politicscouk--2020-04-15--Stop shaming: This crisis calls for generosity, not denunciation

The last few weeks have been the most bewildering of our lives .
The things we took for granted are now lost .
The things we considered normal are now taboo .
It has shown millions of people at their best : volunteering in their community , shopping for neighbours , coming together to applaud the NHS .
But for all the altruism and kindness , it has revealed something else too - a profound national puritanism .
Every week brings new public enemies .
First it was the dog-walkers who had driven a short distance .
Social media shamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their cars .
Then it was the sunbathers .
They were denounced for spreading the virus and Piers Morgan called for the NHS to deny them treatment .
Now it is the people who walk together in the street or stop to greet neighbours .
Daily reports emerge of passers-by shouting , swearing or even calling the police .
It is always absurd when people declare that East German-style communism could never have reached freedom-loving Britain .
You suspect that if it ever had , a quarter of the population would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first month .
Then , of course , we have the police themselves .
They are performing a vital role , and many have been subjected to unacceptable abuse .
But a minority of officers are behaving poorly .
Individual forces have talked or tweeted about checking shopping trolleys and non-essential supermarket aisles .
People have been forced off park benches , as though the legislation specifies you can not sit down while exercising .
One man was arrested when attempting to deliver goods for a vulnerable neighbour .
And some police have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many householders are allowed out at any given time and how far from their homes they are permitted to travel .
This behaviour not only brings individuals into close proximity with one another .
In its obvious over-reach , it risks costing public trust in the police , and therefore in the regulations themselves .
In short , it is not going to curb transmission of the virus .
There are two distinct things happening here .
The first is a moral policing of one 's neighbours .
The second is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have numerous things in common .
There is the culture of shaming .
Twitter has been flooded with footage of people daring to visit parks , which remain open , even as the vast majority observe social distancing .
Various police forces , meanwhile , have boasted about their punishments and posted pictures of the offences .
Then there is the loss of proportion .
Of course there are good reasons to stop people sunbathing , as it encourages others to do the same and theoretically creates crowds .
But it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in the same league as hosting a barbecue or a football match , and in most cases it is safer than going to the supermarket .
Equally , it may not be ideal to drive a short way to take exercise , as the car might break down , but it is far safer to take exercise in an open space than on the pavement , and accidents can also happen when people stay at home and do DIY .
Third is the failure to empathise .
For many people this will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
They may feel lonely , claustrophobic , anxious about their health or livelihoods or those of their families .
Many do not have gardens and will be suffering from their lack of personal space .
Some will be in agonising or abusive relationships and need some time to themselves .
And others really will need to sit down when they exercise .
But what this really amounts to is a culture of prohibition .
It produces an opportunity not to enforce public health but uncompromising obedience .
It focuses not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Individuals see a ban , often subjectively interpret it , then judge others for not following it as overtly and faithfully as they are .
It is as though some people are competing to see who can be the most hardline and unbending , and casting anyone less rigid as directly responsible for people 's deaths .
Of course , the most important thing is that the regulations are there for a valid reason and people should follow them .
I am not advocating sunbathing .
But , aside from washing one 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus : maintaining physical distancing .
If people are guided by that one central rule , there is no reason why they can not sit somewhere quietly on their own or with members of their household .
If the area becomes too busy , notices should ( and in some cases already do ) ask people to go elsewhere .
If people are endangering safety , engagement may prove more constructive than condemnation .
A compulsion to judge should not trump an instinct to understand .
The problem in recent weeks is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves , not their purpose .
Much like Brexit before it , they have become something we do because the government tells us , not because they are valuable on their own terms .
This is the basic tenet of an illiberal democracy , which places people in service of the law , rather than the law in service to people .
Sitting down while exercising will not spread the virus .
Nor will going for a second run .
The government recognises we need to go to the shops and actually recommends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay safe while doing the things that we are advised or need to do .
People are trying to get by in difficult circumstances , and we should respond with generosity and pragmatism .
We can stay both mentally and physically healthy if we keep our distance , wash our hands , and treat ourselves and one another with kindness .
The lesson of suffering is not that everyone should suffer in solidarity .
It 's that we make the most of life , safely , while we 're lucky enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator .
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 last few weeks have been the most bewildering of our lives. The things we took for granted are now lost. The things we considered normal are now taboo. It has shown millions of people at their best: volunteering in their community, shopping for neighbours, coming together to applaud the NHS. But for all the altruism and kindness, it has revealed something else too – a profound national puritanism.
Every week brings new public enemies. First it was the dog-walkers who had driven a short distance. Social media shamed them and individuals found angry notes left on their cars. Then it was the sunbathers. They were denounced for spreading the virus and Piers Morgan called for the NHS to deny them treatment. Now it is the people who walk together in the street or stop to greet neighbours. Daily reports emerge of passers-by shouting, swearing or even calling the police. It is always absurd when people declare that East German-style communism could never have reached freedom-loving Britain. You suspect that if it ever had, a quarter of the population would have signed up as secret informants in the first month.
Then, of course, we have the police themselves. They are performing a vital role, and many have been subjected to unacceptable abuse. But a minority of officers are behaving poorly. Individual forces have talked or tweeted about checking shopping trolleys and non-essential supermarket aisles. People have been forced off park benches, as though the legislation specifies you cannot sit down while exercising. One man was arrested when attempting to deliver goods for a vulnerable neighbour. And some police have appeared to invent entirely new laws about how many householders are allowed out at any given time and how far from their homes they are permitted to travel. This behaviour not only brings individuals into close proximity with one another. In its obvious over-reach, it risks costing public trust in the police, and therefore in the regulations themselves. In short, it is not going to curb transmission of the virus.
There are two distinct things happening here. The first is a moral policing of one’s neighbours. The second is a gratuitously heavy-handed interpretation of the rules. They have numerous things in common.
There is the culture of shaming. Twitter has been flooded with footage of people daring to visit parks, which remain open, even as the vast majority observe social distancing. Various police forces, meanwhile, have boasted about their punishments and posted pictures of the offences.
Then there is the loss of proportion. Of course there are good reasons to stop people sunbathing, as it encourages others to do the same and theoretically creates crowds. But it is not itself the enemy. It is not in the same league as hosting a barbecue or a football match, and in most cases it is safer than going to the supermarket. Equally, it may not be ideal to drive a short way to take exercise, as the car might break down, but it is far safer to take exercise in an open space than on the pavement, and accidents can also happen when people stay at home and do DIY.
