politicscouk--2020-09-09--Competent Leave? Starmer is side-stepping the Tory trap on Brexit

It 's a telling turn of phrase .
Labour leader Keir Starmer is urging prime minister Boris Johnson to `` get on '' with delivering a Brexit deal so the UK can focus on getting through the coronavirus pandemic .
As Starmer put it in an interview with Sky News yesterday : `` He promised the British people he 'd get a good deal , he needs to deliver on that promise . ''
Starmer is seeking to cast his party as competent Leavers in opposition to a prime minister he will portray as a reckless one .
`` Reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , would simply take the heat off the government for its woeful response to the covid pandemic .
The Labour leader 's stance on Brexit will thwart attempts to cast him as an out of touch Remoaner who hates democracy and wishes to block Brexit .
Moreover , reigniting the arguments of 2016-2019 over Brexit would risk playing into the right 's attempt to wage a culture war against the left .
Conservative pundits are desperately seeking to import the politics of the United States to the UK – with not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative governments have created an economy that does n't work for the majority of working people and are increasingly adopting a 'look over there ' platform in their rhetoric : migrants , progressive academics and high court judges are all in the firing line .
The US Republican party has long pursued a similar strategy , seeking to cast its opponents as effete , latte-sipping elites who do not understand the lives of ordinary people .
Ever since the Reagan era , Republicans have relentlessly promoted a culture of fear around 'welfare queens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phantasms – while simultaneously cutting taxes for the super-rich .
It 's a clever trick : you build an economic order that creates voluminous victims and then run on a ticket against those victims .
As Britain braces for record levels of unemployment and its consequent hardships , we can expect the Tory party – encouraged by its bellicose right flank – to adopt a similar tack .
Indeed , we have already had a taster of what 's to come with home secretary Priti Patel 's ludicrously over the top rhetoric directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Kent coast .
To be sure , Starmer must draw a line between himself and the ultra-woke who seem to dominate Labour 's online Left .
So far he has performed this task relatively well , refusing to be drawn into unambiguously supporting self-identification or embracing the open borders fundamentalism that sought to paint Ed Miliband as a demagogue merely for proposing `` controls on immigration '' .
Mainstream Labour 's error in the lead up to the Jeremy Corbyn years was a belief characterised by the phrase 'no enemies on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grotesque spectacle under Corbyn of apologists for the Soviet Union working in the office of the Labour leader .
In side-lining Corbyn-era politicians such as Rebecca Long-Baily and Lloyd Russell-Moyle , Keir Starmer appears to understand the importance of a firewall between himself and the hard Left .
But this is different from being drawn into a culture war that is being deployed as part of a distraction effort by the government off the back of its catastrophic mismanagement of covid .
The Tories also hope to deliver something to the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour at the 2019 election .
Four decades of economic policy have failed many of these people .
They have a list of grievances and are looking for someone to blame and , perhaps , someone to follow .
They tend to be economically to the left , favouring state intervention if necessary , but culturally to the right , reluctant to embrace immigration and deeply suspicious of the European Union .
Britain is a relatively socially mobile nation and many younger members of these communities migrate to London or other big cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a job upon graduation .
Some of those left behind – marooned in dilapidated towns with few remaining economic opportunities – have grown increasingly resentful at a world they feel has little place for them .
They feel looked down on by what David Goodhart , in his new book , Head , Hand , Heart , calls the 'cognitive elite ' : city-dwelling graduates who value individualism and mobility over family and community .
But the culture war is largely a distraction from the problems that have befallen Britain beyond its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proliferation of low-paid , precarious jobs and a lack of opportunity for non-graduates .
A 2015 report by the Centre for Cities described a situation in Britain 's towns where jobs in declining industries were being replaced by `` lower-skilled , more routinised jobs , swapping cotton mills for call centres and dock yards for distribution sheds '' .
Railing against asylum seekers , the European Union or the woke Left is not going to redress Britain 's regional imbalances .
However , it is a useful distraction for a Conservative government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic orthodoxy of the past 40 years – and which is visibly flailing in response to a deadly pandemic .
As much the Labour leader 's Brexit stance will upset diehard Remainers it is the politically pragmatic one : Starmer has astutely sidestepped a trap set for him by an increasingly desperate Conservative party .
James Bloodworth is a journalist and author of Hired : Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain , which was longlisted for the Orwell Prize 2019 .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By James Bloodworth
It’s a telling turn of phrase. Labour leader Keir Starmer is urging prime minister Boris Johnson to “get on” with delivering a Brexit deal so the UK can focus on getting through the coronavirus pandemic. As Starmer put it in an interview with Sky News yesterday: “He promised the British people he’d get a good deal, he needs to deliver on that promise.”
Starmer is seeking to cast his party as competent Leavers in opposition to a prime minister he will portray as a reckless one. “Reopening old arguments,” as Starmer puts it, would simply take the heat off the government for its woeful response to the covid pandemic.
The Labour leader’s stance on Brexit will thwart attempts to cast him as an out of touch Remoaner who hates democracy and wishes to block Brexit. Moreover, reigniting the arguments of 2016-2019 over Brexit would risk playing into the right’s attempt to wage a culture war against the left. Conservative pundits are desperately seeking to import the politics of the United States to the UK – with not a little help from the ultra-woke. Successive Conservative governments have created an economy that doesn’t work for the majority of working people and are increasingly adopting a ‘look over there’ platform in their rhetoric: migrants, progressive academics and high court judges are all in the firing line.
The US Republican party has long pursued a similar strategy, seeking to cast its opponents as effete, latte-sipping elites who do not understand the lives of ordinary people. Ever since the Reagan era, Republicans have relentlessly promoted a culture of fear around ‘welfare queens’, ‘superpredators’, and other phantasms – while simultaneously cutting taxes for the super-rich. It’s a clever trick: you build an economic order that creates voluminous victims and then run on a ticket against those victims.
As Britain braces for record levels of unemployment and its consequent hardships, we can expect the Tory party – encouraged by its bellicose right flank – to adopt a similar tack. Indeed, we have already had a taster of what’s to come with home secretary Priti Patel’s ludicrously over the top rhetoric directed at a relative handful of refugees beaching on the Kent coast.
To be sure, Starmer must draw a line between himself and the ultra-woke who seem to dominate Labour’s online Left. So far he has performed this task relatively well, refusing to be drawn into unambiguously supporting self-identification or embracing the open borders fundamentalism that sought to paint Ed Miliband as a demagogue merely for proposing “controls on immigration”.
Mainstream Labour’s error in the lead up to the Jeremy Corbyn years was a belief characterised by the phrase ‘no enemies on the left’. This resulted in the grotesque spectacle under Corbyn of apologists for the Soviet Union working in the office of the Labour leader. In side-lining Corbyn-era politicians such as Rebecca Long-Baily and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Keir Starmer appears to understand the importance of a firewall between himself and the hard Left.
