PoliticsUK

EMILEAKS?



Cast your minds back, right the way back to the halcyon days of six months ago, when Britain was leaving the European Union and the Labour Party was undergoing a really rather boring leadership election. It looked to all the World like Hilda Harrington, a left-wing Corbynite MP from Southampton Test, was in the conversation to beat Emily Greenwood's more establishment bid and become the Labour Party's first ever female leader, even if the smart money was on Greenwood. Then the race turned decisively, all going down thanks to a single leak from sources within the Labour Party to the Times newspaper regarding potentially antisemitic comments made by a backbench Labour MP and Ms Harrington's attempts to defend said MP from attack in Labour HQ. The resultant leak ignited a civil war within Labour that engulfed the entire party for days leading to several unedifying displays of disunity and outright hostility in front of the Jewish Labour community.

The Daily Mail can now exclusively reveal that the leak not only came from the campaign of Emily Greenwood (many fingers at the time pointed at Sam Berman but this has never been proven) but was known about and maybe even authorised by the woman herself. an eyewitness account from an individual at the heart of these discussions, relayed to this newspaper, of discussions in the lead up to the leak show clear as crystal that Emily Greenwood was made aware of the potential to leak days in advance of the leak (which did not actually come from her it should be pointed out). Ms Greenwood then authorised the leak in principle before hurrying away to build up an alibi with some plausible deniability.

Since winning the leadership Emily Greenwood has worked hard to be seen as an honest politician and a strong leader, the kind of woman who can speak to the everyman on his level and then galvanise the party around a single message. She has had some success at that building a campaign in Gateshead, a safe Labour seat, and suspending three members of the Labour left (two of whom were prominent Harrington supporters in Burgon and Abbott) pending an investigation into Anti-Semitic comments at a pro-Palestine rally. These leaks call into question the image that Ms Greenwood has been carefully constructing. Would an honest politician authorise damaging leaks that not only floored a rival's campaign but also kicked off a three week Labour Civil War in the middle of an Anti-Semitism crisis in the party? Would a strong leader need to use such dirty tactics to defeat the hard left?

When asked for comment Emily Greenwood said to this paper: "I won't deny that I knew. The issue was raised to me by a colleague who felt the whistle had to be blown on this, and while it saddened me that it had to come to that, I felt I could not in good conscience stop them and cover it up." John McDonnell, former Shadow Chancellor, prominent member of the left of Labour, and supporter of Hilda Harrington said: "This is disappointing behaviour that undermines any trust that left-wing Labour MPs can have in our leader. Hilda is an honest politician who tried to fight a clean campaign. To hear that those attempts were undermined by her opponent is a sad day for the Labour Party."

What this means for the future is anyone's guess.

Time for a Fair Deal on Social Care for Those that Need it Most
Ashton Edwards, Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary

No one can doubt the dedication of the Daily Mail and its readers on fighting for a fair deal for those who suffer from dementia and other ailments that need care beyond what is offered by the NHS. I’ve read the submissions of readers that have highlighted the very real pain of seeing loved ones lose everything- literally having to sell their homes- trying to secure basic care for dementia. I’ve read the Daily Mail’s valiant leadership in issuing repeated calls for a change in how we fund social care in this country and fixing a system that has struggled since 2010.

It saddens me deeply. As an MP, and as someone with parents who may someday need the same sort of care that Daily Mail readers say are costing them £50,000 per year and more, I absolutely have a responsibility to answer for why we haven’t tackled this issue.

Since the Royal Commission chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland in 1999, there have been 12 White Papers, Green Papers and other consultations about social care in England, but very little progress. The Government also remarked that they hoped to have another paper out before the end of 2019.

It’s time we take those papers and do something. Time we take those letters that the Daily Mail has published by those who were brave enough to pour their heart and soul into the issue of social care and do something.

At a speech to AgeUK, I outlined just exactly how we in Westminster can do just that. I was lucky enough to deliver Labour’s plan to turn those letters and those papers into meaningful action.

Our plan starts with immediately granting more money to local authorities to help boost support that’s given to those that need it.

Those like the Spices in East Sussex, whose case was highlighted by the Daily Mail last summer (" Mail’s dementia care petition gathers speed," 22 July 2019). Over seven years, as Mr Spice suffered from dementia, Mrs Spice estimated that they had spent £130,000 on care, to the point that in June 2019, their assets had dwindled to the point where they should be receiving enough funds to completely cover Mr Spice’s care… and yet they haven’t.

Our funding surge will make sure that the East Sussex County Council has the resources to boost the payments so that Mr Spice can fully receive the care he deserves.

