Search Results

As Phase 2 of the Grenfell Inquiry progresses, the scale of the disregard for safety and the pursuit of profit and market share, at any cost, has been laid bare – email by excruciating email. The evidence is extremely technical, but the most difficult aspects are the breath-taking admissions of deceit and the realisation that the witnesses clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, but stayed silent and passed the buck to those further along the chain. The race to the bottom, both ethically and in safety terms, was encouraged by a weak and confusing regulatory regime. At times, the Inquiry is a very painful watch (I can’t imagine what it is like for the bereaved families) as the truth is drawn out of witnesses. I’m sure that when they tapped out their emails, which feature heavily at this stage of the inquiry, they never believed that they would one day be asked to explain in detail the motives behind them. The culture within the industry seems extraordinary now it has been so forensically exposed. It’s almost if a collective amnesia took place around basic morality in the headlong dash to sell products. The list of outrageous behaviour is already a long one and will no doubt get longer as the evidence continues to be heard. What is unforgiveable is that the issues around the cladding were well known to the companies involved. This ‘guilty knowledge’ was discussed in internal emails, with warnings to keep quiet about the dangers. While it is hard to fathom the depth of the unethical behaviour that took place, a widespread culture of corner cutting, buck passing and a belief that ‘everyone is at it’ seems to have made the cavalier approach taken by these companies the norm, rather than the exception. The difference in attitude between the witnesses have been stark. For some the burden of guilt has clearly weighed heavily on their shoulders, while others seem happy to either deny any blame, or have become particularly forgetful about decisions and actions they had taken in relation to their work. While it must be difficult to recall exactly your motives behind an email sent six or more years ago, it is clear that the Inquiry’s counsel have at times been exasperated by the approach taken by the witnesses. In one example from this week a witness admitted that they gave out untrue information (saying the product was safe) in emails to clients, but defended it by saying that they sent the specific details about the test set up in an accompanying attachment. This ‘buyer beware’ attitude for a safety critical product is certainly unethical and at best misleading. Whether it is unlawful remains to be seen. This disaster was foreseen and then enabled by the people who provided materials for the refurbishment to Grenfell Tower. While all the companies will be keen to point the finger in any direction but at themselves, the government must ensure that justice is carried out as soon as possible. UK governments have form for failing to secure timely justice, or indeed any justice at all, for the victims and families of disasters, Hillsborough being a prime example. The tragedy was also foretold by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) who continually warned about the increased risks caused by deregulation and ignoring the lessons of previous fires such as: Knowsley Heights in 1991, Garnock Court in 1999 and the Lakanal House fire in 2009. In a catalogue of deregulation by both Labour and Conservative governments, fire regulation was seen as a ‘burden to business’. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) was privatised in 1996, leading to a conflict of interest as it took on both an advisory and commercial role; recommendations following fires were not acted upon by government as they wanted to avoid the ‘burden of red tape’. Deregulation and privitisation assisted with the fragmentation of safety, often resulted in cosy relations between building control bodies and contractors and a sharp drop in cases of formal enforcement – according to the Dame Judith Hackitt report ‘Building a Safer Future’ released in May 2018, a 75% drop in the previous 10 years. Ultimately it is the government that must take responsibility for the tragedy of Grenfell. The danger is that so many people in the chain are guilty of playing a role in what led to the awful events of the 14th June 2017, no-one will actually be held accountable. We owe it to the victims and the bereaved that justice is served. Further, the safety culture in the construction industry and the regulatory regime that oversees it, must be transformed in such a way that there can never be another fire like Grenfell. Julian Vaughan 26th November 2020 My understanding of the often technical information set out in the Grenfell Inquiry has been hugely assisted by the tweets of Peter Apps, Deputy Editor at Inside Housing, who I recommend you follow at: @PeteApps Also engineer Dr Jonathan Evans who you can follow at: @Jonatha135113 Both have a remarkable ability to make the very complicated crystal clear! You can follow the Inquiry via live stream here: https://www.youtube.com/c/GrenfellTowerInquiry/featured Further reading: The Grenfell Tower Fire: A crime caused by profit and deregulation – Fire Brigades Union https://grenfellactiongroup.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/the-grenfell-tower-fire-a-crime-caused-by-profit-and-deregulation..pdf Building a Safer Future May 2018 – commonly known as the ‘Hackitt report’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707785/Building_a_Safer_Future_-_web.pdf Deregulation, the Absence of the Law and the Grenfell Tower Fire – Daniela Nadj https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/humanrights/media/humanrights/docs/Nadj-final.pdf Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Phase 1 Report October 2019 https://assets.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/GTI%20-%20Phase%201%20report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf #FireSafety #Grenfell #SocialJustice

I am deeply saddened at the events following the publication of the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections and was inspired by his vision for radical change and a truly fairer society. Corbyn has campaigned against inequality and racism throughout his political career. I do not believe he is anti-semitic. However, the EHRC report highlighted significant failings and unlawful activity while he was leader of the Labour Party and it is ultimately the leader who bears responsibility for those failings. The report into anti-semitism within the Labour Party was damning. Corbyn would surely have known that his comments about the issue being exaggerated, despite the report setting out in great detail how extensive the problems were and are, would be problematic. I believe the Labour Party were left with little choice other than to suspend him. I suspect that Corbyn must have known this and the damage it would cause to the party. However, once Corbyn had his suspension from the Party removed, by what I understand was a unanimous decision by the NEC panel, it seems equally as petulant to keep the whip withdrawn from him. This halfway house appears weak and further increases division within the Party, at a time when a united opposition is more important than ever. I voted for Starmer and will continue to support his leadership. However, this approach can’t continue and the issue must be decided as quickly as possible, one way or the other. Otherwise, we risk undoing the significant progress we have already made in regaining the confidence and trust of the public. Across the breadth of the Labour movement, there is much more that unites us than divides us. I would strongly urge members to stay within the party, find common ground and work together to remove the current government, who present such a grave threat to our democracy and the values of equality and fairness we all hold so dear. Julian Vaughan 21st November 2020 You can read more about my views on the need for unity within the party here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2020/07/05/divided-we-fall/ #TheLabourParty

