politicscouk--2020-10-09--Week in Review: Biden vs Trump requires the political analysis of Star Wars

British political coverage of American elections is a stubborn thing .
It has a certain way of discussing the campaign - what are the candidates ' backgrounds , which one would be favoured by the British government , what does it say about UK political trends , all of that .
There 's been plenty of it in this election , with reports weighing up Boris Johnson 's close relationship with Donald Trump against the greater policy alignment with Joe Biden , or asking about the Democrat 's likely economic performance .
To even attempt this level of analysis is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
The far more appropriate model is Star Wars .
We are talking about the light side of the force versus the dark side of the force .
Any more sophisticated argument misses the significance of what is happening .
This is not because Biden is some kind of saint , or because his policy agenda is so virtuous that it is beyond interrogation .
It is because he has only one quality which matters : He is not Donald Trump .
He does not side with white supremacists .
He does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not threaten US democracy .
He does not celebrate assaulting women .
He does not mock the disabled .
He does not undermine the entire notion of objective truth .
Some object to that and point out that the people around Trump - those who have made it without being fired - are just as venal as he is .
Stephen Miller , his senior policy adviser , was behind many of the most odious anti-immigrant measures .
Mike Pence , his vice-president , holds many deeply regressive views .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in debate against Biden 's running mate Kamala Harris this week .
With Trump gone , the debate returned to something approaching normality .
There were interruptions and unpleasant opinions , but the candidates had a chance to speak and challenge each other with something approaching respectability .
Some people called it boring .
If so , then we could use a lot more of it .
Trump is the chaos engine .
That is not to say that everything will return to normal if he is defeated .
The global nationalist wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to it are addressed .
It 's to say that he is much more harmful than any other candidate we have seen in American history .
His behaviour degenerates the standards of debate .
It actively stokes the hatred of women and minorities .
It destabilises democratic functions .
And it corrodes basic notions like civility and politeness .
It turns politics into tribal warfare .
Even stripped back to its most self-interested strategic elements , there is no good outcome from a Trump victory for Britain .
Trump 's attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the WTO , the UN and his brutal trade wars are particularly dangerous for mid-range powers like the UK , who were able to navigate the system effectively .
His attack on basic moral norms has effects which ripple out far further than just the US , poisoning our discourse across the world .
But there 's a much more basic form of damage which he perpetuates , and which neither Boris Johnson nor Theresa May were smart enough to recognise .
It does not matter whether you have a close relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is America First .
It is at the core of what you could , if you were feeling generous , call his philosophy .
That does not admit of multilateralism or close bilateral cooperation .
The entire worldview is inimical to it .
That 's why the long-touted US-UK trade deal has not materialised and will be politically impossible for Britain if it does .
It 's why Trump , despite all his support for Brexit , was so quick to start lashing out at May or other British figures on Twitter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has no value .
One of the central intellectual distinctions of the post-2016 period is between those who understand the severity of the moment we 're living in and those who do not .
The latter camp - whether they 're in journalism , politics or campaign work - keep fitting events into a normal political calculation .
They shift with the changed topography and carry on as before .
This is the kind of response which allows nationalism to thrive .
It makes it the new normal .
The former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an assault on the basic values which underpin Western civilisation and liberal democracy .
They refuse to move .
They can therefore resist , as those who shift are unable to .
That is the distinction we are seeing now .
There is really no need for any analysis of Biden or Trump 's relative strengths or weaknesses .
The very act of doing so presumes that one could rationally select one over the other .
And that , in this case , is simply not true .
We have a presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would accept the result of the election .
They will not guarantee the peaceful transfer of power .
To treat that as normal is to legitimise it .
The only democratic response is to recognise the overwhelming moral need to remove him from office .
Not for the sake of progressive politics , or even the fight against populism , but in order to protect democracy .
It 's the light side of the force versus the dark .
That kind of clear-cut moral decision sounds childlike and facile .
It is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disaster .
The fact we can talk in such simplified ways means things have gone terrible , terribly wrong .
Those of us without a vote must pray that Trump is defeated and , just as importantly , that we will never be able to talk in such simplified terms again .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners .

British political coverage of American elections is a stubborn thing. It has a certain way of discussing the campaign – what are the candidates' backgrounds, which one would be favoured by the British government, what does it say about UK political trends, all of that. There's been plenty of it in this election, with reports weighing up Boris Johnson's close relationship with Donald Trump against the greater policy alignment with Joe Biden, or asking about the Democrat's likely economic performance.
To even attempt this level of analysis is to fundamentally misunderstand what this election is about. The far more appropriate model is Star Wars. We are talking about the light side of the force versus the dark side of the force. Any more sophisticated argument misses the significance of what is happening.
This is not because Biden is some kind of saint, or because his policy agenda is so virtuous that it is beyond interrogation. It is because he has only one quality which matters: He is not Donald Trump. He does not side with white supremacists. He does not brand Latin Americans rapists. He does not threaten US democracy. He does not celebrate assaulting women. He does not mock the disabled. He does not undermine the entire notion of objective truth.
Some object to that and point out that the people around Trump – those who have made it without being fired – are just as venal as he is. Stephen Miller, his senior policy adviser, was behind many of the most odious anti-immigrant measures. Mike Pence, his vice-president, holds many deeply regressive views.
But it was instructive to watch Pence face off in debate against Biden's running mate Kamala Harris this week. With Trump gone, the debate returned to something approaching normality. There were interruptions and unpleasant opinions, but the candidates had a chance to speak and challenge each other with something approaching respectability. Some people called it boring. If so, then we could use a lot more of it.
Trump is the chaos engine. That is not to say that everything will return to normal if he is defeated. The global nationalist wave will continue until the causes which gave rise to it are addressed. It's to say that he is much more harmful than any other candidate we have seen in American history. His behaviour degenerates the standards of debate. It actively stokes the hatred of women and minorities. It destabilises democratic functions. And it corrodes basic notions like civility and politeness. It turns politics into tribal warfare.
Even stripped back to its most self-interested strategic elements, there is no good outcome from a Trump victory for Britain. Trump's attempt to destroy the global rules-based system through attacks on the WTO, the UN and his brutal trade wars are particularly dangerous for mid-range powers like the UK, who were able to navigate the system effectively. His attack on basic moral norms has effects which ripple out far further than just the US, poisoning our discourse across the world.
But there's a much more basic form of damage which he perpetuates, and which neither Boris Johnson nor Theresa May were smart enough to recognise. It does not matter whether you have a close relationship to a nationalist president. His mantra is America First. It is at the core of what you could, if you were feeling generous, call his philosophy.
That does not admit of multilateralism or close bilateral cooperation. The entire worldview is inimical to it. That's why the long-touted US-UK trade deal has not materialised and will be politically impossible for Britain if it does. It's why Trump, despite all his support for Brexit, was so quick to start lashing out at May or other British figures on Twitter. A close relationship with him means nothing. It has no value.
One of the central intellectual distinctions of the post-2016 period is between those who understand the severity of the moment we're living in and those who do not. The latter camp – whether they're in journalism, politics or campaign work – keep fitting events into a normal political calculation. They shift with the changed topography and carry on as before. This is the kind of response which allows nationalism to thrive. It makes it the new normal.
The former camp recognises that what we are seeing is an assault on the basic values which underpin Western civilisation and liberal democracy. They refuse to move. They can therefore resist, as those who shift are unable to.
That is the distinction we are seeing now. There is really no need for any analysis of Biden or Trump's relative strengths or weaknesses. The very act of doing so presumes that one could rationally select one over the other. And that, in this case, is simply not true.
We have a presidential candidate who refuses to confirm that they would accept the result of the election. They will not guarantee the peaceful transfer of power. To treat that as normal is to legitimise it. The only democratic response is to recognise the overwhelming moral need to remove him from office. Not for the sake of progressive politics, or even the fight against populism, but in order to protect democracy.
It's the light side of the force versus the dark. That kind of clear-cut moral decision sounds childlike and facile. It is not. It is, in fact, a disaster. The fact we can talk in such simplified ways means things have gone terrible, terribly wrong.
Those of us without a vote must pray that Trump is defeated and, just as importantly, that we will never be able to talk in such simplified terms again.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
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--2020-10-12--The covid housing crisis provides an ideal opportunity for reform

For a moment , it seemed as if the UK real estate sector was experiencing a boom in the weeks after the covid lockdown ended .
Despite the steepest drop in GDP in the country 's history , the increased demand brought about by months of inactivity in the sector led to a rise in house prices .