But this is different from being drawn into a culture war that is being deployed as part of a distraction effort by the government off the back of its catastrophic mismanagement of covid. The Tories also hope to deliver something to the so-called ‘red wall’ seats they took from Labour at the 2019 election. Four decades of economic policy have failed many of these people. They have a list of grievances and are looking for someone to blame and, perhaps, someone to follow. They tend to be economically to the left, favouring state intervention if necessary, but culturally to the right, reluctant to embrace immigration and deeply suspicious of the European Union.
Britain is a relatively socially mobile nation and many younger members of these communities migrate to London or other big cities, either to attend university or to find a job upon graduation. Some of those left behind – marooned in dilapidated towns with few remaining economic opportunities – have grown increasingly resentful at a world they feel has little place for them. They feel looked down on by what David Goodhart, in his new book, Head, Hand, Heart, calls the ‘cognitive elite’: city-dwelling graduates who value individualism and mobility over family and community.
But the culture war is largely a distraction from the problems that have befallen Britain beyond its cities. These problems centre around the proliferation of low-paid, precarious jobs and a lack of opportunity for non-graduates. A 2015 report by the Centre for Cities described a situation in Britain’s towns where jobs in declining industries were being replaced by “lower-skilled, more routinised jobs, swapping cotton mills for call centres and dock yards for distribution sheds”.
Railing against asylum seekers, the European Union or the woke Left is not going to redress Britain’s regional imbalances. However, it is a useful distraction for a Conservative government that has no idea how to counter the economic orthodoxy of the past 40 years – and which is visibly flailing in response to a deadly pandemic. As much the Labour leader’s Brexit stance will upset diehard Remainers it is the politically pragmatic one: Starmer has astutely sidestepped a trap set for him by an increasingly desperate Conservative party.
James Bloodworth is a journalist and author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain, which was longlisted for the Orwell Prize 2019. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-10--The second wave approaches: Has the government learned any lessons?

I remember February 2020 as being a particularly fractious and anxious time , like watching a slow-motion tsunami build and swell and come steadily towards us .
In my capacity as a frontline NHS doctor , later deployed into covid ICU , I witnessed the late but furious work to try to meet that wave , and I was there when it eventually crashed into our hospitals through March and April .
It was clear then that the government was n't prepared for the catastrophe .
Even as late as mid-March , messaging from senior figures such as Sir Patrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' mindset - to let the virus run free amongst the community .
Just days later , Matt Hancock was calling for emergency ventilator production , reports suggested personal protective equipment was running out and hospitals in London were on black alert , swallowed under a deluge of some of the sickest patients we had ever seen .
As the pandemic progressed we saw first-hand the furious backpedaling - the emergency bids for personal protective equipment ( PPE ) from Turkey , the dodgy deals with completely novice or even non-existent companies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatsoever .
We in the NHS coped as best we could .
Staff were redeployed , parachuted into ICUs as we rapidly expanded and cannibalised the health service to avoid being overwhelmed , cancelling routine and non-urgent work , diverting urgent non-COVID work to the private sector and beyond .
The effort was a true privilege to behold , like nothing I 'd ever seen in the NHS before .
Now that wave has passed , the devastation is obvious .
We had among the worst excess death rate in the world and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a double whammy of disaster .
You would hope , as we stand in the foothills of what appears to be a true second wave , that the lessons of the spring have been learnt in time for the winter .
I worry , for the most part , that they have not .
Firstly , the PPE .
Through my work as chairman of the healthcare workers ' charity we founded during the pandemic , Heroes , we had unique access to calls for PPE from all over the country during April-May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospices , GPs , care homes .
Through our continuing work over the summer , we had close access to government plans for the supply and provision of PPE .
So far what we hear is good - reportedly 28 billion items ordered and a move to local UK production for a vast majority of that , overcoming the previous problems with supply chains being locked down in China and global demand .
The other issue with PPE during the first wave was logistics - getting the right kit to the right healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as hospital wards and ICUs were prioritised , while care homes , hospices and GPs struggled .
Many charities , such as ours , tried to fill the gap .
The government claims to have addressed this area too - but we will not hold our breath .
We 'll continue to stockpile to support healthcare workers if required .
Secondly : are hospitals themselves prepared ?
On the one hand , experience and expertise has been built during the covid season and important lessons regarding clinical care have been learnt - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , early use of steroids and certain maneuvers like 'proning ' .
This will help somewhat .
However , while many nurses and some doctors now have some extra ICU experience compared to February , we are still limited by the total number of staff .
And while we can expand bed capacity again , we may not be able to find enough staff to match it , especially given the workforce is already stretched and traumatised from the first wave .
Additionally , the huge backlog of work remains : according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be up to 10 million on waiting lists by the winter , on top of a record long waiting list of 4.2 million from before the pandemic .
As the cases rise , hospitalisations have n't as yet , but looking at France this is unlikely to remain the case for long .
Third : public interventions .
The government has spent a lot of political capital on mixed messaging and U-turns over the summer , from mask wearing to quarantine rules .
It is currently pushing for both a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time .
This self-contradicting approach fatigues the public .
The only real tool we have to fight the virus is trust and transparency , and both are extremely thin on the ground already .
Four : track and trace .
This is the only way to keep on top of cases , but the system continues to perform poorly .
Despite six months of hype , the ‘ world-beating ’ system has already reached test capacity over the weekend , asking some potentially infected people to drive from London to Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can eventually get it , it still fails to trace up to 50 % of all potential contacts .
In terms of preparedness to deal with a second wave , this is a potentially catastrophic cocktail .
We ca n't find the current cases , we ca n't isolate potentially new cases and we have little capacity to deal with the eventual rise in hospitals both of these will lead to .
Add to this the chaos of having to open and close schools and offices as cases rise , intermittent local lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a recipe for a worse wave than the first .
A leaked SAGE report recently suggested we could see pressure on hospitals significantly worse than that in April , which , PPE aside , makes it hard to understand how we could cope .
The government needs to drastically re-evaluate what we are doing here .
With a one week incubation period and significant lag before seriously unwell patients begin to appear , it needs to act immediately .
The only way to prepare for winter is to get cases as low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have clear messaging on what the overarching strategy is , and to implement practical plans to support that strategy in the community .
For everybody else , the basics remain the same : avoid unnecessary travel , wash your hands , wear a mask and keep two metres apart , preferably outside .
We 've had six months to learn these lessons and we need to remind ourselves of them now , before it 's too late .
Dr Dominic Pimenta is a London-based doctor and writer , his book Duty of Care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of covid in the UK from the point of view of a frontline doctor , is available now .