Following our successful campaign to obtain funding for step-free access improvements at Biggleswade train station, the focus has moved to the provision of a transport hub linking the bus and rail network. For those who are not aware, lifts are due to be installed on the platforms by no later than the Winter of 2022 – and may possibly be earlier. Timeline for lift installation at Biggleswade train station. A bus/rail transport hub for Biggleswade, has been discussed for many years and appeared in the Biggleswade Town Plan back in 2011. You can see the outline diagram contained in the Masterplan below. You will see even then there were plans for a decked car park to provide much needed extra parking for commuters. At that time the proposed interchange was to be served by retail and service units. Under these plans it was proposed that the area around Century House would be extensively pedestrianised, making for a more pleasant and safer environment in the town centre. Diagram from Biggleswade town centre Masterplan 2011 I’m not entirely sure why none of the above got off the ground, although I understand there were problems in all parties reaching an agreed position. While we were campaigning for step free access at the station we were aware of proposals for an interchange, but didn’t see any details of this until very recently. I was asked not to publish anything which contained any detail at all about the interchange, other than the outline of the site. You can see this triangular site (currently wasteland) in the diagram below which was supplied to show the lift/ramp details of the step free improvements at the station. Access improvements diagram with the shaded area blue car park showing the proposed location of the bus station Bringing us up to date below are the latest plans for this area which I’ll discuss below the diagram. Latest proposals for the transport interchange To orientate yourself, Station road comes in from the left of the diagram and the entrance to the station is at the top of the picture. The bus station will comprise of three bus stands, which you can hopefully make out in yellow within the station. The bus station will have the following features: CCTV coverage Covered bus shelters Information points with the latest train/bus times Improvements to pedestrian access and ‘build in’ areas to reduce traffic speeds. That is pretty much it! I fully support an integrated and accessible transport hub, with seamless connections between different transport modes as we move away from reliance on the car. However, I have a number of concerns about the current proposals: There are no plans for a toilet in the bus station and they are relying on one being provided by improvements to the train station, which I understand is not yet guaranteed. Where would a bus driver go to the toilet? Where would everyone else go? There are no plans to install secure cycle parking at the bus station. Again the scheme is relying on train station cycle parking improvements. This seems very short sighted as we move to a low carbon transport network. To encourage cycle use we should be making secure cycle parking a high priority. There are no retail or service facilities planned for the station. If you go back to the 2011 proposals these were present. It seems what we are being offered is a glorified bus stop with no attractions to attract usage or make the travel experience more pleasant. It would result in the loss of around eight roadside parking spaces at the very end of Station road before you enter the industrial area. These spaces are currently available after 12.00 Noon. There is no evidence of safe walking route to or from the bus station, or a suitable route for wheelchair users. The current ‘zebra crossing’ would in my view not be fit for purpose for a bustling transport interchange. The current cycle parking provision at Biggleswade The budget for the interchange is around £2.4 million which will come from the recently agreed Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). So far £180k of this has been spent in planning the interchange. Please note that this money is entirely separate from the funding for the train station improvements, which come from the Department for Transport ‘Access for All’ funding. I do have some sympathy with the Central Bedfordshire Council planners, as their proposals are hemmed in by limited space and seemingly a reluctance from Network Rail to make more land available between the interchange site and the railway line. However, in my view what they are proposing is poor value for money and seems of very limited scope, for what has the potential to be such a boost for Biggleswade. Attending the online Biggleswade Town Council meeting on Tuesday it was also very clear that the Town Councillors were not happy with the plans. I agreed with much of what they said and contacted them to say so. However, I would temper this with the view that they have had ten years to take a more proactive approach and speak up for what they believe is needed. What is clear is that, in relation to the bus interchange, there seems to be very little cooperation between Network Rail, Central Bedfordshire Council, Govia Thameslink Railway and Biggleswade Town Council. It appears that improvements to the train station and bus station are being planned as stand alone projects. I believe there would be benefit if these parties worked together, as they have done successfully with the accessibility improvements at the train station. I will be keeping a close eye on progress and I will press for greater cooperation between the parties above, as well as insisting on early consultation with end users, including people with disabilities. A plan view showing the main car park with the triangular area at the top of the picture the location for the bus interchange Finally, a bus interchange will be useless without any buses to serve it. Bus services have been cut drastically over the last ten years and we need to make significant improvements which will enable buses to be a viable alternative for commuters. Julian Vaughan 12th November 2020 Biggleswade Town Centre 2011 Masterplan https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/migrated_images/biggleswade-masterplan_tcm3-7522.pdf #Bedfordshire #biggleswade #buses