As part of our programme of immediate action, we’ll also increase the assets that someone can own and still qualify for state-funded care. Right now, if anyone owns £23,250 or more in assets- including the value of a home- they are on their own for social care that would help those with dementia and other ailments.

Our plan starts with immediately raising that threshold to £125,000, so anyone with assets less than that will be able to get public assistance to pay for the care they need.

And to prevent stories like the Spices in East Sussex, like Mr Handy in Hampshire who wrote that he has to spend £50,000 per year for his wife, like Mr Broadly in Cheshire who wrote he has spent £100,000 to date for care for his wife, and like Ms Gardener in Lancashire who wrote that she had to spend £220,000 over four years for her mother, even selling her house ("Dementia care - your fury," 16 July 2019), our plan will immediately cap lifetime costs on social care at £25,000. The moment anyone spends that amount, and even if you already have, then our plan will ensure that public funding is available to pay for care.

And our plan immediately will cover- for free- personal care at home for those aged 65 and up who suffer with dementia and other ailments. Cooking, cleaning, getting dressed and services like those will be covered through payments from local councils, supported by money from Parliament. That funding can also be applied to pay for care home costs as well for those who cannot be supported or treated effectively at home. These funds will support family members who stay to help care for their family, friends, and loved ones as well.

Our plan will go further to support those carers as well, especially those that have given up their own careers or their own time to selflessly assist someone they care about. Some 2.6 million people have quit their jobs to care for a family member or friend since 2017. That figure doesn’t include those that have already retired who are caring for a spouse, a parent, or a loved one. Every single one of these people is a hero for trying to put up with a system that is hard to navigate and that does not provide necessary support, so our plan will immediately increase their ability to access support through wages and through benefits. Britain should support its heroes, and providing dementia care in any way is just as deserving of support.

Over the course of the next few years, our plan would continue to boost support for those that need care. Personal care coverage will be made available to all adults. The lifetime cap on out-of-pocket expenses will eventually fall to £0. We’ll push for standards of care that ensures everyone has access to a high quality of care, and assist local authorities in expanding the services they can provide to those in need.

We’ll continue to build a uniquely British care workforce as well, with programs to train, hire, and pay those heroes that only want to help care for others.

And our plan will make sure all of these changes are fully paid for with a budget that is adequate to the task.

Fixing a system that has already taken such a huge toll on families is not an easy task. There are questions to answer about how to deliver quality care to everyone. Questions about the powers needed for local authorities and the NHS should interact to streamline care so no one is left out. Questions about how to boost the care workforce in this country through better pay and better training.

But reading the pain, the stress, the anguish our current system is causing people, I know they are questions that we can answer. Labour will be leading the charge with our plan, but we’ll work with everyone on delivering a lasting solution that is fair to all.

What we need now, though, is your help. We need the Daily Mail to continue its campaign to fight for those that need dementia care and other forms of social care. We need you, Mail readers, to keep telling your stories so that we can all continue to see the very real cost that inaction- or that the wrong action- has on individuals and families throughout our country.

I have read the words, and I’ve heard the voices. And I’m confident that if you continue to raise your voices, to tell your MPs and local officials and your neighbors and friends that you want to see action, you’ll get it.

We can have a plan where everyone is cared for, for free, without having people worry about what will happen to their homes or their assets. And as MPs with constituents who could all agree with the stories the Mail has shared, it's our job to make this programme happen- or be ready to explain why not.

A New Devil We Know: Government’s Brexit to Bring Us Closer to Europe
Ashton Edwards, Shadow Foreign Secretary

“Support for Brexit is in the DNA of the Daily Mail and, more pertinently, its readers,” said former editor Paul Dacre on 13 June 2018. There was no question that Mr Dacre understood the readership of the Mail and particularly their unease towards a European project that seemed to be moving more and more in a direction that Britain was not ready to go. That unease was shared by 17.4 million voters who chose Leave in the 2016 referendum.

And now that it appears the Government has reached a point of finality that will soon be debated (if we’re lucky) and voted on in Parliament through a decision that will finalize our position with respect to Europe. The Government has already taken to Twitter and used a press conference to say that this is the Brexit that was promised, that they are completing the job. As Shadow Foreign Secretary, I feel that it is my job to make sure that the readers of the Mail- those readers for whom support for Brexit is fundamental- understand just what sort of Brexit the Government is finally delivering.

It's not the Brexit we voted on before, that’s for sure. It’s not a Brexit deal that was messy and the result of a number of defections just last year but that would unquestionably see us out of the EU. It’s a new deal with some closer ties to Europe.