All royalties from book sales go to Heroes , a charity supporting healthcare workers .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Dr Dominic Pimenta
I remember February 2020 as being a particularly fractious and anxious time, like watching a slow-motion tsunami build and swell and come steadily towards us. In my capacity as a frontline NHS doctor, later deployed into covid ICU, I witnessed the late but furious work to try to meet that wave, and I was there when it eventually crashed into our hospitals through March and April.
It was clear then that the government wasn't prepared for the catastrophe. Even as late as mid-March, messaging from senior figures such as Sir Patrick Vallance seemed to follow the 'herd immunity' mindset – to let the virus run free amongst the community. Just days later, Matt Hancock was calling for emergency ventilator production, reports suggested personal protective equipment was running out and hospitals in London were on black alert, swallowed under a deluge of some of the sickest patients we had ever seen.
As the pandemic progressed we saw first-hand the furious backpedaling – the emergency bids for personal protective equipment (PPE) from Turkey, the dodgy deals with completely novice or even non-existent companies, some producing unusable PPE or even none whatsoever. We in the NHS coped as best we could. Staff were redeployed, parachuted into ICUs as we rapidly expanded and cannibalised the health service to avoid being overwhelmed, cancelling routine and non-urgent work, diverting urgent non-COVID work to the private sector and beyond. The effort was a true privilege to behold, like nothing I'd ever seen in the NHS before.
Now that wave has passed, the devastation is obvious. We had among the worst excess death rate in the world and the worst economic impact as well – a double whammy of disaster. You would hope, as we stand in the foothills of what appears to be a true second wave, that the lessons of the spring have been learnt in time for the winter. I worry, for the most part, that they have not.
Firstly, the PPE. Through my work as chairman of the healthcare workers' charity we founded during the pandemic, Heroes, we had unique access to calls for PPE from all over the country during April-May – not just in NHS hospitals but hospices, GPs, care homes. Through our continuing work over the summer, we had close access to government plans for the supply and provision of PPE. So far what we hear is good – reportedly 28 billion items ordered and a move to local UK production for a vast majority of that, overcoming the previous problems with supply chains being locked down in China and global demand.
The other issue with PPE during the first wave was logistics – getting the right kit to the right healthcare workers at the right time. Areas such as hospital wards and ICUs were prioritised, while care homes, hospices and GPs struggled. Many charities, such as ours, tried to fill the gap. The government claims to have addressed this area too – but we will not hold our breath. We'll continue to stockpile to support healthcare workers if required.
Secondly: are hospitals themselves prepared? On the one hand, experience and expertise has been built during the covid season and important lessons regarding clinical care have been learnt – the long ventilator time these patients require, early use of steroids and certain manoeuvres like 'proning'. This will help somewhat. However, while many nurses and some doctors now have some extra ICU experience compared to February, we are still limited by the total number of staff. And while we can expand bed capacity again, we may not be able to find enough staff to match it, especially given the workforce is already stretched and traumatised from the first wave.
Additionally, the huge backlog of work remains: according to a report from the NHS Confederation there could be up to 10 million on waiting lists by the winter, on top of a record long waiting list of 4.2 million from before the pandemic. As the cases rise, hospitalisations haven't as yet, but looking at France this is unlikely to remain the case for long.
Third: public interventions. The government has spent a lot of political capital on mixed messaging and U-turns over the summer, from mask wearing to quarantine rules. It is currently pushing for both a return to work and schools and greater caution at the same time. This self-contradicting approach fatigues the public. The only real tool we have to fight the virus is trust and transparency, and both are extremely thin on the ground already.
Four: track and trace. This is the only way to keep on top of cases, but the system continues to perform poorly. Despite six months of hype, the ‘world-beating’ system has already reached test capacity over the weekend, asking some potentially infected people to drive from London to Scotland for a test. And if they can eventually get it, it still fails to trace up to 50% of all potential contacts.
In terms of preparedness to deal with a second wave, this is a potentially catastrophic cocktail. We can't find the current cases, we can't isolate potentially new cases and we have little capacity to deal with the eventual rise in hospital admissions both of these will lead to. Add to this the chaos of having to open and close schools and offices as cases rise, intermittent local lockdowns clashing with national lockdowns, and we have a recipe for a worse wave than the first. A leaked SAGE report recently suggested we could see pressure on hospitals significantly worse than that in April, which, PPE aside, makes it hard to understand how we could cope.
The government needs to drastically re-evaluate what we are doing here. With a one week incubation period and significant lag before seriously unwell patients begin to appear, it needs to act immediately. The only way to prepare for winter is to get cases as low as possible before going in, to have clear messaging on what the overarching strategy is, and to implement practical plans to support that strategy in the community.
For everybody else, the basics remain the same: avoid unnecessary travel, wash your hands, wear a mask and keep two metres apart, preferably outside. We've had six months to learn these lessons and we need to remind ourselves of them now, before it's too late.
Dr Dominic Pimenta is a London-based doctor and writer. His book Duty of Care, a gripping account of the first wave of covid in the UK from the point of view of a frontline doctor, is available now. All royalties from book sales go to Heroes, a charity supporting healthcare workers. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-11--Cummings and Johnson are breaking down the entire notion of democratic legitimacy

The government that acted unlawfully by shutting down parliament has set its sights higher - breaking international law .
The move by Boris Johnson - no doubt following the advice of Dominic Cummings - to contravene the EU withdrawal agreement will breach Britain 's international legal commitments .
It 's Global Britain , just not as we know it .
As Britain combines a shambolic coronavirus response with looming economic depression and an increasingly likely no-deal Brexit , this government of permanent victimhood is casting around for others to blame .
The list of targets now includes Labour , Remainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrants , the BBC , critical journalists , academics , students , judges , lawyers , and anyone deemed 'woke ' .
That list is non-exhaustive - so frequent and illogical are the attacks , it is difficult to keep track .
The one constant is that none of the targets are members of the government or responsible for the government 's decisions .
The Tories , aided by pliant six-figure scribes in the right wing press , are preparing to follow up this bluster with action .
'Activist ' lawyers are demonised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to judicial review .
Britain 's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights looks insecure .
The BBC faces a barrage of government attacks - on its journalists , on its finances and on its future .
Journalists deemed critical are locked out by government press offices .
Civil servants are forced out for defending their independence .
Should the House of Lords obstruct the government at any stage , doubtless it will be in the line of fire too .
The government is entirely self-serving in when it goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Having essentially slept through the exam results crisis , Johnson popped up to launch a broadside at the BBC over the confected Rule Britannia row amid dark mutterings of left-wing bias , but then made a great show of defending the free press when climate change protesters blocked the distribution of mostly right-wing newspapers .
Then there is the law-breaking Brexit legislation itself .
Tory politicians who have spent years demanding the hardest of Brexits as 'the will of the people ' now want to rip up the very withdrawal agreement they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of the self-same people .
Perhaps it was predictable .