It’s amazing how cheap stuff is when you can afford to pay for it. I’m not just talking about the freebies doled out to celebrities. Nor the lavish junkets laid on for corporate fat cats. Not even the discounted food and drink available at the Houses of Parliament for those who have enjoyed a lengthy ride on the gravy train, while voting for children to go hungry. I’m talking about the much more mundane day to day items, which make the daily grind of life that much more difficult for the least well off in our communities. When you pay your vehicle excise duty, more commonly known as ‘road tax’, you’ll get the option of paying for six months or a year. You’ll notice there is a discount for paying a year up front as set out below. A tough choice for many For many people across the UK the above will be a very easy decision, because they quite simply haven’t got the money to pay for the year. According to the National Audit Office 22% of UK adults have less than £100 in savings. However, just for not being fortunate enough to have a spare £150 hanging about, over the course of the year they have to pay an extra £15.00 for the privilege of being poor. Now on its own this may seem like small change, but if you add all the instances of the financial disadvantages that the poorest in society endure it becomes a burden they can ill afford. On to prepayment meters. Based on 2018 figures from the energy regulator OFGEM, there are around 4.4 million electric and 3.4 million gas customers on a prepayment meter. I suspect that there are only a handful of MPs if any among this group of customers, which may be part of the problem. Prepayment meters, where you pay for your electricity or gas before you use it, have substantially higher tariff prices than those on a credit meter, where you pay on either a monthly basis or on receipt of a bill, after you have used the energy. I’ve looked into the reasons given for this difference in prices and have found two main justifications for it. Firstly, the expense of providing the keys or the tokens with which customers top up their prepayment meter. Secondly the costs incurred by sending someone round to manually adjust the prepayment meters each time there is a price change. Of course it’s not marketed in this way! I read one example of where it was breezily described as a chance for “customers to choose when and how much to pay for their energy”. Further to this, in the sunny world of energy supply, getting cut off is described in the industry as ‘self disconnection’, as if it were a lifestyle choice. What are the price differences between prepayment and credit tariffs? As of September 2020: the cheapest direct debit deal for a typical medium domestic user was £797. the cheapest prepayment deal was £982 so those least able to afford it will typically pay £185 more for exactly the same energy! These were the cheapest deals. Looking at the ‘Big Six’ energy companies (British Gas etc.) the difference was even greater at £244. Checking back to the equivalent pricing in 2014, it is very clear that the situation has not improved and this price gap has remained largely unchanged. OFGEM admit that those on prepayment meters have fewer competitive tariffs to choose from and while ‘warrant charges’ where people have to pay for the ‘convenience’ of having their meter changed to a pre payment meter have reduced, there has been a large increase in smart meters being changed from credit to prepayment mode. It will be little surprise then to hear that ‘self disconnections’ are common. 21% of households that self disconnect say affordability is the reason and 88% of these households contain a child or person with a long term health condition. 55% of people ration usage, with a high number of these limiting energy use to a few hours a day, or a few days a month. OFGEM figures on vulnerability across the UK Fuel poverty is frequently not the only vulnerable circumstance affecting these households, where unemployment, mental health issues and physical disabilities present additional difficulties and further expense. According to Scope’s ‘Disability Price Tag’ report disabled adults face extra costs on average of £583 a month and therefore these costs may be prioritised over keeping warm during the winter. Those customers wishing to change from the higher tariffs of a prepayment meter to the cheaper deals available on a credit meter have to pass a credit check, not an easy task for someone who is likely to have a poor credit history or no credit history at all, as well as the potential of having to pay a security deposit. So often they remain stuck with a prepayment meter and the accompanying expensive tariffs and it becomes a vicious circle of financial hardship. For balance I should point out that it is not all bad news and energy companies have made emergency credit available, as well as ‘friendly credit’ (they’re a cuddly lot these energy companies) which means you won’t be cut off (sorry, self disconnected) in the evenings, Sundays or Bank Holidays. Smart meters – good or bad? As you will be aware, more households are now being fitted with smart meters. However, these are a double edged sword as it then becomes very easy for an energy company to remotely switch a meter from credit (cheap) to prepayment (expensive) mode where debt has become an issue with that customer. Smart meter switches from credit to prepayment mode increased from 21,000 in 2017 to 70,000 in 2018. In spite of this smart meters are being described as beneficial to prepayment customers, as it increases the number of ways to pay, by app or mobile etc. saving a trudge down to the petrol station. However, the energy companies can’t have it both ways. If it is now easier (and therefore cheaper) to remotely switch pricing of the meters, change the modes that they operate in and enable easier ways to pay than card and key, how can they now justifiably continue to only offer the most expensive tariffs to these prepayment customers? The ongoing impact of the pandemic is likely to place great financial strain on an increasing number of people. The rollout of smart meters means it is time to end this prepayment rip off and allow these customers full access to the cheapest tariffs now – and not at some unspecified point in the future! Julian Vaughan – 12th November 2020 Further reading: OFGEM – Vulnerable consumers in the energy market 2019 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2019/09/vulnerable_consumers_in_the_energy_market_2019_final.pdf Scope – Disability price Tag Report 2019 https://www.scope.org.uk/campaigns/extra-costs/disability-price-tag/ Retail Energy Charts https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/retail-market-indicators#thumbchart-c7770745751913637-n114567 Labour List – Time to end the rip off of prepay energy meters – Dawn Butler MP https://labourlist.org/2015/12/time-to-end-the-rip-off-of-prepay-energy-meters/ #prepayment #domesticenergy #smartmeters #energyripoff #energytariffs

“I am deeply saddened at the events following the publication of the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections and was inspired by his vision for radical change and a truly fairer society. Corbyn has campaigned against inequality and racism throughout his political career. I do not believe he is anti-Semitic. However, the EHRC report highlighted significant failings and unlawful activity while he was leader of the Labour Party and ultimately it is the leader who bears responsibility for those failings. I would urge those from all sides of the Labour Party to fully reflect on the report. This is not a time for denial, or to look for fault elsewhere. Across the breadth of the Labour movement, there is much more that unites us than divides us. I would urge members to stay within the party, find common ground and work together to remove the current government, who present such a grave threat to the values of equality, fairness and democracy we all hold so dear.” Julian Vaughan 30th October 2020