Third is the failure to empathise. For many people this will be the most stressful moment of their lives. They may feel lonely, claustrophobic, anxious about their health or livelihoods or those of their families. Many do not have gardens and will be suffering from their lack of personal space. Some will be in agonising or abusive relationships and need some time to themselves. And others really will need to sit down when they exercise.
But what this really amounts to is a culture of prohibition. It produces an opportunity not to enforce public health but uncompromising obedience. It focuses not on stopping the virus, but pleasure. Individuals see a ban, often subjectively interpret it, then judge others for not following it as overtly and faithfully as they are. It is as though some people are competing to see who can be the most hardline and unbending, and casting anyone less rigid as directly responsible for people’s deaths.
Of course, the most important thing is that the regulations are there for a valid reason and people should follow them. I am not advocating sunbathing. But, aside from washing one’s hands, only one thing will stop the virus: maintaining physical distancing. If people are guided by that one central rule, there is no reason why they cannot sit somewhere quietly on their own or with members of their household. If the area becomes too busy, notices should (and in some cases already do) ask people to go elsewhere. If people are endangering safety, engagement may prove more constructive than condemnation. A compulsion to judge should not trump an instinct to understand.
The problem in recent weeks is that we have focused on the rules themselves, not their purpose. Much like Brexit before it, they have become something we do because the government tells us, not because they are valuable on their own terms. This is the basic tenet of an illiberal democracy, which places people in service of the law, rather than the law in service to people.
Sitting down while exercising will not spread the virus. Nor will going for a second run. The government recognises we need to go to the shops and actually recommends we take exercise. The key is to stay safe while doing the things that we are advised or need to do.
People are trying to get by in difficult circumstances, and we should respond with generosity and pragmatism. We can stay both mentally and physically healthy if we keep our distance, wash our hands, and treat ourselves and one another with kindness. The lesson of suffering is not that everyone should suffer in solidarity. It’s that we make the most of life, safely, while we’re lucky enough to enjoy it.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
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--2020-04-14--Starmer vs the trolls: Brexiters online react with outrage to new Labour leader

Since Keir Starmer became Labour leader , talk of the 2009 investigation of Jimmy Savile has circulated freely on social media .
One post mentions the four police cases against Savile referred to the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the decision to drop charges due to `` insufficient evidence '' .
It ends with a flourish of which Rebekah Vardy would be proud .
`` Why am I sharing this with you ?
The man in charge of the CPS at the time , that decided there was 'insufficient evidence ' to charge Savile , is the now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer . ''
A version of the post on a Facebook page called Recusant Nine has been shared 2,400 times .
The paragraph has been copied and pasted in posts and comment threads on at least ten Brexiteer social media groups and pages .
Almost every post is identical , from the emphasis on Savile 's 500 victims to the frequently misspelled `` Kier '' .
And on each occasion it is met with outrage .
It is also misleading .
Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the CPS in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the TV personality was taken by another prosecutor , after a series of police and prosecution failings .
Savile 's case may never have crossed Starmer 's desk .
But in private Facebook groups , where users are asked to outline their commitment to Brexit before gaining membership , there are few voices to counter the post 's simple argument .
In these digital spaces , many have made up their mind about Starmer .
Fake news and dubious sources serve to shore up their opinions .
Starmer is inevitably attacked for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Worthing Brexiteer group shared a picture of Starmer to its 17,000 followers with the caption : `` Sir Kier [ sic ] Starmer spent 3 yrs blocking 'The Will of the People ' . ''
The same image has been shared across private groups and comment threads .
But false representations of Starmer could prove more damaging .
Last Sunday , the new Labour leader told Andrew Marr that the Brexit trade negotiations deadline should be extended `` if necessary '' , due to the effects of the coronavirus .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the statement repackaged into a Youtube clip , with the headline `` Govt should extend Brexit deadline '' .
The post has racked up a thousand outraged comments .
It is reminiscent of a video during the election campaign , in which a Good Morning Britain interview with Stamer was repackaged by the Conservative Party to make him appear hesitant on Labour 's Brexit strategy .
The groups suggest just what an uphill battle Starmer faces to win back Brexiters , even if Brexit is 'done ' by the next election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Theresa May , wrote on Twitter : `` Starmer wo n't easily connect in seats that turned Tory last year .
Brexit has not evaporated as a values guide . ''
Some members of these groups profess to voting Conservative all their lives .
It is easy to dismiss them as an online echo chamber of lost causes who are not representative of the electorate .
But they are not immune to Starmer 's political vision .
As Hargrave pointed out in a New Statesman article this week , `` public support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , redistributive state has been on the rise for several years '' .
In these die-hard Brexiteer clusters , there is support for an expanded state .
Alongside countless 'get well soon Boris ' posts , members of The Future of Britain Post-Brexit Years group support calls to increase the wages of all NHS staff .
And in the 18,000-strong Brexiteers United group , members welcomed a Momentum video criticising Sir Richard Branson and Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin 's response to coronavirus .
Ruth Smeeth , former Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters who abandoned Labour because of `` Corbyn and Brexit '' .
In her former constituency , 76 % of constituents voted for Brexit in 2016 .
In 2019 , it swung to the Conservatives for the first time in its history .
`` The Labour party has a huge amount to do to rebuild its relationship with our voters , '' she says .
`` The fact that I know that as soon as the current restrictions are lifted , one of [ Starmer 's ] first visits will be to Stoke-on-Trent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds that just a `` tiny percentage '' of her former constituents form part of these groups and that they `` care about a lot more things than Brexit '' .
For that reason , she hopes to focus discourse on health care , welfare and investment in communities like Stoke .
`` We need to talk about the other things that have an impact on people 's lives , '' she says , `` where they have felt isolated and struggled over the past few years . ''
Smeeth is also hopeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer , criticism of his background , education and knighthood will fade .
On the Student Brexit Group page , which has 7,000 followers , a picture of Starmer being knighted by Prince Charles is captioned : `` He represents a metropolitan liberal elite that sneers at the British working class '' .
Elsewhere , members of a 4,000-strong group We support Jacob Rees-Mogg , criticise Starmer for being a `` millionaire '' - perhaps forgetting the wealth of the man behind the group 's name .