That does n't make it any less shameless The collateral - or maybe it 's the point - is the steady erosion of the principles underpinning British democracy .
The freedom of the media , the independence of the courts , civil servants and academia , the rule of law and the convention on human rights - all are steadily chipped away at , or at times fully assaulted .
This is in addition to the undermining of the integrity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist Peter Geoghegan .
Prime ministers frequently contravene some of these principles .
Few prioritise statesmanship over statecraft .
Tony Blair 's aides waged war on parts of the media , and on anti-terror laws he often clashed with the courts .
Margaret Thatcher was highly political in her handling of the BBC , and outright abolished the Greater London Council for being too left wing for her taste .
But to act against all such principles at the same time , deliberately and zealously , is new .
A government of ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carta attacks the tenets of our constitution like a latter-day King John .
These people have no red lines beyond their own power and an ideological project .
As an approach to government , it is different .
And it is dangerous .
It seems odd that the Conservative and Unionist Party should play so fast and loose with Britain 's constitution , institutions and even the Union itself .
But the party is no longer conservative , in the sense of wanting to conserve things .
It is now overrun with politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prime minister but as a founding myth , an ideological exemplar and radical idol .
They know everything she changed and nothing she kept the same .
They memorise her Budgets and immortalise the miners ' strike but have never heard of John Moore .
As a result they believe in a kind of permanent revolution , with a Gramscian obsession with bulldozing one boundary after another in an endless war on non-belief .
They see their 80-seat majority , won off the back of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school .
Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors .
Many criticisms can be made of our MPs , but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all - Steve Hilton , Matthew Elliott , Fiona Hill , Nick Timothy , and Cummings himself .
Of these , only Elliott - founder of both the Taxpayers Alliance and Vote Leave - has not worked directly in government .
The others were all advisers to Tory prime ministers in the last ten years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete inability to handle disagreement .
Hilton was a crank , Hill and Timothy bullies , and Cummings is bent on replacing the civil service with socially maladjusted misfits and biddable yes-men .
It is hard to avoid the suspicion that they see checks and balances as the enemies of the people partly because they are unaccountable to voters themselves .
Unelected lobbyists and advisers live in a bubble , their only exposure to the public coming through focus groups .
They see democracy as an opportunity , not a mandate .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are carte blanche for their every whim .
Anything that gets in the way is in the way of The People .
They are not Trumpists , though they are often Trumpish .
Unlike the fascistic US president , there is no plausible prospect they would refuse to accept the result of an election .
But their commitment to democracy is nominal - it stretches no further than the existence of elections .
They have little regard for the democratic process , which takes in not just elections but how those elections are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , legal checks and balances , the free press , human rights - the whole infrastructure of transparency , safeguards and protections that make democracy actually function .
The former Conservative activist David Herdson , who quit the party the day Johnson became leader , recently wrote : `` Democracy tends to be as fragile or robust as the desire of its practitioners to maintain it .
The public understands neither the 'what ' nor the 'why ' of a lot of the essential system that supports it . ''
We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire .
It takes self-belief to make it to the top - but it is a dangerous thing if those at the top believe in nothing but themselves .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
The government that acted unlawfully by shutting down parliament has set its sights higher – breaking international law. The move by Boris Johnson – no doubt following the advice of Dominic Cummings – to contravene the EU withdrawal agreement will breach Britain's international legal commitments. It's Global Britain, just not as we know it.
As Britain combines a shambolic coronavirus response with looming economic depression and an increasingly likely no-deal Brexit, this government of permanent victimhood is casting around for others to blame.
The list of targets now includes Labour, Remainers, the EU, civil servants, immigrants, the BBC, critical journalists, academics, students, judges, lawyers, and anyone deemed 'woke'. That list is non-exhaustive – so frequent and illogical are the attacks, it is difficult to keep track. The one constant is that none of the targets are members of the government or responsible for the government's decisions.
The Tories, aided by pliant six-figure scribes in the right wing press, are preparing to follow up this bluster with action. 'Activist' lawyers are demonised to provide a basis to curtailing the right to judicial review. Britain's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights looks insecure. The BBC faces a barrage of government attacks – on its journalists, on its finances and on its future. Journalists deemed critical are locked out by government press offices. Civil servants are forced out for defending their independence. Should the House of Lords obstruct the government at any stage, doubtless it will be in the line of fire too.
The government is entirely self-serving in when it goes on the attack and when it doesn't. Having essentially slept through the exam results crisis, Johnson popped up to launch a broadside at the BBC over the confected Rule Britannia row amid dark mutterings of left-wing bias, but then made a great show of defending the free press when climate change protesters blocked the distribution of mostly right-wing newspapers.
Then there is the law-breaking Brexit legislation itself. Tory politicians who have spent years demanding the hardest of Brexits as 'the will of the people' now want to rip up the very withdrawal agreement they won a mandate for last December in the name of the self-same people. Perhaps it was predictable. That doesn't make it any less shameless
The collateral – or maybe it's the point – is the steady erosion of the principles underpinning British democracy. The freedom of the media, the independence of the courts, civil servants and academia, the rule of law and the convention on human rights – all are steadily chipped away at, or at times fully assaulted. This is in addition to the undermining of the integrity of British elections, as detailed by the journalist Peter Geoghegan.
Prime ministers frequently contravene some of these principles. Few prioritise statesmanship over statecraft. Tony Blair's aides waged war on parts of the media, and on anti-terror laws he often clashed with the courts. Margaret Thatcher was highly political in her handling of the BBC, and outright abolished the Greater London Council for being too left wing for her taste.
But to act against all such principles at the same time, deliberately and zealously, is new. A government of ministers who can't shut up about Magna Carta attacks the tenets of our constitution like a latter-day King John. These people have no red lines beyond their own power and an ideological project. As an approach to government, it is different. And it is dangerous.
It seems odd that the Conservative and Unionist Party should play so fast and loose with Britain's constitution, institutions and even the Union itself. But the party is no longer conservative, in the sense of wanting to conserve things. It is now overrun with politicians and advisers who know Thatcher not as a prime minister but as a founding myth, an ideological exemplar and radical idol. They know everything she changed and nothing she kept the same. They memorise her Budgets and immortalise the miners' strike but have never heard of John Moore.
As a result they believe in a kind of permanent revolution, with a Gramscian obsession with bulldozing one boundary after another in an endless war on non-belief. They see their 80-seat majority, won off the back of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn, as a mandate to fulfil fantasies nurtured since private school.
Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors. Many criticisms can be made of our MPs, but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all – Steve Hilton, Matthew Elliott, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, and Cummings himself. Of these, only Elliott – founder of both the Taxpayers Alliance and Vote Leave – has not worked directly in government. The others were all advisers to Tory prime ministers in the last ten years, and each was notable for a complete inability to handle disagreement. Hilton was a crank, Hill and Timothy bullies, and Cummings is bent on replacing the civil service with socially maladjusted misfits and biddable yes-men.