And now this Government is scrapping the old deal in favor of this new one that would see the UK rejoin old treaties. This has become the devil we know versus the one we don’t.

Soon, the United Kingdom will join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), a loose association with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. The UK will also join the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the EU. The Foreign Secretary confirmed that there are no special exceptions for Britain by joining the EEA.

Part of the aim of Brexit was to take control of a migrant system that saw a door open to new EU Members and where there were too many roadblocks to come to a solution that worked for everyone in Britain. Concerns relating to unchecked immigration in some corners of the United Kingdom date to long before the 2016 referendum of course, but part of the promise of Brexit was the opportunity to take control where we had given it up.

One of the core principles of the EEA is the freedom of movement of people: countries cannot just put up roadblocks to workers, migrants, visitors, or anyone else from other EEA countries. So if we take the test of being able to take back control of our borders… this deal will not fully give us that. The Government knows that, too: the Foreign Secretary’s announcement specifically said we could control migration from non-EEA countries. We can use rules relating to India and Russia, but we’re limited in how much those rules can apply to Italy and Romania.

Another aim of Brexit was to take control of our economy back from rulemakers in Brussels that could make rules on everything from employment to what sort of food colouring we used in coated chocolate sweets. These rules, we were told, were essential to the functioning of the European Union and to the operation of the Single Market. And so part of the promise of Brexit was the opportunity to take control where we had given it up.

Except here too, the EEA does not allow that. See, we’re going to stay in the Single Market thanks to the Government’s proposal. And because of that, we’re required to adopt and maintain every single regulation the EU has relating to the functioning of the Single Market. Product standards and business rules are a part of that- the same rules that we wanted to get rid of in order to free our economy for massive growth. And now, we won’t even have the power to shape those rules to benefit UK companies and UK workers. The most the EU has to do is informally consult with us… and then we have to take whatever rules they come up with.

There’s so much more here to show this isn’t Brexit: as a part of the EEA, we will have to continue to make payments to the EU. Part of the payments go directly to EU countries so that they can continue to develop; that’s money that will not be going to develop parts of our own country that need it just as much. Other payments go to the EU itself to help fund programmes that we might take advantage of, funding the operations and administration of the EU. The Government has highlighted the Erasmus programme, but that doesn’t come free. EFTA member Norway has to pay a fee of about £700 million each year to the EU; with our GDP being 7 times higher, it’s no stretch to imagine the UK’s bill to be in the range of billions of pounds to the EU every year.

As part of EFTA, we will have to submit to the decisions of an EFTA Court. Yes, we’ll be free from the European Court of Justice, but this is another body that is designed to enforce rules that Britain will have to follow. And this EFTA Court will look to European rulings when they’re making their own.

I should be transparent to the Mail and its readership: I campaigned for a Remain vote and voted that way. But that is in the past. I’ve accepted that Britain must fulfill the promise made to millions of voters that we would leave the European Union. That’s why, while I voted against the old deals negotiated and presented by former Prime Minister May, I accepted that was the way forward.

As an MP, though, and as someone who represents those who voted Leave as well as Remain, this deal shocks me. We’ve had many votes in Parliament about what Brexit should and should not mean. We’ve heard red lines about how any deal must allow us control over our immigration system and how any deal should leave us free and independent from Brussels.

This new deal upends all that’s been said, all that’s been done… and for what?

The Government has confirmed we will be full members of the EEA and the Single Market. They’ve confirmed that we’ll have to accept the freedom of movement that has caused legitimate concerns for millions.

And now, on Twitter, the Government is saying that this is the last hope, and that anyone who disagrees with their new deal should leave. This new deal which throws out almost everything that has been voted on in Parliament before, that throws out almost every red line that has been laid down about what an acceptable Brexit should be.

In fact, they’ve thrown out a deal that has been voted on before: if we don’t accept this drawing close with Europe, then we need to suffer the untold consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

And despite the back-and-forth decision making by a Government that just four years ago ruled out the Single Market, a Government that said we would be free from payments to the EU, at least with that deal we are getting finality. We’re getting a predictable arrangement that businesses and workers and families can understand and rely on. We’re not falling off a cliff into an unknown nothingness.

We’re not taking back control of much. We can negotiate our own trade agreements, but in so many ways we’re continuing our ties with Brussels and with the EU.

This Government needs to answer why this deal, and why now. This Government needs to answer to those that voted for Brexit and that voted to Remain how this meets what they were promised, and what they were hoping for. And this Government needs to answer for why, at the last minute, they threw out the old deal for this new one... a new one that they can't even sell properly.

But this is our Brexit deal. And at least I’ll be able to support the devil we know versus leaving this Government in the hands of something else.