Others add that `` Keir Hardie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Smeeth , a working class single mother who was the first in her family to go to university , believes Labour politicians are held to different standards than Conservatives .
`` I 'm a working class girl done well , '' she says , '' therefore I should be held to working class values and held accountable to my actions . ''
The same is true of Starmer .
`` If you look at Keir 's background , he embodies everything my constituents want for their children .
Son of a toolmaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a working class community and got to the top of his field .
And he was rewarded for that through his knighthood .
Everybody wants that for their children . ''
But right-wing influencers are working hard to distort the image , with obvious but effective attack lines .
The conservative commentator and youth activist Darren Grimes labels `` Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC '' a `` remain zealot '' in a video on his Facebook page .
He tells his 10,000 followers : `` Let 's not forget that he 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
He 's now tasked with winning them back .
He 's got no chance in my opinion . ''
That `` let 's not forget '' message is repeated throughout the comments thread , where the Savile paragraph is copied and pasted multiple times .
It is a sign that Grimes and the members of these groups will use all the means at their disposal to keep Brexit alive as an electoral compass .
The more successful they are , the harder Starmer ’ s task becomes .
The opinions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Ian Johnston
Since Keir Starmer became Labour leader, talk of the 2009 investigation of Jimmy Savile has circulated freely on social media.
One post mentions the four police cases against Savile referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the decision to drop charges due to "insufficient evidence".
It ends with a flourish of which Rebekah Vardy would be proud. "Why am I sharing this with you? The man in charge of the CPS at the time, that decided there was 'insufficient evidence' to charge Savile, is the now leader of the Labour party Sir Kier Starmer."
A version of the post on a Facebook page called Recusant Nine has been shared 2,400 times. The paragraph has been copied and pasted in posts and comment threads on at least ten Brexiteer social media groups and pages. Almost every post is identical, from the emphasis on Savile's 500 victims to the frequently misspelled "Kier". And on each occasion it is met with outrage.
It is also misleading. Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the CPS in 2009 but the decision not to charge the TV personality was taken by another prosecutor, after a series of police and prosecution failings. Savile's case may never have crossed Starmer's desk.
But in private Facebook groups, where users are asked to outline their commitment to Brexit before gaining membership, there are few voices to counter the post's simple argument.
In these digital spaces, many have made up their mind about Starmer. Fake news and dubious sources serve to shore up their opinions.
Starmer is inevitably attacked for his previous support for a second referendum. The Worthing Brexiteer group shared a picture of Starmer to its 17,000 followers with the caption: "Sir Kier [sic] Starmer spent 3 yrs blocking 'The Will of the People'." The same image has been shared across private groups and comment threads.
But false representations of Starmer could prove more damaging. Last Sunday, the new Labour leader told Andrew Marr that the Brexit trade negotiations deadline should be extended "if necessary", due to the effects of the coronavirus.
On the page Anti-EU Pro-British, 139,000 followers can see the statement repackaged into a Youtube clip, with the headline "Govt should extend Brexit deadline". The post has racked up a thousand outraged comments.
It is reminiscent of a video during the election campaign, in which a Good Morning Britain interview with Stamer was repackaged by the Conservative Party to make him appear hesitant on Labour's Brexit strategy.
The groups suggest just what an uphill battle Starmer faces to win back Brexiters, even if Brexit is 'done' by the next election. As Nick Hargrave, former special adviser to Theresa May, wrote on Twitter: "Starmer won't easily connect in seats that turned Tory last year. Brexit has not evaporated as a values guide."
Some members of these groups profess to voting Conservative all their lives. It is easy to dismiss them as an online echo chamber of lost causes who are not representative of the electorate.
But they are not immune to Starmer's political vision. As Hargrave pointed out in a New Statesman article this week, "public support in the UK for a more interventionist, redistributive state has been on the rise for several years". In these die-hard Brexiteer clusters, there is support for an expanded state.
Alongside countless 'get well soon Boris' posts, members of The Future of Britain Post-Brexit Years group support calls to increase the wages of all NHS staff. And in the 18,000-strong Brexiteers United group, members welcomed a Momentum video criticising Sir Richard Branson and Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin's response to coronavirus.
Ruth Smeeth, former Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, is confident that Starmer can win back voters who abandoned Labour because of "Corbyn and Brexit".
In her former constituency, 76% of constituents voted for Brexit in 2016. In 2019, it swung to the Conservatives for the first time in its history.
"The Labour party has a huge amount to do to rebuild its relationship with our voters," she says. "The fact that I know that as soon as the current restrictions are lifted, one of [Starmer's] first visits will be to Stoke-on-Trent is a good sign."
She adds that just a "tiny percentage" of her former constituents form part of these groups and that they "care about a lot more things than Brexit".
For that reason, she hopes to focus discourse on health care, welfare and investment in communities like Stoke. "We need to talk about the other things that have an impact on people's lives," she says, "where they have felt isolated and struggled over the past few years."
Smeeth is also hopeful that as the electorate comes to know Starmer, criticism of his background, education and knighthood will fade.
On the Student Brexit Group page, which has 7,000 followers, a picture of Starmer being knighted by Prince Charles is captioned: "He represents a metropolitan liberal elite that sneers at the British working class".
Elsewhere, members of a 4,000-strong group We support Jacob Rees-Mogg, criticise Starmer for being a "millionaire" – perhaps forgetting the wealth of the man behind the group's name. Others add that "Keir Hardie would be turning in his grave".
Smeeth, a working class single mother who was the first in her family to go to university, believes Labour politicians are held to different standards than Conservatives. "I'm a working class girl done well," she says," therefore I should be held to working class values and held accountable to my actions."
The same is true of Starmer. "If you look at Keir's background, he embodies everything my constituents want for their children. Son of a toolmaker and a nurse. He came from a working class community and got to the top of his field. And he was rewarded for that through his knighthood. Everybody wants that for their children."
But right-wing influencers are working hard to distort the image, with obvious but effective attack lines. The conservative commentator and youth activist Darren Grimes labels "Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC" a "remain zealot" in a video on his Facebook page.
He tells his 10,000 followers: "Let's not forget that he's the architect of Labour's second referendum policy. He's now tasked with winning them back. He's got no chance in my opinion."