Dear Richard I am writing to you to express my dismay at your support of the government’s decision not to back the Labour amendment in the Free School Meals debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday evening. As you will be aware the Labour amendment had passed it would have ensured the continuation of the voucher scheme for those currently in receipt of free school meals, during holiday periods up to and including the Easter Holidays in 2021. For the Central Bedfordshire area (statistics from 2019 are only available by local authority area, I’m aware of the overlap with other constituencies) this would have benefited 3,642 pupils and for the Bedford Borough area this would have benefited 3,798 pupils. Whatever the semantics around whether food and drink is subsidised across the Parliamentary estate, it is a fact that the same MPs who enjoy cheap food at the taxpayers expense were content to vote to deny support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. As you will be aware this has caused a great deal of anger across the country, from people of all political leanings. Assuming 1.4 million claim free school meals, I’m aware this number is likely to have increased during the pandemic, the cost of this over the five weeks of school holidays up to and including Easter 2021 would be approximately £105 million. This is a pittance compared to the amount wasted by the government through questionable procurement deals for Protective Personal Equipment and the billions spent on the SERCO track and trace system which continues its woeful performance. I’m aware that in your standard reply you state that you believe the best way to support families all the year round is through Universal Credit. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation have warned that removing the current £20 per week uplift risks plunging 700,000 people into poverty, including 300,000 children. A link to their report here: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/autumn-budget-why-we-must-keep-20-social-security-lifeline Will you support the £20 per week uplift for Universal Credit to continue in the 2021/22 financial year? While it is the case that during the ongoing pandemic the Government has provided £18m of support to Central Bedfordshire and £13m of support to Bedford Borough, some of which we found out today will be used to provide a level of support for free school meal children, these figures are dwarfed by Government funding cuts to these councils over the last 10 years. Where savings need to be made, surely they should be borne by those with the broadest shoulders and not those of our most vulnerable children? I note that many of your colleagues in Parliament believe that the government has made the wrong decision. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue and join with your colleagues who believe that the decision to stop the government support for eligible children during holiday periods should be reversed. Kind regards Julian Vaughan Langford, Bedfordshire Richard Fuller was elected as the Conservative MP for North East Bedfordshire in the 2019 General Election. #freeschoolmeals #schools

This evening the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill passed its 3rd reading in the House of Commons, with no opposition amendments succeeding in adding safeguards to the legislation. We live in an increasingly dangerous world and the bill formalises what has been carried out for years, without any legal framework. I can understand need for undercover agents, their work enables penetration into organised crime networks and terrorist cells and I have great respect for the agents who carry out this work for our protection, at great personal risk to themselves. However, I have significant reservations about the ‘CHIS’ legislation in its current form. The government quoting the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA), which brings the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law as protection against potential abuses of power is fairly meaningless in light of clear intent of Tories to abolish the HRA and leave the ECHR post Brexit. The bill also seems also appears to say that the state can’t be held accountable for the criminality it authorises the agent to carry out. This was pointed out by Tory MP David Davis, which leads to the question “who is accountable!?” I also have concerns about the culture that may arise from making authorised criminal acts lawful, rather than the current legal status of such acts being unlawful, but subsequently deemed as ‘not in the public interest to prosecute’ scenario. Why the need for change now? Why the unnecessary rush through Parliament, which understandably raises suspicions around motives for the legislation. There are also issues around who has oversight of these decisions, when that oversight takes place and what avenues of redress there are for people affected by the actions of what will be, when the bill passes, legal acts. Finally, as a proud trade unionist I’ve real concerns around the section of the bill allowing criminal acts by undercover agents “in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK.” I’ve yet to be convinced by the assurances from the government that the lawful activity of unions and activists will be protected from state intrusion. The government have a lengthy charge sheet on this and unions must be protected from interference in carrying out their activities. On the basis of the above, while understanding the political reasons for the Labour leadership decision to abstain, morally I think it is the wrong approach to take. I understand that Keir Starmer has made several commitments (see here) to MPs around union issues such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and stating that there was no “abstention strategy”. I voted for Keir Starmer in the leadership election and although I don’t agree with his stance on this issue, will continue to support him as Labour set out a path back to power. This does not mean blind obedience, but as I set out in this blog unity is essential to our success. I will act as a critical friend, not a hostile opponent to the Labour leadership, but it is a fine line that Starmer is following in the pursuit of credibility and the trust of the public. Julian Vaughan – 15th October 2020 Further reading: Trade Union Blacklisting https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06819/SN06819.pdf Police involvement in blacklisting of workers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728 Police spied on trade unionists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/police-trade-unionists-blacklist-met-undercover-unit Undercover police spy on Stephen Lawrence campaign https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43796337 Woman wins undercover officer case against met Police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35350095 Campaigner issues statement as former partner confirmed as undercover officer https://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/dines-confirmed/ #police #covertagents #labourparty #himanrightsact #uklegislation

Factionalism is a luxury we cannot afford. Unity is essential if we are to win elections. I will work alongside colleagues, whatever shade of red they are. I am a train driver, Chair of NE Bedfordshire CLP, an ASLEF union Health and Safety Rep and was a candidate in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. My seven priorities for the NEC: 1 – Promote policies based on empathy and compassion I will promote policies that tackle the injustices faced by the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities. 2 – Hold our leadership to account Challenging as a critical friend, not a hostile opponent – and always standing up for CLPs. 3 – Promote diverse representation on the NEC Increase quotas on the NEC for BAME/LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities. (You can read more about my views on healing the scars of our colonial past here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2020/06/08/healing-the-scars-of-our-colonial-past/ and my views re Labour policy on accessible transport here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2018/10/01/labour-must-be-bolder-on-equal-access/) 4 – A fairer voting system I will support proportional representation, at party local and national level. 