Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham’s campaign managers were co-signatories on an email sent to the party, complaining that they would not receive a list of who was eligible to vote until ten days into the election.
Their claim was that Jeremy Corbyn, who has the support of major Unions, will know which union members have voted before this, and will be able to target them accordingly.
These claims have been denounced by members of ‘Team Corbyn,’ who say that everyone will receive the data at the same time.
This was the latest in a series of attacks from the two ‘centrish’ candidates, and Liz Kendall. In the early days of the campaign, there was an almost gentlemanly feel to proceedings. The candidates publicly disagreed, mostly with Mr Corbyn, while failing to say or do anything to differentiate themselves from the Labour party which lost the last General Election by a margin that even took YouGov by surprise, other than to subtly blame Ed Milliband’s bacon sandwich malfunction.
Mr Burnham said at an early stage that the unexpected show of support for Mr Corbyn was a sign that the Labour party had misread the mood of its members and would-be supporters. He was also the only candidate who, when asked whether he would serve in a Corbyn-led cabinet, said that he would, if it was the will of the party.
However, of late, he has started to question the frontrunner’s policies, claiming that the figures don’t add up. This has not stopped Yvette Cooper issuing a statement to the effect that he should leave the leadership race for not providing an ‘effective alternative’ to Mr Corbyn – a move described as ‘panicked, desperate, and straight out of the Ed Balls handbook,’ by one of Mr Burnham’s staff.
Yvette Cooper has also taken many a swipe at Mr Corbyn’s policies over the last week, describing them as ‘subversive.’ She also claimed that her policies were more radical than those of Mr Corbyn:
“So tell me what you think is more radical. Bringing back clause IV, spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle-aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle-aged men in Whitehall, as Jeremy wants? Or extending SureStart, giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come?” she asked at a speech in Manchester last week.
Liz Kendall, meanwhile, has been in a class of her own. For some ‘unknown’ reason, in spite of consistently finishing fourth in polls, which initially may or may not have been a ploy, the unrepentant Blairite is gaining at least as many if not more column inches than Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham. Her sentiments appear consistent, and can be summed up thus – ‘something something if Corbyn wins, warns Liz Kendall.’ Ms Kendall has also described the prospect of a Corbyn victory as ‘a resignation letter for Labour.’ She has advised her supporters to omit Mr Corbyn’s name from their other choices on the ballot, and cast a block vote for a second choice candidate in an attempt to stop Mr Corbyn should he fail to get 50 percent of the vote on the first count. Such democratic transparency is exactly what the Labour party needs to avoid alienating the new members and associates who have joined since the last General Election.
The most common issue raised by ex-Labour grandees is that Labour should be a party of government, not a party of opposition. This is, on the face of it, confusing when one considers that a party of opposition is exactly what it is going to be for the next five years. Ed Milliband was accused of taking the party too far to the left and, in the words of Chuka Umunna, not being business friendly enough.
This raises two points. Firstly, whether or not anyone actually read the manifesto for the 2015 election bid. The only reasons that Mr Milliband, and especially his Osborne-lite shadow Chancellor Ed Balls could be described as left-wing were:
- In comparison to David Cameron and George Osborne
- As a result of Unions backing him in the last leadership campaign
- Because red rhymes with Ed
The ‘pro-business’ idea is also, on the face of it, rather concerning. It evidently means more than the obvious definition, ie, in favour of businesses. It appears that the return to the Mandelson era of people being encouraged to get ‘filthy rich’ as long as they pay tax is being encouraged.
However, what many commentators seem to be wilfully failing to acknowledge is that the political landscape has changed. Basing policies on the infamous picking up of votes in Nuneaton worked very well when Labour could still hold all their heartlands unchallenged. No one appears to have asked why Labour got wiped out in Scotland, and whether or not those seats were lost due to not being pro-business enough, or possibly as a result of a popular Nationalist movement with a definite Socialist flavour.
As we have pointed out before, voter apathy and UKIP could well be far more important to the future of the Labour party than aforementioned businesses and Nuneaton. Mr Corbyn has been acknowledged as injecting some life into the Labour leadership contest, largely because based on the performance of the other main candidates the party faithful would be torn between an Everton-supporting ‘man of the people’, a ‘feminist’ and a Blairite who missed the glory years. These would have campaigned on a platform of how much better they were than their two opponents. It is hard to imagine a less edifying spectacle. Thankfully, they have been able to unite in the face of a common foe – the Labour left who persist in ‘voting with their hearts.’
