Was it arrogance? Yes, that's part of it. But I also suspect political interference. 'In January, the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded to a decision in the High Court in Belfast, which included that I and, by implication, up to 400 other former internees, were wrongfully detained and that we were entitled to compensation. 'Mr Starmer told the British Parliament that he would look at every conceivable way to block compensation being paid.' Mr Adams also urged the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan to met Denis Donaldson's family. He signed off by saying 'slan agus tog go bog e', which means goodbye and take it easy. Earlier this week the BBC was granted time to consider appealing against the jury's decision. The broadcaster was granted a stay on paying the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees.
Rhyl Journal
9 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
DWP Winter fuel payments to return for more pensioners 2025
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' The means-testing of pensioners' winter fuel payments is an issue which has been blamed for contributing to Labour's poor performance in last month's local elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Ms Reeves said that she would set out how to pay for any increase in the threshold for the winter fuel allowance at the next budget. Asked whether she would tell the public if she planned to fund her commitments by raising taxes or cutting spending on other departments, the Chancellor said: 'As we have been clear, on winter fuel we will set out how we will fund that at the next fiscal event. 'We will set out how everything will be paid for at the budget in the autumn but it's important that everything that we do is funded, because that's how people know that we can afford it.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In short, no. Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' Very pleased to just hear the Prime Minister has just said he wants more state pensioners to get Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) and they will work out what they're doing in time for the budget. As I've said since day one, there are two main problems with the way the means testing… Mr Bell said he did not have 'lots to add' to what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had said recently about the allowance. He told the MPs: 'Of course the announcement, as and when it's made, will be made to the House.' Sir Keir recently signalled a partial U-turn over the Government's decision to strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners. The Prime Minister said 'as the economy improves', he wanted to look at widening eligibility for the payments, which are worth up to £300. The pensions minister has ruled out returning winter fuel allowance to all pensioners - our recent poll found 33% wanted to do so, but more (44%) thought they should continue to be means tested, but given to more pensioners than under current rules Results link in following… Officials have been unable to say how many more pensioners would be eligible. The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Pension credit is the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.' He told the MPs: 'I'm not getting into anything about the operation of that but just, you know, I think all of us will have heard from people on lower incomes who didn't receive winter fuel payment this year and I understand the points they've raised. And so we'd like to see wider eligibility.' Put to him that a universal winter fuel payment would be '100% guaranteed' to reach those who needed it, Mr Bell told the committee: 'You have to wait for us to set out the policy and we will engage directly with the point you are raising.' Asked what work had been done with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to assess the practicality of recouping payments from higher rate taxpayers, Mr Bell said: 'We're looking at all of the policy options for how this eligibility can be extended, and when I've got more to tell you about that, I absolutely will.' Recommended reading: Commenting on the hearing, Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said the Government 'now faces a dilemma in determining exactly who should be eligible'. He suggested that one option could be to award the payment to everyone receiving a state pension, clawing the money back from higher income households, potentially through their tax returns. Mr Selby said: 'This might look something like the process for clawing back child benefit for working households, although that has caused mass confusion among taxpayers bamboozled by the complexity of the rules.'