5 – Place action on climate change at the heart of everything we do I will back policies that find the quickest path to net zero carbon emissions. (You can read my views on the looming climate disaster here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2019/07/13/fixing-the-climate-emergency-the-end-of-the-global-economy/) 6 – Increase financial support for CLPs Enabling CLPs to be community hubs, by providing the resources and facilities to do so effectively. 7 – Improve support for all local and national candidates Early selection of candidates, backed by a mentoring system and campaign training. (You can read about my own experience as a first time General Election candidate here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2018/04/11/candidate/ ) __________________________________________________ You can watch a short video on my values and priorities below and do get in touch via email at: vaughan4nec@gmail.com If you like the above message, please do share it among your Labour colleagues as widely as possible! You can also follow my campaign page on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/jpvaughan66 Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/juliman66 And finally on Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/jvaughan_4labournec/ Thank you! Julian Vaughan 10th October 2020 #labourparty #ASLEF #democracy #NECElections #labourNEC

Below are my answers to the questions put by Socialists of Colour/The 1987 Caucus to all the Labour NEC Election candidates. The questions cover four main themes; Black Lives Matter, Institutional Racism in the Party, International Solidarity and Engagement of Members of Colour. Q1 What does Black Lives Matter mean to you and do you unequivocally support the movement? A I fully support the Black Lives Matter movement aims to dismantle the state structures that disproportionately and systematically harm black people in Britain and the movement’s commitment to lift up the experiences of the most marginalised in our communities. Q2 Do you believe that the police in the UK is institutionally racist? If no, why? If yes, what do you believe the Labour Party should do to tackle this racism? A Yes, in common with many of the structures of the state and within our society I believe the police in the UK are, as McPherson set out in the 1999 Stephen Lawrence enquiry, institutionally racist. This does not mean that all police are racist. McPherson summarised institutional racism in his enquiry report as follows: “6.34 “Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.” In the McPherson report, statistics set out how black people were five times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. The latest figures on this (the year to March 2019) indicate that this figure has grown to ten times more likely across England and Wales. Labour should take steps to ensure that police forces are more representative of the society they protect. As of 2019 only 7% of police officers self-identified as being from an ethnic minority whereas in the general population this figure is 14%. Labour should review Section 1 and Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in relation to ‘stop and search’ procedures. A Labour government, as part of a UK wide education programme, should make it mandatory that police officers are taught about the history of colonialism and how black asian and minority ethnic groups have been disadvantaged by the state. Black people are also disproportionately criminalised by the current rules on cannabis use and I favour the decriminalisation of cannabis use. Q3 Do you agree that in the long term, Labour should aim to abolish the prison system as it currently exists and work towards defunding the police? If not why? A The current prison system is not fit for purpose due to underfunding leading to overcrowding and poor supervision. The root of the problem is of course not the prison system, but the disproportionate criminalisation of black people (who also receive longer sentences) which in turn is due to a number of societal factors. Prison should be regarded as a last resort (the UK currently has the highest prison population per capita in Europe) for the purposes of protecting the public and be seen as an opportunity for genuine rehabilitation rather than a means of punishment. Defunding the police is a misunderstood term. Protecting its people is the first duty of government and I am keen for a restoration of police numbers which have been cut so severely since the Conservative government came to power in 2010. However, we must as a matter of urgency prioritise social policies that reduce crime and reverse the austerity cuts that have afflicted support networks in our communities. We must restore youth centres, improve social housing, invest in our mental health and special educational needs services. We also need to look at policies in relation to school exclusions as the children that experience this are overrepresented in the prison population. Q4 Name one Black socialist man who inspires you, and explain what inspires you about them? A Akala – a brilliant articulate verbal and written communicator. Q5 What do you think a reformed complaints process should look like and how will you work to see it materialised as part of your role on the NEC? A A complaints process must be straightforward to access, have a clear structure that is understood by all those involved and a timeline that ensures enquiries and decisions are reached in a timely fashion. Training should be offered to CLP Chairs/Secretaries to enable mediation to take place where this is appropriate. Q6 ‘The Labour Party is institutionally racist.’ What is your personal response to that statement? A Yes, like the rest of society the Labour Party is institutionally racist. Again, as with the police, this does not mean that the Labour Party contains large numbers of members who are racist, but its structures restrict the opportunities for black people. Q7 What structures, processes, and changes do you think are required to change the culture within the party to one where racism is not permitted? Please answer with specific reference to anti-Black racism, antisemitism, and islamophobia. A A culture change is likely only when there is adequate representation of Black, Asian, Jewish and Muslim members at all levels of the Labour Party. Members must be confident that disciplinary processes are effective, otherwise these issues will occur, but go unreported. Q8 When geopolitical events cause an increase in racism against certain ethnic & religious minorities how would you ensure that these spikes in racism found in wider society aren’t found within Labour? A Using the current example of people crossing the English Channel to seek asylum, Labour must be ready to challenge the narrative of a government that continues the hostile environment for the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities. This messaging must be consistent, communicated across all available platforms and supported by the leadership, MPs as well as distributed to CLPs. There must be no opportunity for a communication vacuum to develop. The Labour Party should constantly be on the lookout for the next issue and be proactive rather than reactive. Q9 What will you do to address the anti-GRT language and stereotypes within Labour and how would you uplift the voices of the GRT community? A I am already starting the process having invited GRT speakers to my CLP. Ignorance is very high in this area which is commonly perceived in our society as the last acceptable form of racism. I would encourage a dialogue between senior figures in the Labour party and GRT communities. I would also encourage an educational programme on the history and circumstance of these