Whether or not Mr Corbyn becomes the next leader, this contest has exposed a deep divide between what a number of Labour voters want, and what they are being told by the party leaders that they need. This is something that will have to be addressed. It is commonly accepted that Mr Corbyn will be doomed by a Murdoch-led right-wing media; this ignores the fate of arch-Blairite Gordon Brown. It is safe to assume that whoever gets the nod will fail to get mainstream media backing, unless Mr Murdoch needs a new godfather and David Cameron’s mobile phone is turned off.
If whoever leads Labour can somehow connect with the 45 percent of the population who either voted for no one or UKIP, the gap between everyone digging out their D-Ream CDs in 2020 or Boris Johnson PM could be much closer than is currently suggested.
Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price visits Llanelli
Plaid Cymru elected representatives Adam Price, Helen Mary Jones and Dafydd Llywelyn visited a number of organisations and groups in the Llanelli constituency in the communities of Kidwelly, Llanelli and Llangennech.
During the visit the Plaid Cymru team highlighted their vision for improving the economy, ending child poverty and creating safer communities.
Plaid Cymru Shadow Economy, Transport and Tackling Poverty Minister Helen Mary Jones Mid and West MS said:
“We listened to small businesses in Kidwelly and Llanelli town centre about their concerns of the immediate economic impact of Coronavirus and discussed how a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government could improve the local economy.
“We also held talks with local firm Burns Pet Foods in Kidwelly – a living wage employer about the role of business in bringing an end to poverty. I was struck by workers talking about the huge difference that relatively modest pay increases had made to the quality of their lives and for their families.
“Plaid’s Welsh Child Payment of £35 each week per child would achieve the same for families on low wages and benefits. We won’t sit by and see another generation of our children grow up in poverty.
“The visit to CYCA, Carmarthenshire Youth and Children’s Association in Llanelli highlighted how they as a voluntary organisation provide support for families struggling to make ends meet.
“In the town centre we saw the benefits of the re-introduction of CCTV cameras by Plaid Cymru Police and Crime Commissioner Dafydd Llywelyn, not only for the community but also for business owners.
We visited the hidden gem of Llanelli the town’s indoor market. I explained to Adam about the work Plaid Cymru led Carmarthenshire County Council is doing to revive our town centres.
“We also took time to meet with and thank the people who had volunteered their time to provide help for those evacuated by the diesel train spillage in Llangennech.”
Conservatives take aim at own Achilles Heel
by Jon Coles
ANDREW RT DAVIES, the new and combative Conservative Shadow Health Minister, stepped into new territory for him and the Conservatives in Wales this week.
In recent weeks, the Conservative group in the Senedd has stepped up its attacks on the Welsh Government’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis, highlighting instances where Wales has failed to follow the Westminster Government’s lead on policy decisions.
TURNING A BLIND EYE
With Westminster’s current response to the COVID crisis at sixes-and-sevens, the Shadow Health Minister put in his boot to criticise the Welsh Government for following Westminster’s lead on a contentious policy decision.
In March, the Westminster Government – followed by the UK’s devolved administrations – began discharging hospital patients into care homes. Discharged patients were not tested for coronavirus.
The Herald reported on the scandal at the time. We highlighted instances where care providers, in both Wales and England, were pressurised by health boards and trusts to take untested patients into closed residential settings.
The outcome of that disastrous policy decision was easily predictable. Its likely consequences were well-known – at least by the Westminster Government – at the time it made that decision.
Introducing a virus known to be lethal to vulnerable and elderly patients caused a wave of deaths in care homes across the UK. The virus spread among an isolated and largely defenceless population.
The foreseeable result was a calamity.
Deaths in social care settings spiralled. They remain high even after the first spike of the virus in the general population and its decreasing incidence across the UK.
Wading into the scandal this week, Andrew RT Davies criticised Welsh Government without a moment’s apparent reflection on the wider context of his words.
In a press release, Mr Davies commented: “There can be no excuse for such an ill-thought decision which, of course, will have had a profound impact on some of our most vulnerable in care homes. I cannot comprehend where the government’s thought process was in pushing care homes to accept hospital patients who had not received a COVID-19 test.
“The bullish act by the Welsh Labour-led Government in applying pressure is truly scandalous and as a result, the people of Wales deserve an apology.
“The most pressing question now is to address how many patients were infected after being admitted and then discharged from the hospital. To address people’s serious concerns, this must be a priority for the Welsh Labour-led Government.”