That "let's not forget" message is repeated throughout the comments thread, where the Savile paragraph is copied and pasted multiple times.
It is a sign that Grimes and the members of these groups will use all the means at their disposal to keep Brexit alive as an electoral compass. The more successful they are, the harder Starmer’s task becomes.
Ian Johnston is a freelance journalist.
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--2020-04-09--Punishing migrants: Stubborn Home Office covid response puts everyone at risk

This crisis has turned many long-standing assumptions about who we value on their heads .
Yesterday , MPs from across parties called for migrant workers in the NHS to be granted indefinite leave to remain .
Even Piers Morgan has started championing the migrants on whom the country 's health and wellbeing relies .
It is absolutely right that all these key workers , who are doing nothing less than holding our society together , should be receiving such recognition .
However , the government is currently failing in the less publicly revered , but far more basic and urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and by extension all of us - from infectious disease .
Once emergency measures have been put in place to protect those at most immediate risk , we should talk about why migrants deemed 'valuable ' are now thought to need shielding from our current immigration enforcement system .
What does that say about the system as a whole ?
The government has made some moves to adapt the immigration system to the current circumstances - but only bit by bit , and often only as campaigns and legal challenges have forced them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for covid-19 exempt from charges usually payable by migrants for using the NHS , but it is stubbornly maintaining charging for other health conditions .
It has also retained the data-sharing arrangements between health services and immigration enforcement that we know keeps migrants away from healthcare they may desperately need .
The Home Office is automatically renewing the visas of doctors and nurses for a year , but there are other people whose visa has expiring and yet can not leave .
They are being forced to apply for extensions online .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but is forcing many more to apply for release on a case-by-case basis and then resisting them all the way .
Bail for Immigration Detainees has obtained freedom for 27 people so far .
Each one was resisted by the Home Office , but found by judges to have no imminent prospect of removal .
It was reported yesterday that new detention orders are being carried out and a person infected with coronavirus brought to Brook House detention centre , placing everyone there at risk .
This piecemeal approach is not enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to communicate to those who need them , and have an unclear basis in law .
As long as the government refuses to protect the most marginalised , none of us are safe .
These most marginalised are the low-paid , so-called 'low skilled ' migrants who Priti Patel has sworn will have no route to become part of our society .
They are the people on strict six-month visas that allow for no extensions , who work on our farms , where fruit is now rotting .
They are the families for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of coronavirus could mean falling below the stringent minimum income required for their visas , meaning children may be separated from parents and spouses from one another .
They are the majority of migrants who have 'no recourse to public funds ' stamped across their visas , who face destitution and starvation if they lose their jobs .
And they are the most maligned of all , the ones who have no immigration status , who can not seek help from police if their partner is violent , who are forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to , with no protection from being trafficked or otherwise abused because they are the ones criminalised instead of their tormentors .
The government has so far refused to hear demands to protect these people through emergency measures .
Migrants , be they doctors , care workers , cleaners or delivery drivers , bear the brunt of hardship and risk in our society - not just now , but always .
If we want to lift our new-found heroes out of this system , it is because we know that the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new deal for all migrants in our society , a system that treats all with dignity and gives people , regardless of what they earn , the chance to build their lives here for as long as they choose .
This must mean new routes to permanent settlement that are not siloed off for whoever is flavour of the month on Good Morning Britain , but available to all .
The covid-19 outbreak has revealed in clearer terms how risk is structured throughout our communities , but also how connected we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must leave no one behind .
Zoe Gardner is a policy advisor at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants ( JCWI ) .
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 Zoe Gardner
This crisis has turned many long-standing assumptions about who we value on their heads. Yesterday, MPs from across parties called for migrant workers in the NHS to be granted indefinite leave to remain. Even Piers Morgan has started championing the migrants on whom the country's health and wellbeing relies.
It is absolutely right that all these key workers, who are doing nothing less than holding our society together, should be receiving such recognition. However, the government is currently failing in the less publicly revered, but far more basic and urgent, task of protecting all migrants – and by extension all of us – from infectious disease.
Once emergency measures have been put in place to protect those at most immediate risk, we should talk about why migrants deemed 'valuable' are now thought to need shielding from our current immigration enforcement system. What does that say about the system as a whole?
The government has made some moves to adapt the immigration system to the current circumstances – but only bit by bit, and often only as campaigns and legal challenges have forced them into it. It has made testing for covid-19 exempt from charges usually payable by migrants for using the NHS, but it is stubbornly maintaining charging for other health conditions. It has also retained the data-sharing arrangements between health services and immigration enforcement that we know keeps migrants away from healthcare they may desperately need.
The Home Office is automatically renewing the visas of doctors and nurses for a year, but there are other people whose visa has expiring and yet cannot leave. They are being forced to apply for extensions online. The department has released some from immigration detention but is forcing many more to apply for release on a case-by-case basis and then resisting them all the way. Bail for Immigration Detainees has obtained freedom for 27 people so far. Each one was resisted by the Home Office, but found by judges to have no imminent prospect of removal. It was reported yesterday that new detention orders are being carried out and a person infected with coronavirus brought to Brook House detention centre, placing everyone there at risk.
This piecemeal approach is not enough. Constant small adjustments are confusing, hard to communicate to those who need them, and have an unclear basis in law. As long as the government refuses to protect the most marginalised, none of us are safe.
These most marginalised are the low-paid, so-called 'low skilled' migrants who Priti Patel has sworn will have no route to become part of our society. They are the people on strict six-month visas that allow for no extensions, who work on our farms, where fruit is now rotting. They are the families for whom even a small drop in earnings because of coronavirus could mean falling below the stringent minimum income required for their visas, meaning children may be separated from parents and spouses from one another. They are the majority of migrants who have 'no recourse to public funds' stamped across their visas, who face destitution and starvation if they lose their jobs.
And they are the most maligned of all, the ones who have no immigration status, who cannot seek help from police if their partner is violent, who are forced to work in whatever conditions their boss tells them to, with no protection from being trafficked or otherwise abused because they are the ones criminalised instead of their tormentors. The government has so far refused to hear demands to protect these people through emergency measures.