Now , however , prices are predicted to fall in the coming months .
Government measures to stimulate the market have come to an end and the young people and first-time buyers who might have taken advantage of them are instead more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK housing market initially surprised many analysts .
Although the country 's GDP is down by 21 % quarterly - the worst out of the G7 countries and the deepest UK slump on record – house prices rose steadily from July .
Following 1.8 % growth that month , average prices rose again by two per cent in August - the highest monthly rise in over 15 years and enough to drive the average UK house price to a record high of just under £225,000 .
One of the main reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had been building during the lockdown period .
The harsh , sudden stop for most activity in the sector between March and June meant around 150,000 sales were put on hold .
To further incentivise the sector and boost sales , chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a cut in stamp duty until March 2021 , driving an estimated six per cent additional rise in transactions .
That backlogged demand is now petering out and the government 's emergency furlough measures are coming to an end , leading to predictions that prices will drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Centre for Economics and Business Research ( CEBR ) predicts property prices will be 13.8 % lower in 2021 than in 2020 , dousing any hopes that the housing sector might emerge from the pandemic unscathed .
That 's undoubtedly bad news for the market , but surely it should be good news for prospective buyers – especially first-time buyers who have struggled to get on the property ladder .
Unfortunately , the fall in house prices will not make homes any more affordable if covid continues to affect the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drops will mean a decline in incomes , together with rising unemployment which is likely to offset house price drops .
This will have a greater effect on young people , as well as those in lower income sectors who are most at risk of economic hardship once the furlough scheme ends .
While these groups are most in need of assistance when it comes to buying a home , the pandemic response from the UK 's big mortgage lenders has been to put stricter rules in place .
Lloyds , Barclays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TSB are among the banks who have put a hold on mortgage loans to customers who have saved a deposit of less than ten per cent .
Some lenders are now even asking for a minimum of 15 % deposit .
This has disproportionately affected young would-be buyers who often struggle to come up with such large deposits , leaving wealthier buyers - and those whose parents can chip in - free to benefit from the stamp duty holiday .
Lost among the headlines on rising prices , there are also the thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of pounds they had already saved up , and could ill-afford to lose , when their purchases were derailed by the pandemic .
In a study by Butterfield Mortgages , around 30 % of buyers reported losing their exchange deposit – the non-refundable deposit that provides security to the seller once the sale has been agreed – due to mortgage lenders turning down loans at the eleventh hour .
This equates to an average of around £23,000 per buyer .
All of this is serving to exacerbate the steady decline in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of young people owning their own home since the late 1980s .
New mortgage restrictions , coupled with the decline in affordable new homes being built , mean that many people 's hopes of getting on the property ladder could be buried for good .
Buying a home in many areas , especially in London , where there has been a 62 % decline in affordable housing , was already tough .
The effects of the pandemic threaten to make it near impossible – especially if covid continues into 2021 and beyond .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripe time for an overhaul of the housing sector , especially in England .
Both the Tories and Labour have talked up various schemes to encourage homebuilding over the past several election cycles , but the political system as a whole has failed to reckon with what has long been a systemic crisis .
What is really needed is a sustainable cross-party plan for affordable homes to redress these imbalances over the coming decades .
Scotland , for example , has demonstrated a commitment over successive governments to providing social housing , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been causing demand to outstrip supply .
Covid has provided a reminder of the impact housing has on our health .
Even before the pandemic , problems such as poor quality housing and overcrowded households were costing the NHS as much as £1.4 billion each year .
Now , with people forced to spend more time at home due to lockdown measures and finding it increasingly difficult to afford the costs of a move , poor housing is likely to have an even worse effect on health .
As it deliberates how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government will have to find a way to support both those already impacted and the many more who will suffer financially if a second wave forces the housing sector back into lockdown .
Tax holidays may be an effective short-term stimulant , but what the country really needs in the long-term is more housing – along with more help to keep these homes affordable for current and future generations .
Gary Buswell is a freelance writer based in London .
He is a regular contributor to Expatica and has also written for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Review , Fair Observer and Geopolitical Monitor .
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 Gary Buswell
For a moment, it seemed as if the UK real estate sector was experiencing a boom in the weeks after the covid lockdown ended. Despite the steepest drop in GDP in the country's history, the increased demand brought about by months of inactivity in the sector led to a rise in house prices.
Now, however, prices are predicted to fall in the coming months. Government measures to stimulate the market have come to an end and the young people and first-time buyers who might have taken advantage of them are instead more disadvantaged than ever.
The brief upswing in the UK housing market initially surprised many analysts. Although the country's GDP is down by 21% quarterly – the worst out of the G7 countries and the deepest UK slump on record – house prices rose steadily from July. Following 1.8% growth that month, average prices rose again by two per cent in August – the highest monthly rise in over 15 years and enough to drive the average UK house price to a record high of just under £225,000.
One of the main reasons for this growth was pent up demand that had been building during the lockdown period. The harsh, sudden stop for most activity in the sector between March and June meant around 150,000 sales were put on hold. To further incentivise the sector and boost sales, chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a cut in stamp duty until March 2021, driving an estimated six per cent additional rise in transactions.
That backlogged demand is now petering out and the government's emergency furlough measures are coming to an end, leading to predictions that prices will drop steeply in the coming months. Research from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicts property prices will be 13.8% lower in 2021 than in 2020, dousing any hopes that the housing sector might emerge from the pandemic unscathed.
That's undoubtedly bad news for the market, but surely it should be good news for prospective buyers – especially first-time buyers who have struggled to get on the property ladder.
Unfortunately, the fall in house prices will not make homes any more affordable if covid continues to affect the economy over the next year. Further GDP drops will mean a decline in incomes, together with rising unemployment which is likely to offset house price drops. This will have a greater effect on young people, as well as those in lower income sectors who are most at risk of economic hardship once the furlough scheme ends.
While these groups are most in need of assistance when it comes to buying a home, the pandemic response from the UK's big mortgage lenders has been to put stricter rules in place. Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC, NatWest, Santander, and TSB are among the banks who have put a hold on mortgage loans to customers who have saved a deposit of less than ten per cent. Some lenders are now even asking for a minimum of 15% deposit.
This has disproportionately affected young would-be buyers who often struggle to come up with such large deposits, leaving wealthier buyers – and those whose parents can chip in – free to benefit from the stamp duty holiday.
Lost among the headlines on rising prices, there are also the thousands of first-time buyers who lost tens of thousands of pounds they had already saved up, and could ill-afford to lose, when their purchases were derailed by the pandemic.
In a study by Butterfield Mortgages, around 30% of buyers reported losing their exchange deposit – the non-refundable deposit that provides security to the seller once the sale has been agreed – due to mortgage lenders turning down loans at the eleventh hour. This equates to an average of around £23,000 per buyer.
All of this is serving to exacerbate the steady decline in the number of first time buyers and percentage of young people owning their own home since the late 1980s. New mortgage restrictions, coupled with the decline in affordable new homes being built, mean that many people's hopes of getting on the property ladder could be buried for good.
Buying a home in many areas, especially in London, where there has been a 62% decline in affordable housing, was already tough. The effects of the pandemic threaten to make it near impossible – especially if covid continues into 2021 and beyond.
All of these factors make it a ripe time for an overhaul of the housing sector, especially in England. Both the Tories and Labour have talked up various schemes to encourage homebuilding over the past several election cycles, but the political system as a whole has failed to reckon with what has long been a systemic crisis. What is really needed is a sustainable cross-party plan for affordable homes to redress these imbalances over the coming decades. Scotland, for example, has demonstrated a commitment over successive governments to providing social housing, even if a rapidly growing population has nonetheless been causing demand to outstrip supply.
Covid has provided a reminder of the impact housing has on our health. Even before the pandemic, problems such as poor quality housing and overcrowded households were costing the NHS as much as £1.4 billion each year. Now, with people forced to spend more time at home due to lockdown measures and finding it increasingly difficult to afford the costs of a move, poor housing is likely to have an even worse effect on health.
As it deliberates how to navigate the difficult winter months ahead, the government will have to find a way to support both those already impacted and the many more who will suffer financially if a second wave forces the housing sector back into lockdown. Tax holidays may be an effective short-term stimulant, but what the country really needs in the long-term is more housing – along with more help to keep these homes affordable for current and future generations.
Gary Buswell is a freelance writer based in London. He is a regular contributor to Expatica and has also written for various websites including The Metro, Eurasia Review, Fair Observer and Geopolitical Monitor.
