Labour and Unite accuse the Tories of "wasting police time" - and they're right

Tory MP Bob Neill's letter to the Metropolitan Police contains no evidence that the law may have been broken in seats other than Falkirk.

In an attempt to challenge Labour's assertion that the alleged abuses in Falkirk were a one-off, Conservative MP and party vice chairman Bob Neill has written to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe asking him to investigate the selections in Ilford North and Lewisham Deptford.

In the case of the former, he writes: "In Ilford North, it has been reported that Unite were offering their members free Labour Party membership in exchange for attending a meeting with General Secretary Len McCluskey. Given that this constituency appears on a Unite target list along with Falkirk, I believe that the circumstances of this membership recruitment merit investigation."

He adds: "a London Labour activist Mandy Richards has alleged that Unite are ‘bankrolling’ a number of ‘orchestrated’ campaigns, and she singles out Lewisham Deptford for special attention. Again, given that this constituency appears on Unite’s secret list I am deeply concerned that Falkirk-style abuses may also have taken place."

In neither case is there any evidence that illegal activity has taken place. Offering members free Labour membership in return for meeting Len McCluskey is not against the law and nor is "bankrolling" or "orchestrating" campaigns.

Quite rightly, then, both Labour and Unite have responded by accusing the Tories of "wasting police time". A Labour spokesman said: "This is a silly political stunt. We have no evidence of possible criminal behaviour anywhere outside Falkirk. If Bob Neill has, he should produce it. If he has not, he should stop wasting police time."

A Unite spokesman said: "The Conservatives are wasting police time and trying to engage the police in a disgraceful political witch hunt. We strenuously reject any suggestion of criminality or that we have broken Labour party rules.

"Using the police to score political points and diverting their attentions away from making our communities safer is obscene.
 
"The Tories’ smear tactics are designed to scare ordinary people away from engaging in politics and ensure it becomes the preserve of an Eton educated elite."
 
CCHQ has responded by noting that Unite has not accused Ed Miliband of "wasting police time" in the case of Falkirk, asking whether this is "an acceptance of illegality". In that constituency, Unite is accused of signing up members to Labour without their knowledge or consent, an allegation that the Tories are notably unable to repeat in the case of Ilford North and Lewisham Deptford.
 
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Donald Trump wants to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency - can he?

"Epa, Epa, Eeeepaaaaa" – Grampa Simpson.

 

There have been countless jokes about US President Donald Trump’s aversion to academic work, with many comparing him to an infant. The Daily Show created a browser extension aptly named “Make Trump Tweets Eight Again” that converts the font of Potus’ tweets to crayon scrawlings. Indeed, it is absurd that – even without the childish font – one particular bill that was introduced within the first month of Trump taking office looked just as puerile. Proposed by Matt Gaetz, a Republican who had been in Congress for barely a month, “H.R. 861” was only one sentence long:

“The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018”.

If this seems like a stunt, that is because Gaetz is unlikely to actually achieve his stated aim. Drafting such a short bill without any co-sponsors – and leaving it to a novice Congressman to present – is hardly the best strategy to ensure a bill will pass. 

Still, Republicans' distrust for environmental protections is well-known - long-running cartoon show The Simpsons even did a send up of the Epa where the agency had its own private army. So what else makes H.R. 861 implausible?

Well, the 10-word-long statement neglects to address the fact that many federal environmental laws assume the existence of or defer to the Epa. In the event that the Epa was abolished, all of these laws – from the 1946 Atomic Energy Act to the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – would need to be amended. Preferably, a way of doing this would be included in the bill itself.

Additionally, for the bill to be accepted in the Senate there would have to be eight Democratic senators who agreed with its premise. This is an awkward demand when not even all Republicans back Trump. The man Trum appointed to the helm of the Epa, Scott Pruitt, is particularly divisive because of his long opposition to the agency. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said that she was hostile to the appointment of a man who was “so manifestly opposed to the mission of the agency” that he had sued the Epa 14 times. Polls from 2016 and 2017 suggests that most Americans would be also be opposed to the agency’s termination.

But if Trump is incapable of entirely eliminating the Epa, he has other ways of rendering it futile. In January, Potus banned the Epa and National Park Services from “providing updates on social media or to reporters”, and this Friday, Trump plans to “switch off” the government’s largest citizen-linked data site – the Epa’s Open Data Web Service. This is vital not just for storing and displaying information on climate change, but also as an accessible way of civilians viewing details of local environmental changes – such as chemical spills. Given the administration’s recent announcement of his intention to repeal existing safeguards, such as those to stabilise the climate and protect the environment, defunding this public data tool is possibly an attempt to decrease awareness of Trump’s forthcoming actions.

There was also a recent update to the webpage of the Epa's Office of Science and Technology, which saw all references to “science-based” work removed, in favour of an emphasis on “national economically and technologically achievable standards”. 

Trump’s reshuffle of the Epa's priorities puts the onus on economic activity at the expense of public health and environmental safety. Pruitt, who is also eager to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain, spoke in an interview of his desire to “exit” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. He was led to this conclusion because of his belief that the agreement means “contracting our economy to serve and really satisfy Europe, and China, and India”.

 

Rather than outright closure of the Epa, its influence and funding are being leached away. H.R. 861 might be a subtle version of one of Potus’ Twitter taunts – empty and outrageous – but it is by no means the only way to drastically alter the Epa’s landscape. With Pruitt as Epa Administrator, the organisation may become a caricature of itself – as in The Simpsons Movie. Let us hope that the #resistance movements started by “Rogue” Epa and National Parks social media accounts are able to stave off the vultures until there is “Hope” once more.

 

Anjuli R. K. Shere is a 2016/17 Wellcome Scholar and science intern at the New Statesman

0800 7318496