Migrants, be they doctors, care workers, cleaners or delivery drivers, bear the brunt of hardship and risk in our society – not just now, but always. If we want to lift our new-found heroes out of this system, it is because we know that the system is dysfunctional and cruel. We need a new deal for all migrants in our society, a system that treats all with dignity and gives people, regardless of what they earn, the chance to build their lives here for as long as they choose. This must mean new routes to permanent settlement that are not siloed off for whoever is flavour of the month on Good Morning Britain, but available to all.
The covid-19 outbreak has revealed in clearer terms how risk is structured throughout our communities, but also how connected we all are to one another. Our response must leave no one behind.
Zoe Gardner is a policy advisor at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI).
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--2020-04-08--Peak uncertainty: This is what covid might do to our politics

Just because something should happen , does n't mean it will .
Many articles speculating on how Britain will look different after coronavirus mistake what the writer thinks should happen with what probably will , trusting in the logic of the moment when politics often obeys anything but .
Others focus on the party political fallout , which is the most unpredictable aspect of all .
Coronavirus may determine the next election - or it may play no role in it at all .
But to really get an idea of how Britain could look on the other side , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big picture discussion and dig deep into policy areas .
The centrality of the NHS is now guaranteed no matter who is in charge .
The Tories had already pledged increased funding , and the need for spare capacity in the event of pandemics may force a rethink of service redesigns and efficiency measures that aimed to minimise 'waste ' .
Bigger questions surround the adult care system .
No-one can now ignore the funding cuts and staff shortages that have left the care sector so depleted .
If elderly and disabled people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in large numbers , this might - and should - become a point of national shame over the coming weeks .
The Tories ' direction of travel is towards a social insurance system , whereby people pay in to a fund during their working lives that gives them access to care provision when they need it .
But those who are retired or have lifelong care needs wo n't be able to pay into an insurance scheme before receiving care .
These immediate care needs will need direct public funding , not long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different tack : universal free personal care for the over-65s , with an ambition to extend this to all working age adults .
This is simpler and more inclusive than our current means tested mess , but it does n't come cheap .
The King 's Fund estimated the cost as £5.5bn in 2020/21 , rising to £8bn in 2030/31 .
Keir Starmer will be under pressure from some to stick with their existing policy , and from others to engage with social insurance proposals .
Keeping Labour MPs united behind whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it 's plausible the Tories will also be pulled in another direction - towards volunteerism .
The party 's social and fiscal conservatives - uneasy bedfellows in recent years - could use the increased community cooperation seen amid the pandemic as evidence that volunteers and family members can take on more of the care burden , while still improving pay and conditions for care staff .
Expect to see rhetoric that the pandemic has 'unleashed ' Britain 's 'community spirit ' , which should be 'channelled ' after the crisis by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ' on people in need - the soft-soap version of women doing unpaid care work in lieu of public services .
The current trend in care provision is towards making use of what 'assets ' people already have , including friends and family - an approach that can be used for good or ill .
The temptation for the government to lean on unpaid volunteers instead of the taxpayer is not hard to imagine .
The care system was the biggest public service challenge facing the government before coronavirus .
Now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become one of the big battlegrounds of post-pandemic politics , between competing visions of society based on universalism , managed markets , and volunteerism .
Before his death in 2014 , Bob Crow was one of the most demonised figures in Britain .
His readiness to threaten to shut down rail networks as head of the RMT union made him a bête noire for commuters , causing considerable disruption .
Crow was a rarity in post-Thatcher Britain - a union leader who was ready to use strike action as a sword , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only went on strike in defence of existing jobs , pay and conditions , Crow levered the criticality of the role of his members to transform their economic position .
He was accused of holding passengers and politicians to ransom , but his argument was a simple one : the disruption caused by his members going on strike showed how important their role was , and they should be paid more - much more - to reflect this .
It has taken the worst pandemic in more than a century for many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessarily reflect the importance of a worker 's role - in fact , very often it does nothing of the sort .
Pay reflects many factors : supply and demand of labour , required skills and levels of education , the strength or weakness of collective bargaining , the resources of the employer , and the profit-making productivity of the role .
The social necessity of the role comes below pretty much all of them .
There may well be a post-pandemic cross-party consensus for a higher minimum wage and more protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracts , for example - to protect low-paid workers from poverty .
But Crow did n't want his members to be low paid at all .
He wanted to transform their economic station .
We keep hearing about essential workers in cleaning , portering , social care and customer service .
Will this be rewarded with more middle class pay and conditions ?
There are reasons to be doubtful .
There will likely be broad acceptance of the importance of care workers , who are a very visible part of the fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians will be ready to fork out for transformative pay rises .
Will Starmer accept billions of pounds of extra spending on top of the £11bn Labour has already earmarked for social care , let alone the Tories ?
And where is the industrial , political or public pressure going to come from to secure such pay rises for the often migrant workers in portering and cleaning ?
We do n't want to accept it , but many workers on middle incomes would sneer at the idea of porters and cleaners being paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system has taken a battering over the last decade .
Now the economic shutdown is driving more than a million people to seek refuge in the rubble left behind .
The government has responded by performing emergency repairs - raising benefit payments and scrapping job search requirements in a desperate attempt to stop the newly unemployed middle classes struggling in the way the unemployed poor were expected to .
Things could play out from here in a number of ways .
If Universal Credit functions to a level the government can live with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success , leaving Starmer in a politically difficult position .
Will he keep Labour 's pledge to axe what will have become an established system , or switch to reforming it , thus angering his left flank .
Labour may try and build a minimum income guarantee using the framework of this system .
Or they may 'abolish ' Universal Credit by tweaking it and changing its name .
If Universal Credit simply topples over - unable to process claims properly , or pay out the right sums of money - the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costly and chaotic flagship scheme .
What then ?
Labour would push for a more generous system with far fewer conditions and sanctions .
The Tories would be truly hamstrung , having in this scenario wasted a decade on a failed system .
Public opinion would not necessarily favour a more generous , less judgemental approach .
The declared end of the pandemic , and the gradual return to some kind of economic normality , would likely bring back demands that the unemployed get back to work , and that they be cattle-prodded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not carry the same image as health and care workers in this pandemic - and doubtless right wing ideologues will start shouting about the deficit the first chance they get .
But if the economic recovery is insipid , with little job creation , enduring high unemployment , and a stop-start lockdown as the virus returns , both parties could be drawn to more universal systems - a minimum income guarantee set at a liveable level , or even a Universal Basic Income .