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--2020-10-13--Starmer takes on the science mantle with call for 'circuit-breaker' lockdown

The Labour leader saw the opening and he took it .
The recent dump of documents from Sage , the scientific advisory group , showed that experts had pushed the government to introduce a short lockdown to get the virus back down to manageable levels .
Boris Johnson ignored this advice and instead pressed ahead with a watered-down set of proposals .
This signalled a decisive shift in the politics of coronavirus .
Until now , Johnson had defended himself by insisting he was always following the science .
That 's now over .
He is now demonstrably not following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Keir Starmer and it 's one he took with both hands this afternoon .
In the first of his monthly televised press conferences , he demanded the government introduce the circuit breaker Johnson had rejected , lasting for two to three weeks , but with an exemption for schools .
`` You know that the science backs this approach , '' he told the prime minister .
`` You know that the restrictions you 're introducing wo n't be enough .
You ca n't keep delaying this and come back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another plan that wo n't work . ''
The move brings Starmer in line with public opinion - a position the Labour party has rarely been in in recent years .
Johnson is torn between the increasingly vocal lockdown-sceptics in his Cabinet and parliamentary party and the more sensible voices around him who want tougher action - although to be fair there are precious few of them .
The public is not so evenly split .
A snap YouGov poll last night found 40 % of people did n't think the current government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 % who said it went too far and 19 % who thought it had the balance about right .
The Cummings/Johnson Downing Street operation is obsessed with staying on the right side of public opinion .
The internecine warfare within the party has forced it to break that rule .
It also put the Labour leader on much more stable political ground .
Johnson is deciding each covid policy on the basis of a compromise within his political tribe .
That 's where nonsense like the 10pm curfew comes from - not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but because it was palatable to the hawks and doves around his Cabinet table .
It leads to ever-weirder regulations which simply do not make sense outside of the room that the factional dispute played out in .
Basing your policy on Sage advice is far more effective .
Of course there is no one set scientific view on what is happening , but there is a very widespread scientific consensus on not allowing the virus to flush through the community , as many Tory MPs demand , and that a short sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce its spread .
Grounding the Labour party position in the guidance from Sage provides clarity and justification .
It is also likely to be the outcome which anyway needs to be eventually pursued .
Chief medical officer Chris Whitty 's comment yesterday that he was `` not confident '' the base level of restrictions in 'very high ' alert areas would be enough to dampen the spread of the virus was not just a moment of political theatre .
It was a view based on the evidence .
It strongly suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be required , sooner or later - and the later it is , the longer and more draconian it will have to be .
When it does happen , Starmer will now be in a position to credibly claim that the government is following his lead .
It was difficult until this afternoon to state exactly what Starmer 's alternative coronavirus policy was , apart from the fact that it would be more competent than Johnson 's .
His support for the government 's policy in the earlier days of his leadership was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now there is a much clearer impression .
No.10 made the pivotal error of moving away from the scientific advice .
It is therefore lost in the wind , blowing around by the loudest voices in the Tory parliamentary party .
Starmer has now claimed the position the government departed .
It 's a smart move , tactically and politically .
But it is also the right thing to do .
Once covid responses become dependant on compromising in a tribal dispute , they quickly degenerate into foolishness and inadequacy .
Sticking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reason and credibility .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
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 .

The Labour leader saw the opening and he took it. The recent dump of documents from Sage, the scientific advisory group, showed that experts had pushed the government to introduce a short lockdown to get the virus back down to manageable levels. Boris Johnson ignored this advice and instead pressed ahead with a watered-down set of proposals.
This signalled a decisive shift in the politics of coronavirus. Until now, Johnson had defended himself by insisting he was always following the science. That’s now over. He is now demonstrably not following the science.
That created an opportunity for Keir Starmer and it’s one he took with both hands this afternoon. In the first of his monthly televised press conferences, he demanded the government introduce the circuit breaker Johnson had rejected, lasting for two to three weeks, but with an exemption for schools. “You know that the science backs this approach,” he told the prime minister. “You know that the restrictions you’re introducing won’t be enough. You can’t keep delaying this and come back to the House of Commons every few weeks with another plan that won’t work.”
The move brings Starmer in line with public opinion – a position the Labour party has rarely been in in recent years. Johnson is torn between the increasingly vocal lockdown-sceptics in his Cabinet and parliamentary party and the more sensible voices around him who want tougher action – although to be fair there are precious few of them. The public is not so evenly split. A snap YouGov poll last night found 40% of people didn’t think the current government plan went far enough, next to 15% who said it went too far and 19% who thought it had the balance about right.
The Cummings/Johnson Downing Street operation is obsessed with staying on the right side of public opinion. The internecine warfare within the party has forced it to break that rule.
It also put the Labour leader on much more stable political ground. Johnson is deciding each covid policy on the basis of a compromise within his political tribe. That’s where nonsense like the 10pm curfew comes from – not from any kind of empirical reasoning, but because it was palatable to the hawks and doves around his Cabinet table. It leads to ever-weirder regulations which simply do not make sense outside of the room that the factional dispute played out in.
Basing your policy on Sage advice is far more effective. Of course there is no one set scientific view on what is happening, but there is a very widespread scientific consensus on not allowing the virus to flush through the community, as many Tory MPs demand, and that a short sharp lockdown will buy some time and help reduce its spread.
Grounding the Labour party position in the guidance from Sage provides clarity and justification. It is also likely to be the outcome which anyway needs to be eventually pursued. Chief medical officer Chris Whitty’s comment yesterday that he was “not confident” the base level of restrictions in ‘very high’ alert areas would be enough to dampen the spread of the virus was not just a moment of political theatre. It was a view based on the evidence. It strongly suggests that a further lock-down of some sort will be required, sooner or later – and the later it is, the longer and more draconian it will have to be.
When it does happen, Starmer will now be in a position to credibly claim that the government is following his lead.
It was difficult until this afternoon to state exactly what Starmer’s alternative coronavirus policy was, apart from the fact that it would be more competent than Johnson’s. His support for the government’s policy in the earlier days of his leadership was serving to make his approach increasingly muddled. Now there is a much clearer impression. No.10 made the pivotal error of moving away from the scientific advice. It is therefore lost in the wind, blowing around by the loudest voices in the Tory parliamentary party.
Starmer has now claimed the position the government departed. It’s a smart move, tactically and politically. But it is also the right thing to do. Once covid responses become dependant on compromising in a tribal dispute, they quickly degenerate into foolishness and inadequacy. Sticking with Sage provides the most reliable course for reason and credibility.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
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--2020-10-16--Week in Review: Acceptance is the best cure for covid anxiety

This is a difficult period to live through .
We all know it 's coming .
Every day , the evidence of a return to spring - or something approximating spring - grows .
In all likelihood , it 's already too late to prevent it .
There is a constant buzzing , a low level anxiety , in which all the worst elements of that period - the suffering , the loneliness , the financial terror - start to reassert themselves .
The worst element of this period is the uncertainty .
It is as widespread as covid itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government does not know what it is doing .
It has had the summer to sort out a test-and-trace system , but plainly failed to do so .
The proposals it comes out with , like the 10pm curfew , make no sense .
They are based on internal party management rather than disease prevention .
Any notion that its approach was based on scientific advice died this week when it emerged that Boris Johnson had ignored the Sage guidance for a short 'circuit-breaker ' lockdown .
The political splits make that lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now pulled away decisively from the government approach , basing its proposals on the Sage advice .
Local leaders are striking out hard over No.10 's demands .
The regional approach to covid-prevention increases that sense of uncertainty .
We do n't know if our local area will fall into tier one , two or three .
In many cases we do n't know what those tiers entail , or how long they will last .
It 's hard to work out the bizarre social mathematics of it - what happens if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , or the seemingly arbitrary additional restrictions which apply to larger households .
And then there is that horrifying additional point , that most scientists do not even believe that these restrictions will work .
This is worsened by the fact that the government is dragged into each financial assistance programme .
The offers they have made to those put in tier three are plainly insufficient , and their insistence that they can be topped up with Universal Credit are inadequate .
It resists moves on free school meals over half term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that it did summer holidays .
But because it caved in last time , the widespread presumption is that it will cave in again .
And yet we do n't know that , so those affected are kept on this ceaseless production-line of uncertainty , expecting to be saved but with no assurance they will be .
On top of all that , the prospect of a vaccine - the only thing that can possibly make this nightmare go away - is still unsettlingly vague .
We keep telling ourselves it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no confidence it will .