It is hard to avoid the suspicion that they see checks and balances as the enemies of the people, partly because they are unaccountable to voters themselves. Unelected lobbyists and advisers live in a bubble, their only exposure to the public coming through focus groups. They see democracy as an opportunity, not a mandate. They assume votes cast in a general election are carte blanche for their every whim. Anything that gets in the way is in the way of The People.
They are not Trumpists, though they are often Trumpish. Unlike the fascistic US president, there is no plausible prospect they would refuse to accept the result of an election. But their commitment to democracy is nominal – it stretches no further than the existence of elections. They have little regard for the democratic process, which takes in not just elections but how those elections are conducted, the role of money in politics, legal checks and balances, the free press, human rights – the whole infrastructure of transparency, safeguards and protections that make democracy actually function.
The former Conservative activist David Herdson, who quit the party the day Johnson became leader, recently wrote: "Democracy tends to be as fragile or robust as the desire of its practitioners to maintain it. The public understands neither the 'what' nor the 'why' of a lot of the essential system that supports it."
We will soon find out what our current practitioners desire. It takes self-belief to make it to the top – but it is a dangerous thing if those at the top believe in nothing but themselves.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-11--Week in Review: Getting smart about the culture war

We have the basic picture now .
For as long as they are in power the Boris Johnson-Dominic Cummings administration will seek to divide us into warring tribes to sustain its electoral coalition .
If it keeps politics fractured along cultural divides it thinks it can maintain the 40 % support it enjoys , composed of Tory and Leave voters .
This week 's events are the latest iteration of that approach .
The clear plan was to present the internal markets bill and accept - even promote - that it would break international law .
Labour would then attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a storm , perhaps even walk away from the talks .
No.10 could get into its safe space - fighting the Europeans abroad and Remainers at home .
This much was obvious from Johnson 's visible befuddlement when Labour leader Keir Starmer did not bring the issue up at PMQs .
`` He is totally silent on the bill that obsesses the rest of his backbenchers , '' Johnson spluttered .
`` He does not want to offend the huge number of his backbenchers who want to overturn the verdict of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment .
Johnson 's culture war gun was loaded and he had to fire it , but there was no target to aim at .
And there are lessons to learn there .
Specifically : when to fight the culture war , who should fight it , where we fight it and how we fight it .
There are moments when you must fight .
This was true during the referendum campaign - although most of us were too slow to realise that we were in a culture war by then .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign and Johnson 's election victory .
Back then , Brexit could be stopped or at least made more moderate .
Free movement and deep UK-EU trading and political connections could be salvaged .
There was a slim Tory majority up to 2017 and a hung parliament after that .
Things were possible .
The same is true now for issues like the European Convention on Human Rights , asylum policy or judicial review .
We must fight to preserve people 's rights where they are at risk and we can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit , things are now different for Labour .
Brexit has happened .
There is an 80 seat Tory majority .
There is nothing Starmer can do to stop it or to make it more moderate .
Arguably , his vocal involvement at this stage would make the government take an even more draconian position in opposition to him .
So Starmer 's best bet is to sidestep the obvious Tory trap , demand the deal the government promised , and then launch an assault on them if they fail to secure it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a deal is another matter - one fraught with difficulties that are too tortuous to go into here .
This is not a matter of completely giving in .
Labour should obviously be voting against the internal market bill .
It should be stating its opposition to the breaking of international law .
It should be asking urgent questions in parliament , which it has done , and using its shadow attorney general , Lord Falconer , to lambast it , which it has also done .
But it does not need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central weekly clash at PMQs .
The next question is who fights .
None of these calculations affect the rest of us .
People should fight for their values .
Even without Labour , the battle against these sorts of provisions still takes place , in the media , online , and through lawyers .
It happens in international capitals , through campaigners , through expert bodies , through constitutional advocates .
You can rob No.10 of the dynamic it wants while still maintaining the ability to challenge it .
But by removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political dispute shifts .
The impact of that challenge takes place at a different location .
In this case , it becomes internal to the Conservative party .
Suddenly , figures like former Tory leader Michael Howard and former minister Bob Neill become the centre of resistance .
They become embroiled in a battle with the ERG , who , as is their way , are demanding more radicalism from the bill .
That battle is then informed not by the opposition party , which would prompt them to close ranks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , who is making it clear that the bill will mean a UK-US trade deal will never pass Congress .
The government uses culture war to consolidate its own side and divide others , as it did to great effect in the general election .
But what happens when you relocate that dispute ?
What happens when it is shifted instead to inside the Conservative party ?
Then it becomes less attractive .
The final aspect is how you fight .
What are the arguments you use ?
What do you emphasise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' Vote Leave campaign knew that it could bank on the quarter or so of the population who held very right wing or anti-immigrant views , but that it needed different arguments for those in the centre who could go either way - and so the NHS bus and arguments over sovereignty were given precedence in that area .
The same is true here .
The basic principle of breaking international law is a key motivator to many of us .
It galvanises those who believe in a rules-based international system .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have force .
What will have force is the notion of competence , an area where the government is already very weak .
It spent the last election insisting it had done a fantastic deal and wrapping support for the party around the passing of the document .
Now it has turned against the document .
That is , no matter how else you might interpret it , grossly incompetent .
And that argument should be taking centre stage in this dispute .
These two things go hand in hand .
We argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to maintain liberal and democratic principles .
But simultaneously we should make arguments that reach out beyond our core support to a broader section of the public .
Fortunately , that is precisely the approach Starmer is following in parliament - a relentless focus on competence .
And that is the one which will have most force if the government ends up with no-deal .
They did not get Brexit done : it turned into a mess that will impact for years .
They did not get their own deal done : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not protect the economy , let alone level-up : it was hammered by the actions they took .
If that eventuality is met with people saying that it is the fault of Brexit , it will not change things .
If it is met with people saying that they made a mess of it , it will .
And the sooner things are changed , the sooner they can be rectified .
The alternative is too grotesque to contemplate : a country becoming steadily poorer with a government which can only respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warring tribes .
Who will they blame ?
Europe .
Remainers .
Immigrants .
The young .
And what will be the effect of that , as we tumble further into chaos and decline ?
This is how the culture war must be fought : smartly .
We have to know when to fight , where to fight , who should be fighting , and how they should be doing it .
If we do n't learn those lessons , things will become very ugly indeed .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be A Liberal , is out next week .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

We have the basic picture now. For as long as they are in power the Boris Johnson-Dominic Cummings administration will seek to divide us into warring tribes to sustain its electoral coalition. If it keeps politics fractured along cultural divides it thinks it can maintain the 40% support it enjoys, composed of Tory and Leave voters.