The government toyed with introducing UBI last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Tory MPs unhappy at its cost .
Claire Ainsley , who is expected to be unveiled as Starmer 's policy chief , is also a sceptic .
It is expensive , blunt and largely untested .
But if jobs do n't reappear as the pandemic passes , the 'on yer bike ' mentality that has underpinned the benefit system for decades will itself be left redundant .
Britain is running up huge deficits as sectors of the economy grind to a halt .
How will all this be paid for ?
Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich , but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient , especially if corporate profits remain depressed for years .
Everyone is going to have to pay more .
Could the Tories go in for funding cuts ?
Perhaps - but likely not at the scale we 've seen .
The big targets after 2010 were local government and welfare .
The former ca n't be cut further without it collapsing .
The Tories may winnow away at the latter .
Foreign aid could take a hit .
But the party would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher spending on schools , hospitals and police to recreate full-blown Osbornomics .
Labour , and possibly even the Tories , may look to wealth taxes to help bring down the deficit .
Taxing people 's wealth would be a major shift in Britain 's approach , and could finally tackle one of the key sources of economic inequality .
But there 's a problem .
The richest hold most of their wealth as financial assets , meaning they can easily move it to offshore tax havens .
Fixed assets , like houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Taxing property wealth could hit Tory homeowners while barely affecting hedge fund billionaires .
Targeting the latter would require a Tory government to clamp down hard on tax havens .
Conservative MPs are likely to be split on middle class tax rises and spending cuts .
If the Tories go after tax havens and impose a progressive wealth tax , it would be one of the most dramatic changes the pandemic brings about .
The curtailment of the free movement of capital would be a paradigm-shifting development , and an extraordinary one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to happen is for governments to spend on preventative services - such as social care - in the knowledge that this will cut required spending down the line .
Only when that happens will Britain 's fiscal politics finally grow up .
But on a variety of fronts , the British are going to have to decide what it is we are willing to pay for .
If we want functioning public services and low deficits , we 'll have to pay more tax .
If we want properly paid frontline public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more tax still .
If we want to end poverty pay , we may have to pay more for goods .
If we want to protect the high street , or British producers , we may have to pay more in digital sales taxes or import tariffs .
Cakeism has run out of road .
If Britain does head down the path of higher taxes , more generous benefits and greater public provision , our politics and economy will start to look more European - either universalist northern European , or rather more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , we 'll be firmly outside Europe .
Nothing that is happening right now will be fostering a European identity among voters .
And if the government decides to take radical action on the economy , that could mean Britain fundamentally diverges from EU rules , keeping us on a separate path into the future .
All this is predicated on coronavirus being conclusively 'defeated ' , and a one-off in its mortality , geographical spread and disruption .
Those are the prerequisites for things eventually returning to some recognisable norm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale become even semi-regular , shutting down national economies for months at a time , everything changes .
Rents become unpayable , debts unaffordable , jobs untenable , the economy itself unsustainable .
When Rupert Harrison , George Osborne 's former adviser , is openly suggesting debt forgiveness , we are in very new territory .
Most people will want life to get back to normal as soon as possible .
But if normal never comes , anything goes .
And even the most radical ideas we 've discussed would be on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
Just because something should happen, doesn't mean it will.
Many articles speculating on how Britain will look different after coronavirus mistake what the writer thinks should happen with what probably will, trusting in the logic of the moment when politics often obeys anything but.
Others focus on the party political fallout, which is the most unpredictable aspect of all. Coronavirus may determine the next election – or it may play no role in it at all.
But to really get an idea of how Britain could look on the other side, we need to get away from the big picture discussion and dig deep into policy areas.
Who cares?
The centrality of the NHS is now guaranteed no matter who is in charge. The Tories had already pledged increased funding, and the need for spare capacity in the event of pandemics may force a rethink of service redesigns and efficiency measures that aimed to minimise 'waste'.
Bigger questions surround the adult care system. No-one can now ignore the funding cuts and staff shortages that have left the care sector so depleted. If elderly and disabled people find themselves dying untreated in care homes in large numbers, this might – and should – become a point of national shame over the coming weeks.
The Tories' direction of travel is towards a social insurance system, whereby people pay in to a fund during their working lives that gives them access to care provision when they need it. But those who are retired or have lifelong care needs won't be able to pay into an insurance scheme before receiving care. These immediate care needs will need direct public funding, not long-term insurance.
Labour under Jeremy Corbyn took a different tack: universal free personal care for the over-65s, with an ambition to extend this to all working age adults. This is simpler and more inclusive than our current means tested mess, but it doesn't come cheap. The King's Fund estimated the cost as £5.5bn in 2020/21, rising to £8bn in 2030/31.
Keir Starmer will be under pressure from some to stick with their existing policy, and from others to engage with social insurance proposals. Keeping Labour MPs united behind whatever strategy he adopts won't be easy.
But it's plausible the Tories will also be pulled in another direction – towards volunteerism. The party's social and fiscal conservatives – uneasy bedfellows in recent years – could use the increased community cooperation seen amid the pandemic as evidence that volunteers and family members can take on more of the care burden, while still improving pay and conditions for care staff.
Expect to see rhetoric that the pandemic has 'unleashed' Britain's 'community spirit', which should be 'channelled' after the crisis by relying on family and neighbours to 'look in' on people in need – the soft-soap version of women doing unpaid care work in lieu of public services. The current trend in care provision is towards making use of what 'assets' people already have, including friends and family – an approach that can be used for good or ill. The temptation for the government to lean on unpaid volunteers instead of the taxpayer is not hard to imagine.
The care system was the biggest public service challenge facing the government before coronavirus. Now that's been magnified tenfold. It could become one of the big battlegrounds of post-pandemic politics, between competing visions of society based on universalism, managed markets, and volunteerism.
Bob Crow was right
Before his death in 2014, Bob Crow was one of the most demonised figures in Britain. His readiness to threaten to shut down rail networks as head of the RMT union made him a bête noire for commuters, causing considerable disruption.
Crow was a rarity in post-Thatcher Britain – a union leader who was ready to use strike action as a sword, not just a shield. Whereas most unions only went on strike in defence of existing jobs, pay and conditions, Crow levered the criticality of the role of his members to transform their economic position.