communities within the Labour Party. Although we must not set out hierarchies of racism, racism towards GRT communities is viewed as the last ‘acceptable’ form of racism and Labour’s approach towards racism faced by the GRT communities should be seen as a benchmark in terms of our success in combatting racism in our society. Q10 Do you believe that the foreign policy employed by the Labour Party has had a positive or negative impact in the communities of colour directly affected by the policy, at home and abroad? A Negative. Labour Policy in support of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan created a humanitarian disaster. Q11 In your view what should Labour’s stance be on immigration and refugees? A Migrants bring significant cultural and economic benefits to the UK. We should be treating refugees with empathy and compassion rather than the ongoing hostile environment practiced by the current government. The current 12 month restriction on working in the UK is unnecessarily restrictive and prevents asylum seekers both from contributing financially to society but also limits opportunities for integration. I would abolish the Immigration Health Surcharge as it is a ‘double tax’ and as we shouldn’t value people according to their income would remove the income threshold requirement. In relation to refugees we should provide safe routes for those seeking asylum and show compassion, particularly in regard to child refugees. Q12 In your view, what should Labour policy and rhetoric be with regard to Kashmir and its occupation by the Indian government? A We have an agreed policy on Kashmir (self-determination) which was decided at Party Conference. I believe we should stick to that policy, which also coincides with that of the United Nations and offer all our support in this aim and finding a peaceful resolution. Q13 What do you personally believe Labour Party policy should be relating to the Israel – Palestine conflict, including your view of BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions)? A Labour should support a two state solution to the Israel – Palestine conflict and encourage ongoing talks to achieve that aim. Labour should make it clear that any annexation of the West Bank will lead to sanctions. I believe that any form of annexation should result in the Labour Party supporting a policy of sanctions on good entering Britain from these settlement areas. Q14 Do you believe the Iraq war was justifiable? If yes, why? If no, what do you believe Labour policy should be to address this wrong? A No. Labour policy should seek to offer whatever assistance it can to attempt to remedy the damage caused by the unjust war. Q15 How will you help to create an environment within Labour which is conducive to increasing and promoting the participation of minority members, and Black members specifically within the party? A All black shortlists must be put in place in winnable seats. Training for all members regarding the effects of British colonialism across the World. Greater representation at a Shadow Cabinet level. Q16 Why do you think there has never been a Black man on the NEC, and what measures do you think need to take place to ensure Black men are represented within the party? A Lack of role models, lack of positive action in terms of leadership programmes, such as the Bernie Grant Leadership Programme. Labour should fully enact Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 which relates to the provision of information by the number of successful and unsuccessful applications by protected characteristic. Transparency drives change. Labour should expand programmes such as the Bernie Grant Leadership programme. Q17 Do you agree with the current Labour democratic structure where white members can vote on motions specifically relating to BAME representation and policies that affect communities of colour? A I believe that BAME members should elect BAME representatives. Regarding policies that affect communities of colour I believe this is less clear cut, but we must always seek the views of BAME people (particularly the BAME section discussed below) before making decisions that affect them. Q18 BAME Labour is currently not fit for purpose and must be reformed. Do you support the creation of a BAME section? If yes, what will you do to ensure that this is democratic, politically autonomous and that it’s established as efficiently as possible? A I do support the creation of a BAME section as quickly as possible to deal with the significant and urgent issues currently faced by the BAME community. I would back Labour members being automatically made members of the BAME section and support a ‘one member one vote’ system of electing the NEC representative. I would also support an increase in BAME representation on the NEC. Julian Vaughan email: vaughan4nebeds@gmail.com Many thanks to ‘Socialists of Colour’ and ‘The 1987 Caucus’ for the questions and @z_h_h_t for the graphic in the title. #LabourNEC #labourparty #NECelections #VoteJV4NEC

Divided we fall; factionalism is both a luxury we cannot afford and one that voters will not forgive us for at the ballot box.  Achieving unity is essential to our success and I have a track record in bringing people together with different  views and working across political divides to agree solutions. I am a train driver, Chair of NE Bedfordshire CLP and a health and safety representative for the ASLEF Union.  I stood as a Labour candidate in the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. I want to see CLPs as agents for positive change in their local communities and I will press that NEC decisions enable this to happen. Internal party decision making can appear remote to members;  I will push for greater transparency and accountability to members, in order to increase trust and engagement. I will promote policies that tackle the injustices faced by the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities.  The current pandemic is a grave threat to our economy, but also an opportunity to build a fairer society, with the NHS and social care at its heart.  It is also time for a change to our voting system; I will support Proportional Representation. Julian Vaughan email: vaughan4nebeds@gmail.com twitter: @juliman66 Membership Number L0139019 #labourparty #Politics

Along with many in the Labour Party, I felt a wave of contentment when reading the 2017 Labour Party manifesto. Finally, after many years where there was little more than a cigarette paper between the two main political parties, there was now clear water. The manifesto painted a vision of a society where the needs of people were prioritised over profits, a lifelong education service reimagined, and unions cherished as agents for change within the workplace rather than derided as guests who had overstayed their welcome. Public ownership, support from the cradle to the grave, and above all a respect for everyone in our society were promoted. As a result of this manifesto, and what must surely rank as one of the worst ever General Election campaigns ever fought by the Tories, or anyone for that matter, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour came within a whisker of victory. I voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections, and his government would have had the potential to create a fairer, kinder and more equal society. However, as Churchill said, wars are not won by glorious defeats and there was a sense of basking in failure. Kinnock’s spectacularly unwise Sheffield jamboree on the eve of the 1992 General Election was almost matched by the triumphalism of the 2017 Labour Party Conference. Perhaps a little harsh, but you get my drift. The Brexit debate became more polarised