This week’s events are the latest iteration of that approach. The clear plan was to present the internal markets bill and accept – even promote – that it would break international law. Labour would then attack the government and the EU would kick up a storm, perhaps even walk away from the talks. No.10 could get into its safe space – fighting the Europeans abroad and Remainers at home.
This much was obvious from Johnson’s visible befuddlement when Labour leader Keir Starmer did not bring the issue up at PMQs. “He is totally silent on the bill that obsesses the rest of his backbenchers,” Johnson spluttered. “He does not want to offend the huge number of his backbenchers who want to overturn the verdict of the people.”
It was a telling moment. Johnson’s culture war gun was loaded and he had to fire it, but there was no target to aim at. And there are lessons to learn there. Specifically: when to fight the culture war, who should fight it, where we fight it and how we fight it.
There are moments when you must fight. This was true during the referendum campaign – although most of us were too slow to realise that we were in a culture war by then. It was true during the torrid years between the campaign and Johnson’s election victory. Back then, Brexit could be stopped or at least made more moderate. Free movement and deep UK-EU trading and political connections could be salvaged. There was a slim Tory majority up to 2017 and a hung parliament after that. Things were possible.
The same is true now for issues like the European Convention on Human Rights, asylum policy or judicial review. We must fight to preserve people’s rights where they are at risk and we can still do something about it.
But on Brexit, things are now different for Labour. Brexit has happened. There is an 80 seat Tory majority. There is nothing Starmer can do to stop it or to make it more moderate. Arguably, his vocal involvement at this stage would make the government take an even more draconian position in opposition to him. So Starmer’s best bet is to sidestep the obvious Tory trap, demand the deal the government promised, and then launch an assault on them if they fail to secure it. Quite what he does if there is a deal is another matter – one fraught with difficulties that are too tortuous to go into here.
This is not a matter of completely giving in. Labour should obviously be voting against the internal market bill. It should be stating its opposition to the breaking of international law. It should be asking urgent questions in parliament, which it has done, and using its shadow attorney general, Lord Falconer, to lambast it, which it has also done. But it does not need to make it the focus of the central weekly clash at PMQs.
The next question is who fights. None of these calculations affect the rest of us. People should fight for their values. Even without Labour, the battle against these sorts of provisions still takes place, in the media, online, and through lawyers. It happens in international capitals, through campaigners, through expert bodies, through constitutional advocates. You can rob No.10 of the dynamic it wants while still maintaining the ability to challenge it.
But by removing the opposition’s role, the centre of political dispute shifts. The impact of that challenge takes place at a different location. In this case, it becomes internal to the Conservative party. Suddenly, figures like former Tory leader Michael Howard and former minister Bob Neill become the centre of resistance. They become embroiled in a battle with the ERG, who, as is their way, are demanding more radicalism from the bill. That battle is then informed not by the opposition party, which would prompt them to close ranks, but by figures like Nancy Pelosi in Washington, who is making it clear that the bill will mean a UK-US trade deal will never pass Congress.
The government uses culture war to consolidate its own side and divide others, as it did to great effect in the general election. But what happens when you relocate that dispute? What happens when it is shifted instead to inside the Conservative party? Then it becomes less attractive.
The final aspect is how you fight. What are the arguments you use? What do you emphasise? During the Brexit referendum, Cummings’ Vote Leave campaign knew that it could bank on the quarter or so of the population who held very right wing or anti-immigrant views, but that it needed different arguments for those in the centre who could go either way – and so the NHS bus and arguments over sovereignty were given precedence in that area.
The same is true here. The basic principle of breaking international law is a key motivator to many of us. It galvanises those who believe in a rules-based international system. But to many voters that argument will not have force. What will have force is the notion of competence, an area where the government is already very weak.
It spent the last election insisting it had done a fantastic deal and wrapping support for the party around the passing of the document. Now it has turned against the document. That is, no matter how else you might interpret it, grossly incompetent. And that argument should be taking centre stage in this dispute.
These two things go hand in hand. We argue for our values, for the supreme need to maintain liberal and democratic principles. But simultaneously we should make arguments that reach out beyond our core support to a broader section of the public.
Fortunately, that is precisely the approach Starmer is following in parliament – a relentless focus on competence. And that is the one which will have most force if the government ends up with no-deal.
They did not get Brexit done: it turned into a mess that will impact for years. They did not get their own deal done: it was torn up. They did not protect the economy, let alone level-up: it was hammered by the actions they took. If that eventuality is met with people saying that it is the fault of Brexit, it will not change things. If it is met with people saying that they made a mess of it, it will. And the sooner things are changed, the sooner they can be rectified.
The alternative is too grotesque to contemplate: a country becoming steadily poorer with a government which can only respond to events by trying to divide people into warring tribes. Who will they blame? Europe. Remainers. Immigrants. The young. And what will be the effect of that, as we tumble further into chaos and decline?
This is how the culture war must be fought: smartly. We have to know when to fight, where to fight, who should be fighting, and how they should be doing it. If we don’t learn those lessons, things will become very ugly indeed.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out next week.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-14--Shock and outrage as parliament votes to put government above the law

No-one expected it to be defeated .
But to see the internal market bill pass its first parliamentary hurdle was still a sobering moment .
The governing party of the UK was voting to give itself the power to break the law .
Something fundamental in British constitutional life was disintegrating .
One of the most basic of all the political principles that held the country together was coming unstuck .
There 's a good chance that , even if the bill eventually passes , the powers within it will never be used .
It 's quite possible that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterproductive negotiating strategy .
Or - more likely - they are intended for a domestic audience , to beef up the sense of conflict ahead of concessions with the EU , so it is easier for No.10 to later present a deal it as a negotiating victory .
But even if that 's the case , parliament did something alarming today .
It gave its initial consent to handing the government powers to operate outside of the law .
Britain began the process of foregoing its status as a civilised power which operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill are very extensive .
The legislation does not , as the government has insisted , give ministers the power to break the law in `` specific and limited '' circumstances .
They are much more expansive than that .
In the area of the Northern Ireland Protocol , the bill allows ministers to pass provisions which have effect `` notwithstanding any relevant international law '' .
It states that these actions can not be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of incompatibility with international or domestic law .
These are general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not require any consent from parliament either , once this bill is passed .
For the first six months of the legislation taking effect , they will operate according to the 'made affirmative ' mechanism for statutory instruments .
That means that ministers do n't have to check with MPs or peers .
They can just do it .
Parliament then has 40 days to annul them .
But even if they do , the government can just put the regulation down again .
There is , in essence , nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - without parliamentary support , and without any respect for domestic or international law .
It is , simply put , the largest expansion of executive power we 've seen in our lifetime .
In order to defend these proposals , Boris Johnson went to the Commons and issued a series of lies .
He insisted that the deal which he himself had promoted as wonderful was in fact terrible and full of `` ambiguities '' .