And even if it does , the distribution problem means that these restrictions will affect most of us for all of next year , to some degree or other .
We do n't really know anything , and that 's partly what makes it so unsettling .
The stakes are very severe .
They threaten the lives of the people we know .
They threaten our economic well being .
And they threaten our social nature - our ability to see our friends and family .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we dusted ourselves off from lockdown and got to be with those we loved again , it is painful to contemplate retreating back to our previous state .
The encroaching cold and darkness of winter does n't help either .
We get stuck in this difficult emotional position where our personal needs and our political views come completely unstuck .
You end up feeling abject horror at the prospect of a lockdown , combined with a recognition that it is necessary .
This feels odd - mourning your own preferred option .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrible place we 're in .
But it is also something else : people operating at the highest levels of political morality .
Supporting something which fills you with horror because it is the right thing to do .
In truth , there 's only one real cure to the anxiety which all this uncertainty entails .
It is acceptance .
Horrible thought , but it 's true .
If you keep grasping for something which is out of reach , you only get upset .
At some point you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and try to put your mood within the parameters which it has to operate inside of .
If we go into winter expecting the degree of social life we had in summer , we 'll go mad .
We have to start lowering our expectations for the next few months .
We have to - and this is arguably the most depressing thought of all - start thinking about Zoom chats as our social outlet .
There 's nothing appealing about that .
But it is the reality .
And once a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better position accepting it than railing against it .
Also : Stockpiling is bad , but now might be a good time to buy wine , whisky , recipe books , novels and some films .
Might as well make the most of this damn thing .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
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 @ @ @ @

This is a difficult period to live through. We all know it's coming. Every day, the evidence of a return to spring – or something approximating spring – grows.
In all likelihood, it's already too late to prevent it. There is a constant buzzing, a low level anxiety, in which all the worst elements of that period – the suffering, the loneliness, the financial terror – start to reassert themselves.
The worst element of this period is the uncertainty. It is as widespread as covid itself.
It's quite clear that the government does not know what it is doing. It has had the summer to sort out a test-and-trace system, but plainly failed to do so. The proposals it comes out with, like the 10pm curfew, make no sense. They are based on internal party management rather than disease prevention. Any notion that its approach was based on scientific advice died this week when it emerged that Boris Johnson had ignored the Sage guidance for a short 'circuit-breaker' lockdown.
The political splits make that lack of clarity more severe. Labour has now pulled away decisively from the government approach, basing its proposals on the Sage advice. Local leaders are striking out hard over No.10's demands.
The regional approach to covid-prevention increases that sense of uncertainty. We don't know if our local area will fall into tier one, two or three. In many cases we don't know what those tiers entail, or how long they will last. It's hard to work out the bizarre social mathematics of it – what happens if we visit family in another area, for instance, or the seemingly arbitrary additional restrictions which apply to larger households. And then there is that horrifying additional point, that most scientists do not even believe that these restrictions will work.
This is worsened by the fact that the government is dragged into each financial assistance programme. The offers they have made to those put in tier three are plainly insufficient, and their insistence that they can be topped up with Universal Credit are inadequate. It resists moves on free school meals over half term and Christmas holiday, in the same way that it did summer holidays. But because it caved in last time, the widespread presumption is that it will cave in again. And yet we don't know that, so those affected are kept on this ceaseless production-line of uncertainty, expecting to be saved but with no assurance they will be.
On top of all that, the prospect of a vaccine – the only thing that can possibly make this nightmare go away – is still unsettlingly vague. We keep telling ourselves it will emerge in early 2021, but there is no confidence it will. And even if it does, the distribution problem means that these restrictions will affect most of us for all of next year, to some degree or other.
We don't really know anything, and that's partly what makes it so unsettling.
The stakes are very severe. They threaten the lives of the people we know. They threaten our economic well being. And they threaten our social nature – our ability to see our friends and family. After a glimmer of normality over summer, where we dusted ourselves off from lockdown and got to be with those we loved again, it is painful to contemplate retreating back to our previous state. The encroaching cold and darkness of winter doesn't help either.
We get stuck in this difficult emotional position where our personal needs and our political views come completely unstuck. You end up feeling abject horror at the prospect of a lockdown, combined with a recognition that it is necessary.
This feels odd – mourning your own preferred option. It's a testament to just what a terrible place we're in. But it is also something else: people operating at the highest levels of political morality. Supporting something which fills you with horror because it is the right thing to do.
In truth, there's only one real cure to the anxiety which all this uncertainty entails. It is acceptance. Horrible thought, but it's true. If you keep grasping for something which is out of reach, you only get upset. At some point you have to reset your brain, lower your expectations, and try to put your mood within the parameters which it has to operate inside of.
If we go into winter expecting the degree of social life we had in summer, we'll go mad. We have to start lowering our expectations for the next few months. We have to – and this is arguably the most depressing thought of all – start thinking about Zoom chats as our social outlet. There's nothing appealing about that. But it is the reality. And once a prospect becomes unavoidable, you're in a better position accepting it than railing against it.
Also: Stockpiling is bad, but now might be a good time to buy wine, whisky, recipe books, novels and some films. Might as well make the most of this damn thing.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
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--2020-10-19--Covid creates pandemic of domestic abuse through financial control

We 're getting a picture of the scale of economic abuse during the covid pandemic .
This refers to behaviour which limits a victim 's ability to secure money , property , goods or services .
Basically , it is financial control , usually perpetrated by a husband or boyfriend against their partner .
A report jointly published last week by domestic abuse charity Refuge and the Co-Operative Bank showed 16 % of adults experiencing this form of domestic violence in a current or previous relationship .
For 1.6 million adults - three per cent of the UK population - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The majority of victims and survivors are , of course , women .
The types of behaviour include refusing to allow your partner to have a bank account , controlling how your partner spends or earns income , forcing a partner into debt , or building up debt in your partner 's name .
In all cases , Refuge says , economic abuse reduces the victim 's `` ability to make their own choices and live autonomous lives '' .
The impact of the abuse is long-lasting .
According to the report , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted credit rating and one in five are left with debt they can not pay .
Many also experience physical and sexual abuse alongside the financially controlling behaviour .
Of particular concern is the stark increase in people experiencing economic abuse for the first time since the start of the coronavirus crisis in March 2020 .
Of this group , 35 % said the abuse began when their own pay decreased due to the pandemic , 15 % when they lost their job during the pandemic , 14 % when their partner 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner lost their job .
Lockdown aggravated pre-existing violent and controlling behaviour from abusive partners , as women became stranded in their homes — cut off from support networks and struggling to access help .
Economic abuse then made it even harder to escape .
You ca n't leave when you don ’ t have a bank account , a good credit rating , or are saddled with debt .
The risk is this trend will continue in the coming months as the coronavirus emergency worsens .
The end of the furlough scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing of more households onto Universal Credit could provide more opportunity for abusers to financially control their partners .
And yet , at time of writing , the government is continuing with its plans to end the furlough scheme on October 31st , replacing it with the Job Support Scheme .
It also plans to cut Universal Credit back to £72 a week in April 2021 , having increased it by £20 per week as a response to the pandemic .
The economic choices made by the government in this healthcare and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis of male violence against women .
Of course , the responsibility for domestic abuse lies solely with the perpetrator .
Lockdown does n't cause violence and economic hardship is n't an excuse to abuse .
But we still need better support for women - and indeed men - experiencing economic abuse .
The government must quickly recognise how its policies risk aggravating abusive behaviour .
This is n't the first time the government has failed to address how its welfare policies could assist abusers intent on financially controlling their partners .
Universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a nominated single bank account , potentially empowering an abuser to take sole control of the family finances .
Although victims of abuse can request a 'split payment ' , this so-called solution comes with its own dangers .
If a perpetrator discovers their partner has disclosed the abuse to qualify for split payments this could exacerbate the violent behaviour .
As one woman said it in 2018 : `` I 'd get a beating if he found out I 'd gone behind his back and changed the money . ''
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone up since March and that for many women the financial control kicked off as a result of decreased income relating to the pandemic .
We know that lockdown led to a huge surge in calls to domestic abuse support services .
And we know that Universal Credit – which government ministers keep insisting is generous – can facilitate domestic abusers financially controlling their victims .
If the government wants to help victims , they need to organise a proper financial package and welfare system that will support vulnerable women , promote economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist .
She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women 's Literature Festival .
You can follow her 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 .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Sian Norris
We're getting a picture of the scale of economic abuse during the covid pandemic. This refers to behaviour which limits a victim's ability to secure money, property, goods or services. Basically, it is financial control, usually perpetrated by a husband or boyfriend against their partner.