as sensible solutions disappeared over the horizon and Labour became boxed into a corner. The high water mark of ‘Corbynism’ became a distant memory as poor management and division wrecked a co-ordinated strategy and ultimately led to a thumping electoral defeat. The 2019 manifesto was a little too sweet. As a candidate I felt bombarded with new policy promises every time I opened the daily campaign email. Clearly the effect was worse on an electorate with whom we lost credibility and trust. Whereas in 2017 our costed manifesto was a real boost in light of the absence of any Tory costings, we were just seen as throwing as many punches as possible while stuck on the ropes in the hope that we would land an unlikely knockout blow. Poll after poll showed that voters supported Labour policies, but no matter how good they were, the tidal wave of ‘get Brexit done’ and Brexit fatigue swept up voters on both sides of the argument. Moving ahead to the 2020 Party leadership elections, I voted for Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. I’d been thinking of Starmer as a leader for some time; not one who particularly inspires you with his manner of speaking – however neither did Corbyn – but always measured and with clarity of thought. Why the shift? I welcomed Corbyn’s socialist policies with open arms, but I felt a real sense that the moment had gone, that the UK people just weren’t ready to trust Labour and the forces were stacked too deeply against the reality of achieving a truly socialist government. Ideological purity is all very well, but politics is dominated by numbers. Purity is also the easy way out, while the more difficult path is one of compromise and pragmatism. Another reason is one of competence. While I do not want a return to the slick political machine of the Labour Party of the late 90’s, we do need professionalism, which for all his many qualities was lacking in Corbyn’s opposition team. I will concede that matters that have recently come to light show how far internal relations within the party had become toxic and made the task far more difficult than it needed to be, but there were also many unforced errors which eroded credibility and trust. Johnson won’t last until the next General Election, you can read my views on this here, but in the meantime Starmer’s attention to detail will enable him to run rings around a lazy and over confident Johnson. Many of you will be aware of members who have either stepped down from positions, or who have left the Labour Party altogether in recent days either due to the dismissal of Rebecca Long-Bailey, or what they believe to be the general direction of the Party led by Starmer. Some of these people are my friends and I must stress will continue to be my friends! However, I believe it is better to be inside the tent looking out rather than outside peering in at what is going on, without any influence on it. I always remember my wife advising me that the sense of satisfaction in resigning from a job is far briefer than you would like it to be. I have always been determined that all strands of the Labour Party are made to feel welcome while rigorous, but respectful debate should be encouraged. Labour members hold their principles very dear and this creates passionate debate. When not imploding over relations with Europe, the Tories have always been successful in uniting around their ‘principles’ of retaining the barriers that prevent a more equal society and promoting the needs of the individual over that of community. Coming to power in 2020, Keir Starmer faces a set of challenges that nobody would have expected to encounter. I believe it would have been very unwise of him to go ‘all guns blazing’ against the government during the initial stages of the pandemic. Some have resented his measured approach, but the mood of the public, at least at the start of what has been the most significant national emergency since WW2, was to pull together. Of course the mood has changed, with the numerous mistakes by a government that has over promised, under delivered and been economical with the truth . The lack of protection for NHS staff and care homes was followed by Cummings’s trip to Durham, the effect of which cannot be overestimated. Starmer has changed tack and while still willing to work with government has become ever more critical while at the same time putting forward practical and progressive solutions. I share the disappointment of those on the left of the Labour party that Corbynism ended in failure, but we must be prepared to adapt and move on if we are to succeed next time. What I find difficult to accept is the tit-for-tat factional onslaught that Starmer has faced from the very outset of his leadership. While I can understand the resentment at a Labour machine that undermined Corbyn’s leadership, factionalism is both a luxury that we cannot afford, and one that voters will not forgive at the ballot box. I do get the sense that some enjoy the rough and tumble of internal party politics far more than the challenge of finding political solutions that would benefit our communities. If we cannot find common ground and consensus within our own party in opposition, how can we possibly find it with those in government? Unpalatable as it may be, working with those in other parties is how an opposition affects change. Although some in the Labour Party have already tried Starmer and found him guilty, the pandemic has meant we have yet to see what ‘Starmerism’ actually stands for. A national emergency is not the time to be spewing out numerous policies which we would be unable to enact in any case. We all have more urgent and immediate needs than that. The economic news is grim now and may be far more grim by Christmas. In the short term I believe Starmer is right to concentrate on applying pressure on the government to protect jobs and businesses – the grander themes can wait. We have a government that has already proved its incompetence, one that shows casual indifference to the people it serves, and is led by an already diminished Prime Minister. The damage being inflicted on the social fabric of the United Kingdom does not bear thinking about. We are in danger of becoming an authoritarian state as the normal checks and balances of the legislature, the judiciary and our institutions are weakened so much as to make them ineffective. Rather than step down, because our vision of political purity is not being fulfilled, this is the time to step up and face the huge challenges that lie ahead. I’m incredibly proud to be British – and we can still be proud and patriotic, while acknowledging our past and present failures. We will only be successful if we unite as a Party. This does not mean blind allegiance, but when a decision is made and a direction chosen, we must get behind it, or at least not actively campaign against it. The scale of the challenge the Labour Party faces cannot be overestimated. I’m still in, I hope you will be too. #labourparty #Politics #UKpolitics #unity