On receipt of the press release, we replied and asked whether Mr Davies wished to extend his tart observations about the discharge of untested hospital patients to include the Westminster Government.
After recent press releases in which the Conservatives have not hesitated to compare Wales unfavourably with England, we believed Mr Davies might reflect and provide a balanced response: possibly to praise the Welsh Government for following Westminster’s lead; possibly to take the chance to even-handedly criticise the Westminster Government’s policy which the Welsh Government followed.
We did not receive a reply.
POLITICISING A PANDEMIC
Over recent weeks, the Conservatives have ramped up partisan rhetoric over the Welsh Government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former Shadow Health Minister, Angela Burns, managed to navigate a path between scoring political points and attacking the Welsh Government for its multiple early failings in Wales’ response to the virus.
Those failings include setting a testing target, failing to secure the testing kits necessary to meet the target, saying a testing target didn’t exist, announcing a revised testing target, and then abandoning testing targets altogether.
On each of those, Mrs Burns made telling points and held Wales’ Health Minister, Vaughan Gething, to account – often leaving him wriggling on a hook made of his own contradictions and evasions.
Similarly, when Wales entered the strictest phases of lockdown, Paul Davies was able to highlight the enormously disproportionate impact of them on Wales’ rural economy without indulging the fantasy that somehow things were any rosier over the border.
As the Westminster Government began to ease lockdown restrictions in England, and under pressure from both the Westminster Government and Conservatives on either side of Wales’ border with England, the tone of Conservative briefings changed sharply.
Repeated releases from the Conservatives demanded that the Welsh Government lift the lockdown in Wales in step with England. The Welsh Government was accused of ‘dither and delay’, the phrase ‘catch-up Cymru’ began to appear. Fighting talk appeared in the names of shadow ministers who previously expressed themselves cautiously, occasionally critically, and usually constructively.
With one eye on the next round of elections to the Senedd, the Conservatives moved away from consensus and criticism to outright attack.
Having watched the reopening of schools in England unravel into chaos, Conservative attacks on the reopening of Wales’ schools lost step with reality. Now, the Welsh Government was criticised for taking steps that England failed to take to keep schools open there. The desperate floundering of Westminster’s Conservative Education Minister, Gavin Williamson, stood in stark contrast to the determined and unflustered approach of his Welsh counterpart, Kirsty Williams.
Darren Millar, the Senedd Member charged with speaking for the Conservatives on COVID in Wales, began to speak of Wales’ failings – and particularly those of the Welsh Government – for not reopening pubs, restaurants and holiday accommodation. With Wales’ hospitality and tourism industries on their knees, it appeared that approach would serve the Conservatives well.
As the easing of lockdown in parts of England has unravelled, however, Mr Millar has gone noticeably quiet as Wales continues to lift restrictions now re-imposed in significant areas of England’s north-west.
The Prime Minister’s warnings of the risks of a second wave of the virus should focus Conservatives in Wales’ attention on what preparations the Welsh Government is making to head-off that eventuality or at least ease its impact if or when it arrives. Instead, Andrew RT Davies is fighting four-month-old battles seeking headlines.
CONSERVATIVES NOT ALONE
One of the features of the crisis has been how Plaid Cymru has used it to propel its own message for an independent Wales – or at least a Welsh legislature with far stronger powers than the current arrangements.
‘Westminster doesn’t work for Wales’ is how Plaid has pitched its message. Its fire is concentrated on the shambolic approach of the Westminster Government’s response to the crisis. The Prime Minister’s endless capacity to make up policy on the hoof when caught out or tell outright lies when questioned about details has given Plaid Cymru ample opportunity to illuminate the gap between Westminster’s rhetoric and reality.
The Westminster Government’s hectoring approach to the UK’s devolved administrations, which includes gazumping the Welsh Government on a deal for testing kits with pharmaceutical giant Roche, and its constant inconstancy and inconsistency has also allowed Plaid to deploy
its choir of voices demanding more autonomy – preferably independence – for Wales.
When attacking the Welsh Government, however, Plaid has taken a different approach to the Welsh Conservatives. It has clamoured to keep restrictions in place – for example on schools – and for existing restrictions to be strengthened and reinforced – for example on face coverings, a policy on which it is eerily close to the Conservatives’.
However, Plaid – and the Conservatives – have fallen well short of saying what they would have done differently in the same situation and what they would do now to improve things during the continuing COVID age.