A report jointly published last week by domestic abuse charity Refuge and the Co-Operative Bank showed 16% of adults experiencing this form of domestic violence in a current or previous relationship. For 1.6 million adults – three per cent of the UK population – it started during the covid pandemic. The majority of victims and survivors are, of course, women.
The types of behaviour include refusing to allow your partner to have a bank account, controlling how your partner spends or earns income, forcing a partner into debt, or building up debt in your partner's name. In all cases, Refuge says, economic abuse reduces the victim's "ability to make their own choices and live autonomous lives".
The impact of the abuse is long-lasting. According to the report, 26% of victims had a negatively impacted credit rating and one in five are left with debt they cannot pay. Many also experience physical and sexual abuse alongside the financially controlling behaviour.
Of particular concern is the stark increase in people experiencing economic abuse for the first time since the start of the coronavirus crisis in March 2020. Of this group, 35% said the abuse began when their own pay decreased due to the pandemic, 15% when they lost their job during the pandemic, 14% when their partner's pay decreased and 11% when their partner lost their job.
Lockdown aggravated pre-existing violent and controlling behaviour from abusive partners, as women became stranded in their homes — cut off from support networks and struggling to access help. Economic abuse then made it even harder to escape. You can't leave when you don’t have a bank account, a good credit rating, or are saddled with debt.
The risk is this trend will continue in the coming months as the coronavirus emergency worsens. The end of the furlough scheme, a rise in redundancies and the pushing of more households onto Universal Credit could provide more opportunity for abusers to financially control their partners.
And yet, at time of writing, the government is continuing with its plans to end the furlough scheme on October 31st, replacing it with the Job Support Scheme. It also plans to cut Universal Credit back to £72 a week in April 2021, having increased it by £20 per week as a response to the pandemic.
The economic choices made by the government in this healthcare and economic crisis therefore risk exacerbating an already existing crisis of male violence against women.
Of course, the responsibility for domestic abuse lies solely with the perpetrator. Lockdown doesn't cause violence and economic hardship isn't an excuse to abuse. But we still need better support for women – and indeed men – experiencing economic abuse. The government must quickly recognise how its policies risk aggravating abusive behaviour.
This isn't the first time the government has failed to address how its welfare policies could assist abusers intent on financially controlling their partners.
Universal Credit, for instance, is paid into a nominated single bank account, potentially empowering an abuser to take sole control of the family finances. Although victims of abuse can request a 'split payment', this so-called solution comes with its own dangers. If a perpetrator discovers their partner has disclosed the abuse to qualify for split payments this could exacerbate the violent behaviour. As one woman said it in 2018: "I'd get a beating if he found out I'd gone behind his back and changed the money."
We know that incidences of economic abuse have gone up since March and that for many women the financial control kicked off as a result of decreased income relating to the pandemic. We know that lockdown led to a huge surge in calls to domestic abuse support services. And we know that Universal Credit – which government ministers keep insisting is generous – can facilitate domestic abusers financially controlling their victims.
If the government wants to help victims, they need to organise a proper financial package and welfare system that will support vulnerable women, promote economic autonomy, and ultimately save lives.
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. You can follow her 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--2020-10-20--A circuit-break will save thousands of lives

Sage , the organisation which provides guidance to the government on covid , recently recommended a two to three week 'circuit-breaker ' to reverse the spread of the virus , followed by additional restrictions until case numbers came down to early September levels .
Their advice was ignored .
New cases , hospital admissions and deaths are now more than four times higher than they were four weeks ago .
And they are continuing to grow – doubling around every two weeks .
This corresponds to an R of 1.3 , bang in the middle of the current Sage estimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A two-week circuit break , with financial support on a par with the Spring , is needed now to reverse the spread of covid , followed by some weeks of less restrictive measures to continue to drive cases down .
This will save thousands of lives and tens of thousands of people from needing to go to hospital .
Sage modellers came to the same conclusion in a paper last week .
We must use those weeks to rebuild our public health infrastructure and ensure future circuit breaks are never needed again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has suggested a detailed plan for doing so .
Here I am going to use some basic maths to demonstrate how even waiting two more weeks to implement a circuit break could cost thousands of lives .
The last week of September and first week of October saw 512 deaths , almost 4,000 hospital admissions and 91,000 confirmed cases in England .
The most recent two weeks have seen 1,105 deaths , almost 8,000 hospital admissions and 182,000 confirmed cases .
It takes a week or so to develop symptoms after infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become severe enough for admission .
Those who die , do so after about two weeks in hospital on average .
This means that almost all the people who are going to die from covid over the next four weeks already have covid .
The awful consequences of that relentless doubling will now play out over the next few weeks .
It 's likely 2,000 people will die over the next two weeks and 4,000 the two weeks after that .
If cases continue to double over the next two weeks then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of hospital admissions over the last two weeks of November .
The government 's solution is its three tiered system .
This will not be enough .
It 's already not been enough .
Much of the North of England has been in the equivalent of the current Tier 2 restrictions since mid-September and some places for much longer than that , with the rest of England in the equivalent of Tier 1 restrictions .
Cases have been rising regardless .
Tier 3 , which involves closing pubs unless they serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been introduced in Liverpool and Lancashire .
Sage has a helpful table of interventions and the potential impact on R which estimates that full closure of pubs and restaurants might reduce R by between 0.1 and 0.2 – the restriction to `` substantive meals '' only will have a much smaller impact .
So Tier 3 on its own will not be enough to bring R below 1 .
Even Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have acknowledged this .
If we are being very generous , the tiered system and changing behaviour might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lag between infection and hospitalisation , we would n't see any impact on admissions for two weeks , but after that we might see a slower increase .
This is better than the current situation but will still mean ever increasing numbers of deaths at the end of November and increasing pressure on the NHS just as winter really starts to bite .
We need to reduce new infections right now .
Covid is spreading in every region of England .
While absolute numbers of cases are lowest in the South West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are rapidly going up .
All three regions saw a tripling of cases in the two weeks to 9th October .
We need to reduce R below 1 in all regions – and that means national restrictions .
The slower way would be to pick from the range of likely interventions in Sage 's table that together would safely reduce R to below 1 .
If we want to keep schools open ( the single largest contributor ) , this would mean a combination of many new restrictions .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in two weeks we should start seeing admissions start to decline and deaths start to decline two weeks after that .
Compared to the current tiered plan , we might see almost 30,000 fewer hospitalisations and 4,000 fewer deaths by the beginning of December .
But it would still take until mid-December before we return even to today 's high admission numbers .
We can do it more quickly .
Sage estimated that a return to Spring lockdown , which would include closing schools , could reduce R to between 0.6 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate impact , almost halving new infections every week .
Even just doing this for two weeks from today , so that it coincided with half term , followed by a less restrictive set of measures that keep R below 1 , this time with schools open , would save thousands more lives - about 2,500 more than the slower reduction and 6,500 more than the current tiered system .
This would result entirely from drastically reducing transmission over the next two weeks .
We 'd be close to September levels of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier for an improved test , trace and isolate structure to take over the strain of keeping transmission down .
It 's inevitable that more restrictions will be needed to reverse current growth .
At some point soon , the government is going to be forced to do something more .
Waiting one , two or three weeks to do a circuit break will still work to reduce transmission , but it 'll be at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of thousands of hospitalisations in the meantime .
As Sage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optimal time for a break is always now '' .
Christina Pagel is professor of Operational Research at UCL and director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit .
Her main research area is using mathematical tools to support delivery of health services .
She is a member of Independent Sage , a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain 's recovery from the covid crisis .
You can follow her on Twitter here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Christina Pagel
Sage, the organisation which provides guidance to the government on covid, recently recommended a two to three week 'circuit-breaker' to reverse the spread of the virus, followed by additional restrictions until case numbers came down to early September levels. Their advice was ignored.
New cases, hospital admissions and deaths are now more than four times higher than they were four weeks ago. And they are continuing to grow – doubling around every two weeks. This corresponds to an R of 1.3, bang in the middle of the current Sage estimate for England.
I agree with Sage. A two-week circuit break, with financial support on a par with the Spring, is needed now to reverse the spread of covid, followed by some weeks of less restrictive measures to continue to drive cases down. This will save thousands of lives and tens of thousands of people from needing to go to hospital.