He said the EU was no longer acting in good faith , when in fact it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within that category .
Finally , he told the Commons , in the most chest-thumping Churchillian tones he could muster , that the EU was threatening a food blockade which would present the UK from sending goods to Northern Ireland .
In fact , the protocol has mechanisms to prevent that sort of occurrence , and anyway , this bill has no clause to stop it if it did .
`` If the prime minister wants to tell us there 's another part of this bill I have n't noticed that will deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - he can , '' Labour 's Ed Miliband , in a coruscating speech , said .
`` I 'll give way .
He can tell us .
I 'm sure he 's read it .
I 'm sure he knows it in detail , because he 's a details man .
What clause protects the threat he says he 's worried about ? ''
Johnson refuses to answer .
There was no way in which any fair minded observer could accept the government 's argument , but of course the majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of half-functioning battery-operated toy , to parrot the lines the prime minister had given them .
Europe was not acting in good faith .
The bill was necessary to protect the Good Friday Agreement .
A food blockade was a clear and present danger .
Only a few respectable voices on the Tory benches held firm .
`` Some level of bureaucracy was , and is now , the foreseeable and obvious consequence of the withdrawal agreement we signed , '' Stephen Hammond told his fellow party MPs .
`` That point was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was justified as a way we would move onto the next phase . ''
It is an indication of how catastrophically the standard of politics have fallen that this was to be considered in any way notable .
All Hammond was doing was reminding parliamentarians of the things they themselves had said just months ago .
And yet , at this stage , it was the height of bravery .
To retain memory , to be consistent on the things one has said , was to rebel against the day-to-day functioning of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it operates .
But in truth , even the rebellion was weak .
In most cases , rebel MPs seemed to be drawn towards Bob Neill 's amendment , which will be debated and voted on next week .
This does not reject the powers which the government was giving itself .
It simply requires another parliamentary vote before they could come into force .
On the level of principle , it is insufficient .
On the level of political reality , it is hopeless .
It does not take a stand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by authorising the powers in principle , it makes any future vote on activating them a near-certainty .
The only real surprise was why the government did n't just go ahead and accept the amendment .
After all , it imposed almost no restriction on its actions and was notable only really as evidence for how obedient and morally broken the Conservative party has become .
It 's likely that next week the government will accept the amendment .
And that in and of itself indicates how ineffectual it is .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the propositions which are expressed and the resistance to them .
In both cases , this was a dispiriting spectacle .
The government proposition was appalling - as irresponsible as any passed in our lifetime , sold on a pack of lies .
But the resistance was just as depressing : a half-hearted shrug of reluctance rather than the all-out opposition demanded by the moment .
If any good comes of what is happening here , it is that some of those observing it will recognise the lengths to which this government will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removing it from power .
But that is really the only bit of hope one can salvage from what we saw today .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out later this week .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

No-one expected it to be defeated. But to see the internal market bill pass its first parliamentary hurdle was still a sobering moment. The governing party of the UK was voting to give itself the power to break the law. Something fundamental in British constitutional life was disintegrating. One of the most basic of all the political principles that held the country together was coming unstuck.
There's a good chance that, even if the bill eventually passes, the powers within it will never be used. It's quite possible that these proposals are some kind of deranged and counterproductive negotiating strategy. Or – more likely – they are intended for a domestic audience, to beef up the sense of conflict ahead of concessions with the EU, so it is easier for No.10 to later present a deal it as if it is a negotiating victory.
But even if that's the case, parliament did something alarming today. It gave its initial consent to handing the government powers to operate outside of the law. Britain began the process of foregoing its status as a civilised power which operates on liberal principles.
The powers in the bill are very extensive. The legislation does not, as the government has insisted, give ministers the power to break the law in "specific and limited" circumstances. They are much more expansive than that. In the area of the Northern Ireland Protocol, the bill allows ministers to pass provisions which have effect "notwithstanding any relevant international law". It states that these actions cannot be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of incompatibility with international or domestic law. These are general powers, not specific ones.
They will not require any consent from parliament either, once this bill is passed. For the first six months of the legislation taking effect, they will operate according to the 'made affirmative' mechanism for statutory instruments. That means that ministers don't have to check with MPs or peers. They can just do it. Parliament then has 40 days to annul them. But even if they do, the government can just put the regulation down again.
There is, in essence, nothing to stop the government doing whatever it wants – without parliamentary support, and without any respect for domestic or international law. It is, simply put, the largest expansion of executive power we've seen in our lifetime.
In order to defend these proposals, Boris Johnson went to the Commons and issued a series of lies. He insisted that the deal which he himself had promoted as wonderful was in fact terrible and full of "ambiguities". He said the EU was no longer acting in good faith, when in fact it was his own behaviour which manifestly fell within that category.
Finally, he told the Commons, in the most chest-thumping Churchillian tones he could muster, that the EU was threatening a food blockade which would present the UK from sending goods to Northern Ireland. In fact, the protocol has mechanisms to prevent that sort of occurrence, and anyway, this bill has no clause to stop it if it did.
"If the prime minister wants to tell us there's another part of this bill I haven't noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of the blockade – he can," Labour's Ed Miliband, in a coruscating speech, said. "I'll give way. He can tell us. I'm sure he's read it. I'm sure he knows it in detail, because he's a details man. What clause protects the threat he says he's worried about?" Johnson refused to answer.
There was no way in which any fair minded observer could accept the government's argument, but of course the majority of Tory party rose, like some kind of half-functioning battery-operated toy, to parrot the lines the prime minister had given them. Europe was not acting in good faith. The bill was necessary to protect the Good Friday Agreement. A food blockade was a clear and present danger.
Only a few respectable voices on the Tory benches held firm. "Some level of bureaucracy was, and is now, the foreseeable and obvious consequence of the withdrawal agreement we signed," Stephen Hammond told his fellow party MPs. "That point was highlighted at the time, but it was justified as a way we would move onto the next phase."
It is an indication of how catastrophically the standard of politics have fallen that this was to be considered in any way notable. All Hammond was doing was reminding parliamentarians of the things they themselves had said just months ago. And yet, at this stage, it was the height of bravery. To retain memory, to be consistent on the things one has said, was to rebel against the day-to-day functioning of the government and the central principles on which it operates.
But in truth, even the rebellion was weak. In most cases, rebel MPs seemed to be drawn towards Bob Neill's amendment, which will be debated and voted on next week. This does not reject the powers which the government was giving itself. It simply requires another parliamentary vote before they could come into force. On the level of principle, it is insufficient. On the level of political reality, it is hopeless. It does not take a stand for the principle of international law. And by authorising the powers in principle, it makes any future vote on activating them a near-certainty.