ONE EYE ON THE ELECTION
By the time next May comes around, both of Wales’ principal opposition parties need to set out defined messages that are both less negative and more grounded in current reality if either is to shift Labour from power in Cardiff Bay.
For the Conservatives, the challenge is finding a voice for Wales which is not an echo of Westminster. The events of recent weeks demonstrate that efforts to reform the Conservatives in Wales to forge a distinct identity from the UK party are likely to be seed falling on stony ground. Darren Millar is Boris Johnson’s representative on Earth and Simon Hart his rock. A more constructive approach from the Conservatives is, therefore, highly unlikely.
For Plaid Cymru, the challenge is moving beyond dreams of jam tomorrow in favour of policies for today. Plaid need to focus less on what Westminster isn’t doing for Wales but what Plaid CAN deliver for the whole of Wales and not just its existing voters. Plaid’s problem is systemic. It lacks resources and, while it well-organised in pockets of Wales outside ‘Y Fro’, it has not found the key to unlock monoglot Anglophone voters in sufficient numbers across Wales.
As for Labour in Wales, all it can promise is more of the same. It’s been in power for over twenty years and it isn’t likely to change a formula that’s kept it in power for so long. And, when it comes to the economy, Labour can point out that the big levers are held by the Exchequer in London.
The Conservatives and Labour have the advantage of a large electoral base across most of Wales. If they can energise those voters to turn up and vote next May in anything like the numbers they did in the General Election, Plaid will have to watch out for a massive squeeze on their far smaller electoral base
Russia Report flays government inaction
AFTER nine months of delay, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the embarrassment its content could have caused to successive Conservative Prime Ministers, the long-awaited Intelligence Services Committee report into Russian interference in the UK’s democratic processes was published on Tuesday, July 21.
The Committee delivered its report to the UK Government last autumn, well before the announcement of December’s General Election. However, the Government delayed its release indefinitely.
PUBLICATION AFTER GRAYLING FAILED AGAIN
The report’s publication on Tuesday followed an attempt by Number 10 Downing Street to rig the election of a new Chair for the Committee. Former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve QC stood down at the last election.
Last week, Number 10 attempted to parachute in a patsy to replace Dominic Grieve, former Cabinet Minister Chris Grayling, hoping to kick the report even further into the long grass. The effort failed comically when the Government’s nominee lost a rigged election. The new Chair, Julian Lewis, a Conservative MP, had the Conservative whip withdrawn from him as a result of ‘disloyalty’ to Number 10.
The attempt to thwart the report’s publication – or to neuter its already heavily redacted form – rebounded badly on Boris Johnson and draws attention to some of the report’s more uncomfortable conclusions regarding the extent of Russian infiltration into the UK’s public life.
The report is a scathing assessment of the UK Government’s continued failure to either adequately assess or even investigate how Russia, or those associated with the Putin regime, attempted to influence the UK electorate.
• Russian influence in the UK is the new normal. Successive Governments have welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, providing them with a means of recycling illicit finance through the London ‘laundromat’, and connections at the highest levels with access to UK companies and political figures.• This has led to a growth industry of ‘enablers’ including lawyers, accountants, and estate agents who are – wittingly or unwittingly – de facto agents of the Russian state.
• It clearly demonstrates the inherent tension between the Government’s prosperity agenda and the need to protect national security. While we cannot now shut the stable door, greater powers and transparency are needed urgently.
• UK is clearly a target for Russian disinformation. While the mechanics of our paper-based voting system are largely sound, we cannot be complacent about a hostile state taking deliberate action to influence our democratic processes.
• Yet the defence of those democratic processes has appeared something of a ‘hot potato’, with no one organisation considering itself to be in the lead, or apparently willing to conduct an assessment of such interference. This must change.
• Social media companies must take action and remove covert hostile state material: Government must ‘name and shame’ those who fail to act.
• We need other countries to step up with the UK and attach a cost to Putin’s actions. [The Russian state’s coordination of the Novichok attack in] Salisbury must not be allowed to become the high watermark in international unity over the Russia threat.
Several issues addressed in the published version of the Russia Report are covered in more depth in a Classified Annex which is unavailable for public scrutiny.
GOVERNMENT DIDN’T RECOGNISE THREAT
A statement by the Committee said: “There have been widespread allegations that Russia sought to influence voters in the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU: studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on RT and Sputnik, and the use of ‘bots’ and ‘trolls’, as evidence.