Sage modellers came to the same conclusion in a paper last week. We must use those weeks to rebuild our public health infrastructure and ensure future circuit breaks are never needed again. Independent Sage, my own group, has suggested a detailed plan for doing so. Here I am going to use some basic maths to demonstrate how even waiting two more weeks to implement a circuit break could cost thousands of lives.
The last week of September and first week of October saw 512 deaths, almost 4,000 hospital admissions and 91,000 confirmed cases in England. The most recent two weeks have seen 1,105 deaths, almost 8,000 hospital admissions and 182,000 confirmed cases. It takes a week or so to develop symptoms after infections and another week or so before illness become severe enough for admission. Those who die, do so after about two weeks in hospital on average. This means that almost all the people who are going to die from covid over the next four weeks already have covid.
The awful consequences of that relentless doubling will now play out over the next few weeks. It's likely 2,000 people will die over the next two weeks and 4,000 the two weeks after that. If cases continue to double over the next two weeks then we might be seeing 8,000 deaths and tens of thousands of hospital admissions over the last two weeks of November.
The government's solution is its three tiered system. This will not be enough. It's already not been enough. Much of the North of England has been in the equivalent of the current Tier 2 restrictions since mid-September and some places for much longer than that, with the rest of England in the equivalent of Tier 1 restrictions. Cases have been rising regardless.
Tier 3, which involves closing pubs unless they serve "substantive meals", has now been introduced in Liverpool and Lancashire. Sage has a helpful table of interventions and the potential impact on R which estimates that full closure of pubs and restaurants might reduce R by between 0.1 and 0.2 – the restriction to "substantive meals" only will have a much smaller impact. So Tier 3 on its own will not be enough to bring R below 1. Even Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have acknowledged this.
If we are being very generous, the tiered system and changing behaviour might reduce R to 1.1. Because of the lag between infection and hospitalisation, we wouldn't see any impact on admissions for two weeks, but after that we might see a slower increase. This is better than the current situation but will still mean ever increasing numbers of deaths at the end of November and increasing pressure on the NHS just as winter really starts to bite.
We need to reduce new infections right now. Covid is spreading in every region of England. While absolute numbers of cases are lowest in the South West, South East and East of England, they are rapidly going up. All three regions saw a tripling of cases in the two weeks to 9th October. We need to reduce R below 1 in all regions – and that means national restrictions.
The slower way would be to pick from the range of likely interventions in Sage's table that together would safely reduce R to below 1. If we want to keep schools open (the single largest contributor), this would mean a combination of many new restrictions. But if we could get R to 0.9 today, in two weeks we should start seeing admissions start to decline and deaths start to decline two weeks after that. Compared to the current tiered plan, we might see almost 30,000 fewer hospitalisations and 4,000 fewer deaths by the beginning of December. But it would still take until mid-December before we return even to today's high admission numbers.
We can do it more quickly. Sage estimated that a return to Spring lockdown, which would include closing schools, could reduce R to between 0.6 and 0.7. This would have a dramatic immediate impact, almost halving new infections every week. Even just doing this for two weeks from today, so that it coincided with half term, followed by a less restrictive set of measures that keep R below 1, this time with schools open, would save thousands more lives – about 2,500 more than the slower reduction and 6,500 more than the current tiered system.
This would result entirely from drastically reducing transmission over the next two weeks. We'd be close to September levels of cases and admissions by mid-November, making it easier for an improved test, trace and isolate structure to take over the strain of keeping transmission down.
It's inevitable that more restrictions will be needed to reverse current growth. At some point soon, the government is going to be forced to do something more. Waiting one, two or three weeks to do a circuit break will still work to reduce transmission, but it'll be at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of thousands of hospitalisations in the meantime. As Sage scientists said last week: "The optimal time for a break is always now".
Christina Pagel is professor of Operational Research at UCL and director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit. Her main research area is using mathematical tools to support delivery of health services. She is a member of Independent Sage, a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain's recovery from the covid crisis. You can follow her 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--2020-10-22--A plan for legalising cocaine, MDMA and amphetamines

`` The debate on drugs can often be heated and polarising ; yet , on one point at least , there is a growing consensus : the 'war on drugs ' has failed . ''
So writes Helen Clark , former prime minister of New Zealand , in the foreword to Transform 's new book - 'How to Regulate Stimulants : A Practical Guide ' .
It is hard to argue with .
Despite untold billions spent over many decades , drug use , health harms and the size of illegal drugs markets continue to grow , bringing chaos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade controlled by ruthless organised crime groups .
But accepting the drug war has failed begs the question : what is the alternative ?
Drugs are here to stay whether we like it or not .
Policy makers have a responsibility to pragmatically deal with that reality — not continue to chase the fantasy of a 'drug free world ' .
We have to find ways to manage drug markets in order to minimise harms .
This is recognised in recent policy developments across the world — from more responsible tobacco regulation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This applies not just to cannabis , but higher-risk drugs .
Stimulants - including cocaine , MDMA and amphetamines - are used by tens of millions of people each year , and yet they are rarely discussed in drug policy reform .
In our new book , we outline practical proposals for how stimulant regulation could work in practice , in a way that protects health , reduces crime , promotes human rights and supports social justice .
We have drawn on lessons from alcohol , tobacco , cannabis and pharmaceuticals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • MDMA , amphetamine pills , or cocaine powder would be sold in single adult use doses , in unbranded pharma-style packaging with clear content labelling and prominent health information and warnings .
• Products would only be available to adults , with retail via dedicated pharmacy-style outlets , staffed by licensed professionals with specialist training to offer health and safety information to customers .
• Retail outlets would be under the sole control of a dedicated government regulatory agency , with no other retail permitted .
The idea for what is effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a new one .
It is already seen with alcohol sales in Sweden for example , and recreational cannabis sales in several Canadian provinces .
The aim is to allow prioritisation of public health goals , and removal of commercial profit incentives to initiate new users or increase use - learning from the grim history of unfettered alcohol and tobacco marketing .
The regulatory agency would also license production activities , set prices , maintain strict quality controls and enforce total bans on marketing and advertising .
State run pharmacy-style outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not seem like much fun , but we are looking to ensure that demand for drugs is met in a way that optimises health and crime outcomes without promoting use .
The focus is very much on managing the drug using experience to minimise risks , rather than creating a shopping experience to maximise revenue .
There is no one-size-fits-all model , so alongside the core model , we also propose that lower strength products such as coca-leaf be commercially available , like coffee or energy drinks .
For high-risk preparations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we do not propose a conventional retail model , but a harm reduction approach including options for supervised consumption spaces , substitute prescribing and wrap-around care .
The profit incentives of prohibition have tilted the market towards the most potent and risky drugs .
It 's easy to get crack on the streets of London but near impossible to get coca leaf should you seek a milder stimulant effect .
The regulatory levers available under a regulated model - on dosage and preparation , price , and availability - could be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , towards use of safer products , in safer ways , in safer environments .
Regulation would also make talking about drugs , and how to manage and minimise drug risks , very much easier .
The proposals we detail are just the start of an important and urgently needed conversation .
People agree that something needs to change .
Now is the time to discuss what that change looks like .
Transform has produced this book - and made it available as a free ebook - to inform and promote that discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation , and help design a world not without drugs , but without the war on drugs .
Steve Rolles is a senior policy analyst at Transform .
His new book , How To Regulate Stimulants : A Practical Guide , is available to buy here , or to read online for free here.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 Steve Rolles
"The debate on drugs can often be heated and polarising; yet, on one point at least, there is a growing consensus: the 'war on drugs' has failed." So writes Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand, in the foreword to Transform's new book – 'How to Regulate Stimulants: A Practical Guide'.
It is hard to argue with. Despite untold billions spent over many decades, drug use, health harms and the size of illegal drugs markets continue to grow, bringing chaos, instability, violence and a sprawling global trade controlled by ruthless organised crime groups.
But accepting the drug war has failed begs the question: what is the alternative?
Drugs are here to stay whether we like it or not. Policy makers have a responsibility to pragmatically deal with that reality — not continue to chase the fantasy of a 'drug free world'. We have to find ways to manage drug markets in order to minimise harms. This is recognised in recent policy developments across the world — from more responsible tobacco regulation, to the growing moves towards cannabis legalisation.
This applies not just to cannabis, but higher-risk drugs. Stimulants – including cocaine, MDMA and amphetamines – are used by tens of millions of people each year, and yet they are rarely discussed in drug policy reform. In our new book, we outline practical proposals for how stimulant regulation could work in practice, in a way that protects health, reduces crime, promotes human rights and supports social justice. We have drawn on lessons from alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and pharmaceuticals, and propose a carefully regulated approach:
MDMA, amphetamine pills, or cocaine powder would be sold in single adult use doses, in unbranded pharma-style packaging with clear content labelling and prominent health information and warnings.