Along with many in the Labour Party, I felt a wave of contentment when reading the 2017 Labour Party manifesto. Finally, after many years where there was little more than a cigarette paper between the two main political parties, there was now clear water. The manifesto painted a vision of a society where the needs of people were prioritised over profits, a lifelong education service reimagined, and unions cherished as agents for change within the workplace rather than derided as guests who had overstayed their welcome. Public ownership, support from the cradle to the grave, and above all a respect for everyone in our society were promoted. As a result of this manifesto, and what must surely rank as one of the worst ever General Election campaigns ever fought by the Tories, or anyone for that matter, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour came within a whisker of victory. I voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections, and his government would have had the potential to create a fairer, kinder and more equal society. However, as Churchill said, wars are not won by glorious defeats and there was a sense of basking in failure. Kinnock’s spectacularly unwise Sheffield jamboree on the eve of the 1992 General Election was almost matched by the triumphalism of the 2017 Labour Party Conference. Perhaps a little harsh, but you get my drift. The Brexit debate became more polarised as sensible solutions disappeared over the horizon and Labour became boxed into a corner. The high water mark of ‘Corbynism’ became a distant memory as poor management and division wrecked a co-ordinated strategy and ultimately led to a thumping electoral defeat. The 2019 manifesto was a little too sweet. As a candidate I felt bombarded with new policy promises every time I opened the daily campaign email. Clearly the effect was worse on an electorate with whom we lost credibility and trust. Whereas in 2017 our costed manifesto was a real boost in light of the absence of any Tory costings, we were just seen as throwing as many punches as possible while stuck on the ropes in the hope that we would land an unlikely knockout blow. Poll after poll showed that voters supported Labour policies, but no matter how good they were, the tidal wave of ‘get Brexit done’ and Brexit fatigue swept up voters on both sides of the argument. Moving ahead to the 2020 Party leadership elections, I voted for Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. I’d been thinking of Starmer as a leader for some time; not one who particularly inspires you with his manner of speaking – however neither did Corbyn – but always measured and with clarity of thought. Why the shift? I welcomed Corbyn’s socialist policies with open arms, but I felt a real sense that the moment had gone, that the UK people just weren’t ready to trust Labour and the forces were stacked too deeply against the reality of achieving a truly socialist government. Ideological purity is all very well, but politics is dominated by numbers. Purity is also the easy way out, while the more difficult path is one of compromise and pragmatism. Another reason is one of competence. While I do not want a return to the slick political machine of the Labour Party of the late 90’s, we do need professionalism, which for all his many qualities was lacking in Corbyn’s opposition team. I will concede that matters that have recently come to light show how far internal relations within the party had become toxic and made the task far more difficult than it needed to be, but there were also many unforced errors which eroded credibility and trust. Johnson won’t last until the next General Election, you can read my views on this here, but in the meantime Starmer’s attention to detail will enable him to run rings around a lazy and over confident Johnson. Many of you will be aware of members who have either stepped down from positions, or who have left the Labour Party altogether in recent days either due to the dismissal of Rebecca Long-Bailey, or what they believe to be the general direction of the Party led by Starmer. Some of these people are my friends and I must stress will continue to be my friends! However, I believe it is better to be inside the tent looking out rather than outside peering in at what is going on, without any influence on it. I always remember my wife advising me that the sense of satisfaction in resigning from a job is far briefer than you would like it to be. I have always been determined that all strands of the Labour Party are made to feel welcome while rigorous, but respectful debate should be encouraged. Labour members hold their principles very dear and this creates passionate debate. When not imploding over relations with Europe, the Tories have always been successful in uniting around their ‘principles’ of retaining the barriers that prevent a more equal society and promoting the needs of the individual over that of community. Coming to power in 2020, Keir Starmer faces a set of challenges that nobody would have expected to encounter. I believe it would have been very unwise of him to go ‘all guns blazing’ against the government during the initial stages of the pandemic. Some have resented his measured approach, but the mood of the public, at least at the start of what has been the most significant national emergency since WW2, was to pull together. Of course the mood has changed, with the numerous mistakes by a government that has over promised, under delivered and been economical with the truth . The lack of protection for NHS staff and care homes was followed by Cummings’s trip to Durham, the effect of which cannot be overestimated. Starmer has changed tack and while still willing to work with government has become ever more critical while at the same time putting forward practical and progressive solutions. I share the disappointment of those on the left of the Labour party that Corbynism ended in failure, but we must be prepared to adapt and move on if we are to succeed next time. What I find difficult to accept is the tit-for-tat factional onslaught that Starmer has faced from the very outset of his leadership. While I can understand the resentment at a Labour machine that undermined Corbyn’s leadership, factionalism is both a luxury that we cannot afford, and one that voters will not forgive at the ballot box. I do get the sense that some enjoy the rough and tumble of internal party politics far more than the challenge of finding political solutions that would benefit our communities. If we cannot find common ground and consensus within our own party in opposition, how can we possibly find it with those in government? Unpalatable as it may be, working with those in other parties is how an opposition affects change. Although some in the Labour Party have already tried Starmer and found him guilty, the pandemic has meant we have yet to see what ‘Starmerism’ actually stands for. A national emergency is not the time to be spewing out numerous policies which we would be unable to enact in any case. We all have more urgent and immediate needs than that. The economic news is grim now and may be far more grim by Christmas. In the short term I believe Starmer is right to concentrate on applying pressure on the government to protect jobs and businesses – the grander themes can wait. We have a government that has already proved its incompetence, one that shows casual indifference to the people it serves, and is led by an already diminished Prime Minister. The damage being inflicted on the social fabric of the United Kingdom does not bear thinking about. We are in danger of becoming an authoritarian state as the normal checks and balances of the legislature, the judiciary and our institutions are weakened so much as to make them ineffective. Rather than step down, because our vision of political purity is not being fulfilled, this is the time to step up and face the huge challenges that lie ahead. I’m incredibly proud to be British – and we can still be proud and patriotic, while acknowledging our past and present failures. We will only be successful if we unite as a Party. This does not mean blind allegiance, but when a decision is made and a direction chosen, we must get behind it, or at least not actively campaign against it. The scale of the challenge the Labour Party faces cannot be overestimated. I’m still in, I hope you will be too. #labourparty #Politics #UKpolitics #unity