“The actual impact of such attempts on the result itself would be difficult – if not impossible – to prove. However what is clear is that the Government was slow to recognise the existence of the threat – only understanding it after the ‘hack and leak’ operation against the Democratic National Committee, when it should have been seen as early as 2014 (when Russia attempted to interfere in the Scottish Independence Referendum). As a result, the Government did not take action to protect the UK’s process in 2016.”
“The Committee has not been provided with any post-referendum assessment – in stark contrast to the US response to reports of interference in the 2016 presidential election. In our view, there must be an analogous assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum.”
In a press conference following the report’s publication, Chair of the Intelligence Services Committee, Julian Lewis recused himself from commenting on the report. He told media as he was not a member of the committee when it drew up the report, he would leave answers on its contents to two MPs who were members of it at the relevant time.
NO EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE
Members of the Intelligence Select Committee (ISC) said there was ‘no evidence’ that Russia sought to influence the 2016 Brexit referendum, but only because the government did not try to find out if it had.
One member, Stewart Hosie MP (SNP) said: “There has been no assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum and this goes back to nobody wanting to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole.
“The UK Government has actively avoided seeking evidence as to whether Russia interfered.”
The report notes: “For example, it was widely reported shortly after the Scottish referendum that Russian election observers had suggested that there were irregularities in the conduct of the vote, and this position was widely pushed by Russian state media.
“We understand that HMG viewed this as being primarily aimed at discrediting the UK in the eyes of a domestic Russian audience.”
Russian propaganda was widely shared and effective in Scotland.
Over 87,000 people signed a petition demanding a re-vote following the Russian allegations of electoral fraud.
Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, said all the evidence of Russian interference was there from the Scottish referendum
He said: “Short of a large van outside Downing Street, with a billboard on it saying, ’this is what was going on’, what more did the government need? Why was the decision taken not to look at the (Brexit) referendum?”
He said the Government lied about why Russia report couldn’t be published before the election.
Commenting on the report the Shadow Home Secretary, Kit Thomas-Symonds, said: “The report outlines a litany of hostile state activity, from cyber warfare, interfering in democratic processes, acts of violence on UK soil and illicit finance. On every level, the government’s response does not appear to be equal to the threat. While on key issues it is clear that there is no overall strategic response to this challenge – little wonder the government has been so keen to delay the publication.”
MONEY TALKS REALITY BITES
The Committee’s reports and its members’ comments leave little doubt that Theresa May actively declined to start an investigation into allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 Referendum campaign.
In a section about the referendum, the report says: “The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG [Her Majesty’s government] had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes or any activity that has had a material impact on an election, for example influencing results.”
While any number of conspiracy theories swirl about her failure to at least ask GCHQ, MI6 or MI5 to look into the allegations, it is entirely likely that Mrs May’s decision was based in cold, hard realpolitik.
If an investigation had uncovered evidence of Russian interference, the consequences for the UK potentially outweighed any effect the interference had on the Referendum’s outcome.
Brexit hardliners within her party and fringe figures such as Nigel Farage would never have accepted any finding which undermined the legitimacy of the Referendum result. The result could have been political chaos and – quite possibly – civil disruption.
An investigation would also have provided an impetus for defeated Remain campaigners to challenge the result through the Courts.
The scope for revelations about prominent Conservative figures’ connection with Russia and Russian money might have caused severe embarrassment at a time the Government was trying to set the Brexit agenda.
For example, Alexander Termerko is a former senior apparatchik in the Russian Ministry of Defence. He is among the Conservative’s largest donors (£1.3m over seven years). Born in Ukraine when it was part of the former Soviet Union, Mr Termerko rose to prominence during the Yeltsin era. He became involved in manufacturing arms and an oil tycoon under Vladimir Putin. He fled to the UK when threatened with a politically-motivated prosecution. Mr Termerko has donated generously to several Conservative MPs, including Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire MP Simon Hart.
None of the above excuses the failure to investigate but, as one possible reading of events, it offers a compelling rationale for Mrs May’s and Mr Johnson’s reluctance to look too deeply into any foreign interference in the Brexit Referendum.
News2 weeks ago
Police appeal for witnesses following attack in Station Road
Politics2 weeks ago
Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price visits Llanelli
Uncategorised2 weeks ago
Businesses urged to prepare for NHS COVID-19 app
News6 days ago
Trade deal won’t benefit Wales
News2 weeks ago
Shop local and support market traders, says council
News1 week ago
Partners working to support national problems with booking COVID tests
Uncategorised4 days ago
WASPI unaffected by appeal’s failure
News7 days ago
Neath Retreat And Llanelli Group Receive Cash