Tali Fraser

Labour has never had a female leader. But some of the party's MPs have alighted on a solution: make Andy Burnham put women in top jobs anyway. Female Labour MPs are demanding that Burnham gives half of ministerial jobs to women and that 50 per cent of No.10 staff are female. The Parliamentary Labour Party is also calling for Labour’s new leader to commit to appointing a female Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps they were spurred on after The Spectator’s political editor Tim Shipman revealed, in last week’s magazine, that one senior Labour figure believes Burnham could be ‘Labour’s first woman prime minister’.

Most of Labour’s 411 MPs arrived in Parliament’s Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon for a photo with their new messiah. The former Starmtroopers (or perhaps now Burnham’s babes?) swarmed the new MP for Makerfield in an attempt to cosy up to the likely future Labour leader and prime minister. Andy Burnham may have felt popular then, with hundreds of new friends, but the honeymoon won’t last. Much has been made of the machinery of government and how, under Sir Keir Starmer, it has appeared to grind, splutter and stall as the state struggled to deliver. Yet one of the least discussed causes of this paralysis – which Burnham will now have to fix – lies not in Whitehall but in Westminster itself. The trouble is this: Labour is terrible at whipping.

Sarah Everard, a 33-year-old marketing executive living in Brixton, and a ‘wonderful daughter and sister’, was killed earlier this month. Last night, the women trying to remember Sarah at a vigil in Clapham Common were dragged and arrested by Metropolitan police officers. Not only did this show poor judgement, it was an unnecessary and careless use of force. Sarah Everard was just trying to walk home, the women out last night were just trying to mourn her. The Met’s chief, Cressida Dick, said after Sarah Everard’s disappearance that ‘Every woman should feel safe to walk our streets without fear of harassment or violence.’ Yet on Saturday night, her officers disturbed a peaceful vigil, trampling the flowers left in memory of Sarah Everard.

When the London Mayoral election was delayed due to the pandemic, no one was particularly outraged: the prospect of Sadiq Khan’s re-election seemed secure and Shaun Bailey, the Tory challenger, was nowhere to be seen. But that might be changing. Internal polling by the Tory party, leaked to the Telegraph, suggests that Londoners have not been best pleased at the city’s recent fate – and Bailey is only seven points behind, at 35 to Khan’s 42 per cent. This is quite the difference from a March YouGov poll putting Bailey at a fairly hopeless 23 per cent. It’s not that Bailey has been much more visible – but it’s easy to see why Londoners might have reason to panic.

Gavin Williamson’s A-level U-turn may have quietened the protestors but it has only added to the confusion. The education secretary’s change of heart to allow students their teacher predicted grades, rather than those generated by an algorithm, means there could be an extra 60,000 students now entitled to a place at their first-choice university – and universities could be contractually obliged to accept them. But will there be enough places? When pupils originally received their results on 13 August, universities (not assuming a government U-turn was on the cards) started sorting through the offers they had made to students, accepting and rejecting some, and offering new places to others.

My weekend plans have been ruined by Matt Hancock. The government has announced new lockdown restrictions for over four million people – banning separate households from meeting indoors – in Greater Manchester (where I live) along with parts of Lancashire and West Yorkshire. What does that mean in practice? When announcing the lockdown on Thursday evening, the Health Secretary tweeted that ‘people from different households will not be allowed to meet each other indoors’, which sounds pretty rudimentary. But would this mean we go back to working from home; that spaces like pubs and restaurants would be closed even if you only visit with your household; could a cleaner come around? No one in Greater Manchester knew.

When Liu Xiaoming agreed to come on the Andrew Marr show, he ought to have expected that – as the Chinese ambassador – he’d be asked about Uighur Muslims. He doubtless came on to bemoan the Huawei decision. But as anyone with a social media account could have told him, video footage of people with their heads shaved, blindfolded, kneeling, handcuffed, being forced on to trains have been circulating widely for days now. It was fairly obvious that the subject would come up. Marr didn’t just raise the topic, he screened the video. The ambassador seemed flummoxed.

I was followed three times in five days by men I didn’t know. During a pandemic – at any time, really – you would think they would have something better to do. They made gestures, shouted, catcalled, but I managed to lose them each time, partially because they had none of my details. They didn’t know my name, my number or my address. But what if they did know that information? What if they had been working at a bar I had gone to with friends and given my contact details over, for test and trace. That was the experience of one young woman this week. Shortly after she went to the pub, she received a message online by the bartender serving her.

The protest in Manchester today was supposed to be static and socially distanced. While that may not have worked out so well – leaving me somewhat yearning for Israeli efficiency as seen in the protests against Netanyahu – it was still a success. The vast majority were wearing facemasks and those who quite clearly wanted to distance were respected. The protest was peaceful (as far as I could tell). Police kept a respectful distance and protesters continued their respectful behaviour. For that reason, it might not get much coverage: you’re more likely to read about those who deface monuments or confront the police. But to focus on them, now, is to miss a bigger point.But why was I there at all? Why would anyone in Manchester protest against injustice in America?

Labour has yet again shown it doesn't care about its Jewish members. Jeremy Corbyn said earlier this year that “there is no place for anti-Semitism or any form of racism in the Labour party”. But not for the first time – and not for the last – Jews who still belong to the party have been sidelined.  The latest cause for disquiet is the decision yesterday by the party's National Executive Committee. Not content with scrapping the party's student wing ahead of next week's gathering in Brighton, the NEC has now agreed new rules concerning the handling of allegations of anti-Semitism and disciplinary procedures for expelling members.