Products would only be available to adults, with retail via dedicated pharmacy-style outlets, staffed by licensed professionals with specialist training to offer health and safety information to customers.
Retail outlets would be under the sole control of a dedicated government regulatory agency, with no other retail permitted. The idea for what is effectively a state retail monopoly on drug sales is not a new one. It is already seen with alcohol sales in Sweden for example, and recreational cannabis sales in several Canadian provinces. The aim is to allow prioritisation of public health goals, and removal of commercial profit incentives to initiate new users or increase use – learning from the grim history of unfettered alcohol and tobacco marketing. The regulatory agency would also license production activities, set prices, maintain strict quality controls and enforce total bans on marketing and advertising.
State run pharmacy-style outlets selling unbranded products with prominent health warnings may not seem like much fun, but we are looking to ensure that demand for drugs is met in a way that optimises health and crime outcomes without promoting use. The focus is very much on managing the drug using experience to minimise risks, rather than creating a shopping experience to maximise revenue.
There is no one-size-fits-all model, so alongside the core model, we also propose that lower strength products such as coca-leaf be commercially available, like coffee or energy drinks. For high-risk preparations, such as crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, we do not propose a conventional retail model, but a harm reduction approach including options for supervised consumption spaces, substitute prescribing and wrap-around care.
The profit incentives of prohibition have tilted the market towards the most potent and risky drugs. It's easy to get crack on the streets of London but near impossible to get coca leaf should you seek a milder stimulant effect. The regulatory levers available under a regulated model – on dosage and preparation, price, and availability – could be used to tilt the market the other way, towards use of safer products, in safer ways, in safer environments. Regulation would also make talking about drugs, and how to manage and minimise drug risks, very much easier.
The proposals we detail are just the start of an important and urgently needed conversation. People agree that something needs to change. Now is the time to discuss what that change looks like. Transform has produced this book – and made it available as a free ebook – to inform and promote that discussion. We invite everyone to join this conversation, and help design a world not without drugs, but without the war on drugs.
Steve Rolles is a senior policy analyst at Transform. His new book, How To Regulate Stimulants: A Practical Guide, is available to buy here, or to read online for free here.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--2020-10-23--Labour needs to keep pressing the case on school meals

The Conservative government won a great victory in the Commons this week and in doing so stuck two fingers up at Marcus Rashford and the hungry schoolchildren he 's championing .
What a marvellous day 's work .
Why did it pick this fight ?
Refusing to help vulnerable , hungry schoolchildren from poor families in the middle of a pandemic is not generally considered a good look politically .
That goes double when the government 's consistent failures have compounded the economic impact of the emergency .
The public understands this - polls consistently show that the public believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government approval rates in general are declining and Boris Johnson 's personal approval ratings are down .
It 's not just bad politics .
It 's also bad economics .
Nadhim Zahawi , business minister , typified the Tory response when he said : `` It ’ s not as simple as just writing a massive cheque for free school meals . ''
But it really is that simple .
We know because they 've done it before .
And then they gave Marcus Rashford an MBE for campaigning on it .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose it , spending political capital and toxifying his government further to save the approximately £20million per week it would cost to extend free school meals over the winter and Christmas .
This is a cheap policy and by opposing they look like the Dickensian villains their opponents portray them to be .
The unedifying sight of Tory MP 's defending the indefensible in the Commons on Wednesday perfectly encapsulated how stupid this was politically , never mind morally .
Childish talk about `` nationalising children '' and ideological nonsense about `` creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base .
Neither does telling people to go work for a charity rather than listening to `` virtue signalling celebrities '' .
It came across as hypocritical and terribly insincere .
Marcus Rashford , at just 22 years of age , issued a far more dignified statement to his 3.5 million Twitter followers : `` Put aside all the noise , the digs , the party politics , and let 's focus on the reality .
A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been made today . ''
Rashford is n't going anywhere and it 's easy for him to create publicity , so the government is going to have to keep fighting this one .
The Labour party was right to ramp up the pressure and it should continue to exploit this issue for all it 's worth .
The attack lines write themselves .
Same old Tories .
The party that shut down Sure Start Centres , cut child benefits , ended the child trust fund , capped child benefit , cut £12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before bungling its implementation .
Labour can now press its advantage .
If it really wants to take the fight to the Tories , it should take a fresh look at Henry Dimbleby 's National Food Strategy report and introduce a more comprehensive package to address child poverty and hunger .
The legacy of Covid-19 will be a devastating increase in unemployment and poverty .
There will , the report says , be a surge in `` people who find themselves suddenly struggling to put food on the table '' .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - an issue the PM was briefly animated about earlier in the year .
The National Food Strategy report focuses on the physical and psychological effects of hunger on young people whose bodies are developing .
A lack of nutrition stores up health problems for later in life .
A poor diet adversely affects concentration in school .
`` Food insecurity undermines any serious prospect of improving social inequality , '' the report found .
In other words , saving relatively small amounts of money is a false economy for what should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report does not make policy recommendations regarding benefits , but it rightly points out that universal credit was not designed for the economic conditions of a pandemic which is causing a massive surge in unemployment , including middle-income households with fixed rent and bills .
Marcus Rashford 's petition - which gained 100,000 signatures within 24 hours and now has over 300,000 - calls on the government to allocate a sufficient budget to implement the three National Food Strategy recommendations , as part of an emergency strategy for vulnerable children .
Rashford is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the food industry .
• Expansion of free school meals to every child from a household on Universal Credit or equivalent , reaching an additional 1.5m children aged between seven and 16 .
• Expansion of holiday provision ( food and activities ) to support all children on free school meals , reaching an additional 1.1m children .
• Increasing the value of the Healthy Start vouchers to £4.25 per week ( from £3.10 ) and expanding into all those on Universal Credit or equivalent , reaching an additional 290,000 pregnant women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Covid-19 pandemic and the measures used to mitigate it have caused an economic , social and public health disaster which will hit the poorest hardest and will sharply widen the already gaping inequalities in the UK .
The Labour party needs to build its case for government on rebuilding Britain after the economic shocks of Brexit and the pandemic .
This would be a strong start .
Ben Kelly is a political commentator who writes for The Telegraph , Reaction and TheArticle .
He is also director of the EFTA4UK campaign.You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Ben Kelly
The Conservative government won a great victory in the Commons this week and in doing so stuck two fingers up at Marcus Rashford and the hungry schoolchildren he's championing. What a marvellous day's work.
Why did it pick this fight? Refusing to help vulnerable, hungry schoolchildren from poor families in the middle of a pandemic is not generally considered a good look politically. That goes double when the government's consistent failures have compounded the economic impact of the emergency. The public understands this – polls consistently show that the public believes No.10 is handling the pandemic poorly. Government approval rates in general are declining and Boris Johnson's personal approval ratings are down.
It's not just bad politics. It's also bad economics. Nadhim Zahawi, business minister, typified the Tory response when he said: "It’s not as simple as just writing a massive cheque for free school meals." But it really is that simple. We know because they've done it before. And then they gave Marcus Rashford an MBE for campaigning on it.
This time round, Johnson has decided to oppose it, spending political capital and toxifying his government further to save the approximately £20million per week it would cost to extend free school meals over the winter and Christmas. This is a cheap policy and by opposing they look like the Dickensian villains their opponents portray them to be.
The unedifying sight of Tory MP's defending the indefensible in the Commons on Wednesday perfectly encapsulated how stupid this was politically, never mind morally. Childish talk about "nationalising children" and ideological nonsense about "creating dependency" convinces no-one beyond their hardline base. Neither does telling people to go work for a charity rather than listening to "virtue signalling celebrities". It came across as hypocritical and terribly insincere.
Marcus Rashford, at just 22 years of age, issued a far more dignified statement to his 3.5 million Twitter followers: "Put aside all the noise, the digs, the party politics, and let's focus on the reality. A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they do not matter because of comments that have been made today."
Rashford isn't going anywhere and it's easy for him to create publicity, so the government is going to have to keep fighting this one. The Labour party was right to ramp up the pressure and it should continue to exploit this issue for all it's worth.
The attack lines write themselves. Same old Tories. The party that shut down Sure Start Centres, cut child benefits, ended the child trust fund, capped child benefit, cut £12 billion from welfare and slashed Universal Credit before bungling its implementation.