He was accused of holding passengers and politicians to ransom, but his argument was a simple one: the disruption caused by his members going on strike showed how important their role was, and they should be paid more – much more – to reflect this.
It has taken the worst pandemic in more than a century for many people to realise this point. Pay does not necessarily reflect the importance of a worker's role – in fact, very often it does nothing of the sort. Pay reflects many factors: supply and demand of labour, required skills and levels of education, the strength or weakness of collective bargaining, the resources of the employer, and the profit-making productivity of the role. The social necessity of the role comes below pretty much all of them.
There may well be a post-pandemic cross-party consensus for a higher minimum wage and more protection from exploitation – action on zero hours contracts, for example – to protect low-paid workers from poverty.
But Crow didn't want his members to be low paid at all. He wanted to transform their economic station. We keep hearing about essential workers in cleaning, portering, social care and customer service. Will this be rewarded with more middle class pay and conditions?
There are reasons to be doubtful. There will likely be broad acceptance of the importance of care workers, who are a very visible part of the fight against coronavirus. But that does not mean politicians will be ready to fork out for transformative pay rises. Will Starmer accept billions of pounds of extra spending on top of the £11bn Labour has already earmarked for social care, let alone the Tories?
And where is the industrial, political or public pressure going to come from to secure such pay rises for the often migrant workers in portering and cleaning? We don't want to accept it, but many workers on middle incomes would sneer at the idea of porters and cleaners being paid the same as them.
The safety net
The benefit system has taken a battering over the last decade. Now the economic shutdown is driving more than a million people to seek refuge in the rubble left behind.
The government has responded by performing emergency repairs – raising benefit payments and scrapping job search requirements in a desperate attempt to stop the newly unemployed middle classes struggling in the way the unemployed poor were expected to.
Things could play out from here in a number of ways. If Universal Credit functions to a level the government can live with, they will declare the system a success, leaving Starmer in a politically difficult position. Will he keep Labour's pledge to axe what will have become an established system, or switch to reforming it, thus angering his left flank. Labour may try and build a minimum income guarantee using the framework of this system. Or they may 'abolish' Universal Credit by tweaking it and changing its name.
If Universal Credit simply topples over – unable to process claims properly, or pay out the right sums of money – the government might be forced to give up its costly and chaotic flagship scheme.
What then? Labour would push for a more generous system with far fewer conditions and sanctions. The Tories would be truly hamstrung, having in this scenario wasted a decade on a failed system.
Public opinion would not necessarily favour a more generous, less judgemental approach. The declared end of the pandemic, and the gradual return to some kind of economic normality, would likely bring back demands that the unemployed get back to work, and that they be cattle-prodded into doing so. Laid off workers do not carry the same image as health and care workers in this pandemic – and doubtless right wing ideologues will start shouting about the deficit the first chance they get.
But if the economic recovery is insipid, with little job creation, enduring high unemployment, and a stop-start lockdown as the virus returns, both parties could be drawn to more universal systems – a minimum income guarantee set at a liveable level, or even a Universal Basic Income.
The government toyed with introducing UBI last month, but it would face wide opposition from Tory MPs unhappy at its cost. Claire Ainsley, who is expected to be unveiled as Starmer's policy chief, is also a sceptic. It is expensive, blunt and largely untested. But if jobs don't reappear as the pandemic passes, the 'on yer bike' mentality that has underpinned the benefit system for decades will itself be left redundant.
A costly affair
Britain is running up huge deficits as sectors of the economy grind to a halt. How will all this be paid for? Starmer is calling for higher taxes on the rich, but that alone is unlikely to be sufficient, especially if corporate profits remain depressed for years. Everyone is going to have to pay more.
Could the Tories go in for funding cuts? Perhaps – but likely not at the scale we've seen. The big targets after 2010 were local government and welfare. The former can't be cut further without it collapsing. The Tories may winnow away at the latter. Foreign aid could take a hit. But the party would have to tear up its electoral strategy of higher spending on schools, hospitals and police to recreate full-blown Osbornomics.
Labour, and possibly even the Tories, may look to wealth taxes to help bring down the deficit. Taxing people's wealth would be a major shift in Britain's approach, and could finally tackle one of the key sources of economic inequality.
But there's a problem. The richest hold most of their wealth as financial assets, meaning they can easily move it to offshore tax havens. Fixed assets, like houses, tend to benefit the middle classes. Taxing property wealth could hit Tory homeowners while barely affecting hedge fund billionaires. Targeting the latter would require a Tory government to clamp down hard on tax havens.
Conservative MPs are likely to be split on middle class tax rises and spending cuts. If the Tories go after tax havens and impose a progressive wealth tax, it would be one of the most dramatic changes the pandemic brings about. The curtailment of the free movement of capital would be a paradigm-shifting development, and an extraordinary one for a Conservative government.
What does need to happen is for governments to spend on preventative services – such as social care – in the knowledge that this will cut required spending down the line. Only when that happens will Britain's fiscal politics finally grow up.
But on a variety of fronts, the British are going to have to decide what it is we are willing to pay for. If we want functioning public services and low deficits, we'll have to pay more tax. If we want properly paid frontline public servants, we'll have to pay more tax still. If we want to end poverty pay, we may have to pay more for goods. If we want to protect the high street, or British producers, we may have to pay more in digital sales taxes or import tariffs.
Cakeism has run out of road.
The known unknowns
If Britain does head down the path of higher taxes, more generous benefits and greater public provision, our politics and economy will start to look more European – either universalist northern European, or rather more patriarchal southern European.
But the irony is, we'll be firmly outside Europe. Nothing that is happening right now will be fostering a European identity among voters. And if the government decides to take radical action on the economy, that could mean Britain fundamentally diverges from EU rules, keeping us on a separate path into the future.
All this is predicated on coronavirus being conclusively 'defeated', and a one-off in its mortality, geographical spread and disruption. Those are the prerequisites for things eventually returning to some recognisable norm.
If, however, pandemics of this scale become even semi-regular, shutting down national economies for months at a time, everything changes. Rents become unpayable, debts unaffordable, jobs untenable, the economy itself unsustainable. When Rupert Harrison, George Osborne's former adviser, is openly suggesting debt forgiveness, we are in very new territory.