The only real surprise was why the government didn't just go ahead and accept the amendment. After all, it imposed almost no restriction on its actions and was notable only really as evidence for how obedient and morally broken the Conservative party has become. It's likely that next week the government will accept the amendment. And that, in and of itself, indicates how ineffectual it is.
You can judge the severity of your circumstances by the propositions which are expressed and the resistance to them. In both cases, this was a dispiriting spectacle. The government proposition was appalling – as irresponsible as any passed in our lifetime, sold on a pack of lies. But the resistance was just as depressing: a half-hearted shrug of reluctance rather than the all-out opposition demanded by the moment.
If any good comes of what is happening here, it is that some of those observing it will recognise the depths to which this government will sink and the absolute moral imperative of removing it from power. But that is really the only bit of hope one can salvage from what we saw today.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this week.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-16--Women caring for their children most at risk as covid job losses roll in

By Rosie Campbell and James Tarbit The UK economy has taken an unprecedented battering over the past six months , and the immediate future does n't look any brighter .
The TUC recently warned of a `` tsunami '' of unemployment when the government 's furlough scheme ends in October .
Every job loss is painful , but it 's particularly agonising when it hits those who have done the most to support others during the pandemic – parents and carers .
And they are at risk of getting swept away when the wave comes crashing in .
We surveyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – big and small , across a range of different sectors .
Many were not properly prepared to take into account the extra stresses and strains that those with caring responsibilities have struggled with throughout the covid crisis .
A third of the organisations surveyed said they did not have a clear policy on how line managers should handle performance conversations with an employee whose work had been impacted by the need to care for children .
And when it came to redundancy decisions , a quarter said they did not have proper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go workers who had taken time off because of caring responsibilities or illness during the pandemic .
British employers planned more than 300,000 redundancies during the months our survey ran .
There 's no doubt many currently find themselves having to make extraordinarily difficult decisions about people 's futures .
But it ca n't be right that they make these decisions in the dark , without identifying and acknowledging those workers whose performance has been affected by the closure of schools and childcare providers .
These are the people who made a sacrifice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unpaid – work of home-schooling , feeding , entertaining and caring for loved ones , all while trying to do the job that provides their income .
Many have gone to great lengths to get by .
Nearly six in ten of the organisations we surveyed believed over a fifth of their workforce had taken annual leave to manage work and caring responsibilities during the pandemic , while almost a third believed employees had been forced to reduce their working hours - and be paid pro rata - in order to cope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant proportion of the organisations polled could clearly have been doing more .
A third , for instance , said they did not have formal policies in place to support those balancing work and caring duties during the crisis .
One respondent said that , in the absence of such measures , their organisation offered only vague guidance given at managers ' discretion .
There was a lack of understanding from senior management about just how stressful and difficult it was to work with children at home .
Having proper policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for individuals .
It may also be better for team culture , too .
By 79 % to 58 % , organisations that had taken such steps were more likely than those that had n't to say their employees were speaking up if they were struggling to manage .
An accepting work environment , whether in an office or online , is crucial during a crisis which has taken a toll on mental health .
There is inevitably a gender dimension to all this .
Previous research has found mothers spent more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their children 's home-schooling and development during lockdown , effectively putting their careers on hold in the process .
Recent polling by ICM also revealed one in six women are worried that having to care for their children alongside work has affected how they would be assessed by their manager .
The same proportion were concerned it would affect their chances of promotion .
Despite schools reopening , access to childcare and after-school clubs remains limited .
It may be some time before parents and carers – and particularly women – are able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs .
If those who took on the bulk of the caring during lockdown are the first to be out of work , it 'll be a huge loss of talent from the workforce – and a largely female one .
Parents and carers have given up too much during this crisis only for employers to now give up on them .
Professor Rosie Campbell is director of the Global Institute for Women ’ s Leadership at King ’ s College London .
James Tarbit is MD client advisory at employee research agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Rosie Campbell and James Tarbit
The UK economy has taken an unprecedented battering over the past six months, and the immediate future doesn't look any brighter. The TUC recently warned of a "tsunami" of unemployment when the government's furlough scheme ends in October. Every job loss is painful, but it's particularly agonising when it hits those who have done the most to support others during the pandemic – parents and carers. And they are at risk of getting swept away when the wave comes crashing in.
We surveyed 228 global organisations throughout June and July – big and small, across a range of different sectors. Many were not properly prepared to take into account the extra stresses and strains that those with caring responsibilities have struggled with throughout the covid crisis.
A third of the organisations surveyed said they did not have a clear policy on how line managers should handle performance conversations with an employee whose work had been impacted by the need to care for children. And when it came to redundancy decisions, a quarter said they did not have proper guidance in place to mitigate against letting go workers who had taken time off because of caring responsibilities or illness during the pandemic.
British employers planned more than 300,000 redundancies during the months our survey ran. There's no doubt many currently find themselves having to make extraordinarily difficult decisions about people's futures. But it can't be right that they make these decisions in the dark, without identifying and acknowledging those workers whose performance has been affected by the closure of schools and childcare providers.
These are the people who made a sacrifice, taking on the very real – and unpaid – work of home-schooling, feeding, entertaining and caring for loved ones, all while trying to do the job that provides their income.
Many have gone to great lengths to get by. Nearly six in ten of the organisations we surveyed believed over a fifth of their workforce had taken annual leave to manage work and caring responsibilities during the pandemic, while almost a third believed employees had been forced to reduce their working hours – and be paid pro rata – in order to cope.
This is perhaps not surprising given a significant proportion of the organisations polled could clearly have been doing more. A third, for instance, said they did not have formal policies in place to support those balancing work and caring duties during the crisis.
One respondent said that, in the absence of such measures, their organisation offered only vague guidance given at managers' discretion. There was a lack of understanding from senior management about just how stressful and difficult it was to work with children at home.
Having proper policies and processes in place is not just better for individuals. It may also be better for team culture, too. By 79% to 58%, organisations that had taken such steps were more likely than those that hadn't to say their employees were speaking up if they were struggling to manage. An accepting work environment, whether in an office or online, is crucial during a crisis which has taken a toll on mental health.
There is inevitably a gender dimension to all this. Previous research has found mothers spent more than twice as much time as fathers on their children's home-schooling and development during lockdown, effectively putting their careers on hold in the process.
Recent polling by ICM also revealed one in six women are worried that having to care for their children alongside work has affected how they would be assessed by their manager. The same proportion were concerned it would affect their chances of promotion.
Despite schools reopening, access to childcare and after-school clubs remains limited. It may be some time before parents and carers – and particularly women – are able to meet the usual demands of their jobs.
If those who took on the bulk of the caring during lockdown are the first to be out of work, it'll be a huge loss of talent from the workforce – and a largely female one. Parents and carers have given up too much during this crisis only for employers to now give up on them.
Professor Rosie Campbell is director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London. James Tarbit is MD client advisory at employee research agency Karian and Box.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.