Labour can now press its advantage. If it really wants to take the fight to the Tories, it should take a fresh look at Henry Dimbleby's National Food Strategy report and introduce a more comprehensive package to address child poverty and hunger.
The legacy of Covid-19 will be a devastating increase in unemployment and poverty. There will, the report says, be a surge in "people who find themselves suddenly struggling to put food on the table". That means more food insecurity and less healthy eating – an issue the PM was briefly animated about earlier in the year.
The National Food Strategy report focuses on the physical and psychological effects of hunger on young people whose bodies are developing. A lack of nutrition stores up health problems for later in life. A poor diet adversely affects concentration in school. "Food insecurity undermines any serious prospect of improving social inequality," the report found. In other words, saving relatively small amounts of money is a false economy for what should be considered a long-term social investment.
The report does not make policy recommendations regarding benefits, but it rightly points out that universal credit was not designed for the economic conditions of a pandemic which is causing a massive surge in unemployment, including middle-income households with fixed rent and bills.
Marcus Rashford's petition – which gained 100,000 signatures within 24 hours and now has over 300,000 – calls on the government to allocate a sufficient budget to implement the three National Food Strategy recommendations, as part of an emergency strategy for vulnerable children. Rashford is supported by 20 charities and key figures in the food industry.
The recommendations are:
Expansion of free school meals to every child from a household on Universal Credit or equivalent, reaching an additional 1.5m children aged between seven and 16.
Expansion of holiday provision (food and activities) to support all children on free school meals, reaching an additional 1.1m children.
Increasing the value of the Healthy Start vouchers to £4.25 per week (from £3.10) and expanding into all those on Universal Credit or equivalent, reaching an additional 290,000 pregnant women and children under the age of four.
The Covid-19 pandemic and the measures used to mitigate it have caused an economic, social and public health disaster which will hit the poorest hardest and will sharply widen the already gaping inequalities in the UK. The Labour party needs to build its case for government on rebuilding Britain after the economic shocks of Brexit and the pandemic. This would be a strong start.
Ben Kelly is a political commentator who writes for The Telegraph, Reaction and TheArticle. He is also director of the EFTA4UK campaign.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--2020-10-23--Week in Review: The spirit of Brexit haunts No.10 over covid

In a few months , we 'll see the practical impact of Brexit - queues at the border , the tedious return of bureaucracy on trade with Europe , the addition of a second crisis to add to the one we are already witnessing over covid .
But for the time being , the Brexit impact on No.10 's pandemic response is one of spirit , not practicalities .
Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson govern in the same way they campaigned : by closing tribal ranks , treating criticism as conspiracy , and refusing to ever , under any circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was n't always like this .
Governments once tried to maintain broad electoral coalitions .
They were capable of backing down where they were doing themselves damage .
Nobody enjoyed doing those U-turns , but they did them anyway , out of a recognition that failing to do so would be worse .
And there were occasions when the same has happened with Johnson .
Earlier this year , he would quietly U-turn on issues which were n't strongly associated with Labour , like mask wearing or the eviction ban .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now more prominent , at a local and national level .
This week , Johnson found himself taking serious damage from his fight with Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer .
In both cases , he turned his face against it , and took more damage than he needed .
In Burnham 's case , the prime minister tried to take away the additional £60 million he 'd offered Manchester out of spite , before backing down the next day .
If the government was open to critical voices , it would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is not .
It is a closed cult-like structure , an oyster with no pearl in it .
So when Johnson announced he would provide the £60 million , it was too late - he 'd already come across as petty and vindictive , using funding not for public health or economic well being , but as a weapon against political enemies .
In Starmer 's case , an opposition day motion on free school meals saw Johnson push his MPs into explicit opposition , forcing them individually to own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local press .
`` Just how could you starve our city 's children ? ''
ran the headline in the Yorkshire Evening Post today .
The footballer Marcus Rashford is now helping to coordinate local business initiatives to provide free food for children over the winter .
It is turning into the equivalent of the 'clap for carers ' evenings during the first lockdown .
But this time it is not an initiative which ministers can jump onboard of .
It is operated in spite of them , in many ways as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People 's sense of solidarity-under-fire - their best aspirations about their community - are being channelled into a movement which is explicitly against No.10 .
The government is cast in the role of villain .
This approach is n't restricted to Labour .
The same tribalist approach applies to the variety of other enemies , from the media , to the courts , to the civil service .
This is what happens when you believe that you are the great representative of the people and that all opposition is illegitimate .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it rejects the notion of critical thinking , of challenging itself , and instead hunkers down into a cabal of ideological puritans convinced of their own intellectual superiority .
During the last election , that proved an effective approach .
With a culture war split , Johnson 's Tories could make common cause with Brexit-supporting northern voters in what suddenly looked like a broad coalition .
But in fact it was n't .
It was a reorientation of politics on identity war lines .
Now that identity dispute is fading .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not easily fit into culture war lines .
The trenchant , myopic tribalism of old can not defeat covid .
And it can not maintain the voting spread which put the party in power .
We have a Brexit administration dealing with non-Brexit problems .
Whatever those problems were , these dynamics would eventually have emerged .
A movement based on treating practical issues with identity arguments was always unsuited for government .
But it is our great misfortune that the problems we happen to face are of such enormous severity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well being depend on them being dealt with competently .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
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 .

In a few months, we'll see the practical impact of Brexit – queues at the border, the tedious return of bureaucracy on trade with Europe, the addition of a second crisis to add to the one we are already witnessing over covid. But for the time being, the Brexit impact on No.10's pandemic response is one of spirit, not practicalities.
Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson govern in the same way they campaigned: by closing tribal ranks, treating criticism as conspiracy, and refusing to ever, under any circumstances, do what their opponents suggest.
It wasn't always like this. Governments once tried to maintain broad electoral coalitions. They were capable of backing down where they were doing themselves damage. Nobody enjoyed doing those U-turns, but they did them anyway, out of a recognition that failing to do so would be worse. And there were occasions when the same has happened with Johnson. Earlier this year, he would quietly U-turn on issues which weren't strongly associated with Labour, like mask wearing or the eviction ban.
But something has changed. Labour's role is now more prominent, at a local and national level. This week, Johnson found himself taking serious damage from his fight with Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer. In both cases, he turned his face against it, and took more damage than he needed.
In Burnham's case, the prime minister tried to take away the additional £60 million he'd offered Manchester out of spite, before backing down the next day. If the government was open to critical voices, it would have instantly realised how this would play out. But it is not. It is a closed cult-like structure, an oyster with no pearl in it. So when Johnson announced he would provide the £60 million, it was too late – he'd already come across as petty and vindictive, using funding not for public health or economic well being, but as a weapon against political enemies.
In Starmer's case, an opposition day motion on free school meals saw Johnson push his MPs into explicit opposition, forcing them individually to own it and triggering attacks on them in the local press. "Just how could you starve our city's children?" ran the headline in the Yorkshire Evening Post today.
The footballer Marcus Rashford is now helping to coordinate local business initiatives to provide free food for children over the winter. It is turning into the equivalent of the 'clap for carers' evenings during the first lockdown. But this time it is not an initiative which ministers can jump onboard of. It is operated in spite of them, in many ways as a riposte to their refusal to help. People's sense of solidarity-under-fire – their best aspirations about their community – are being channelled into a movement which is explicitly against No.10. The government is cast in the role of villain.
This approach isn't restricted to Labour. The same tribalist approach applies to the variety of other enemies, from the media, to the courts, to the civil service. This is what happens when you believe that you are the great representative of the people and that all opposition is illegitimate. It's what happens to a government when it rejects the notion of critical thinking, of challenging itself, and instead hunkers down into a cabal of ideological puritans convinced of their own intellectual superiority.
During the last election, that proved an effective approach. With a culture war split, Johnson's Tories could make common cause with Brexit-supporting northern voters in what suddenly looked like a broad coalition. But in fact it wasn't. It was a reorientation of politics on identity war lines. Now that identity dispute is fading. It is replaced instead with a pandemic, which does not easily fit into culture war lines. The trenchant, myopic tribalism of old cannot defeat covid. And it cannot maintain the voting spread which put the party in power.
We have a Brexit administration dealing with non-Brexit problems. Whatever those problems were, these dynamics would eventually have emerged. A movement based on treating practical issues with identity arguments was always unsuited for government. But it is our great misfortune that the problems we happen to face are of such enormous severity, and that our lives and our financial well being depend on them being dealt with competently.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
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.