Most people will want life to get back to normal as soon as possible. But if normal never comes, anything goes. And even the most radical ideas we've discussed would be on the moderate end of what could happen then.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-04-06--In the worst of times, coronavirus provides some reasons to be positive

We may not feel lucky to be alive at this moment , but we are .
Covid-19 feels so acute and terrifying because crises like these have become so rare .
That so many of us usually live every day free from the immediate experience of large-scale tragedy and without immediate concern for the wellbeing of our loved ones is a privilege distinct to our moment in history , and not one shared in every part of the world .
Indeed , there have been far worse moments to live through a global pandemic .
Our response to the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our society values and how it functions .
It is also exposing – with great clarity – how we might better cope with the challenges that are coming .
It is difficult to imagine a whole society engaging in radical social distancing in a time before the arrival of the internet , with its video conferencing and streamable box sets .
But at least the pre-web world of , say , the late 80s would have had a recognisable procedural and ethical response to a disease like covid-19 .
For most of history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to detect the virus .
Even after the development of microscopy and a decent grasp of the function of the human immune system , we would have been much further into a world of unnecessary deaths before this would have seemed like anything other than a particularly long and terrible winter .
It is possible to think of human societies that , confronted by this pandemic , would not have shared our near-universal commitment to do everything possible – to pay practically any price – to protect our most vulnerable people .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlier , but it is notable how the idea that it would be acceptable to allow some 'excess deaths ' has failed to gain any real traction .
Even those who argue that the government is overreacting are doing so on the basis that they think the subsequent economic shock will kill or immiserate even more people .
For all the mistakes and arguments over interpreting the science or getting the timings wrong , there is much to be proud of in our society ’ s response to the pandemic .
It reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-context problem as humanely as possible .
But there is also much to learn from this experience .
Covid-19 provides an opportunity to start taking an epidemiologist ’ s view on the long-term trends that affect our societies .
This is important , because the issues that are set to transform the world in this century – technological revolution , climate change , the legitimacy crisis in our democratic institutions – share some of the features of the pandemic .
For one thing , they each have a pandemic 's potential for exponential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our current everyday can suddenly leap forward , blind-siding the unprepared .
Exponential progressions are so much harder for us to process than linear ones .
It takes practice .
One lesson from this pandemic is that we should be imagining a new way for communities to function now , because by the time the need for these changes becomes self-evident , we will already be far behind the curve .
It is difficult to calibrate a public health response to a virus currently killing dozens of people unless we understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be killing thousands .
In the same way , we should be thinking of comparable tipping points and rapid accelerations as we plan ahead for big leaps in artificial intelligence , or the gear-shift from general discontent to large-scale public demonstration against untrusted institutions .
The effects of climate change could dramatically speed up if , for example , the great carbon sinks of oceanic life start to falter .
This could lead to the release of exponentially greater levels of greenhouse gases rather than the slow grind toward a warmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just like Covid-19 , these crises require a coordinated response at both the largest and smallest scales – from international cooperation down to the level of neighbourhoods or even households .
Neither scale of approach will be enough on its own .
While a global drama plays out , it is our local governments that are keeping our public services in motion , our local communities that are supporting vulnerable people amid self-isolation .
Finally , each of these crises will increasingly demand that we get used to the cold calculations of crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are often no good outcomes , only less-worse ones , and where the incredible complexity of each decision highlights the looming possibility of unintended consequences .
In such a world , as we are already finding from the pandemic , there is no place for the simplistic populism of so many contemporary politicians .
The last few weeks have exposed both the fundamental strength of our society and the ways in which it can be preserved .
We already have the tools we need to make our communities more resilient .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 , total crises may once again become a normal part of our lives .
Simon Kaye is senior policy researcher at the New Local Government Network .
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 Simon Kaye
We may not feel lucky to be alive at this moment, but we are. Covid-19 feels so acute and terrifying because crises like these have become so rare. That so many of us usually live every day free from the immediate experience of large-scale tragedy and without immediate concern for the wellbeing of our loved ones is a privilege distinct to our moment in history, and not one shared in every part of the world.
Indeed, there have been far worse moments to live through a global pandemic. Our response to the virus is exposing something fundamentally positive about what our society values and how it functions. It is also exposing – with great clarity – how we might better cope with the challenges that are coming.
It is difficult to imagine a whole society engaging in radical social distancing in a time before the arrival of the internet, with its video conferencing and streamable box sets. But at least the pre-web world of, say, the late 80s would have had a recognisable procedural and ethical response to a disease like covid-19. For most of history, we would have lacked the ability to detect the virus. Even after the development of microscopy and a decent grasp of the function of the human immune system, we would have been much further into a world of unnecessary deaths before this would have seemed like anything other than a particularly long and terrible winter.
It is possible to think of human societies that, confronted by this pandemic, would not have shared our near-universal commitment to do everything possible – to pay practically any price – to protect our most vulnerable people. We have a habit of focusing on the outlier, but it is notable how the idea that it would be acceptable to allow some 'excess deaths' has failed to gain any real traction. Even those who argue that the government is overreacting are doing so on the basis that they think the subsequent economic shock will kill or immiserate even more people.
For all the mistakes and arguments over interpreting the science or getting the timings wrong, there is much to be proud of in our society’s response to the pandemic. It reflects a sincere attempt to grapple with an out-of-context problem as humanely as possible.
But there is also much to learn from this experience. Covid-19 provides an opportunity to start taking an epidemiologist’s view on the long-term trends that affect our societies. This is important, because the issues that are set to transform the world in this century – technological revolution, climate change, the legitimacy crisis in our democratic institutions – share some of the features of the pandemic. For one thing, they each have a pandemic's potential for exponential progression, so the relatively piecemeal shifts of our current everyday can suddenly leap forward, blind-siding the unprepared.
Exponential progressions are so much harder for us to process than linear ones. It takes practice. One lesson from this pandemic is that we should be imagining a new way for communities to function now, because by the time the need for these changes becomes self-evident, we will already be far behind the curve.
It is difficult to calibrate a public health response to a virus currently killing dozens of people unless we understand that, in a matter of days, it will be killing thousands. In the same way, we should be thinking of comparable tipping points and rapid accelerations as we plan ahead for big leaps in artificial intelligence, or the gear-shift from general discontent to large-scale public demonstration against untrusted institutions. The effects of climate change could dramatically speed up if, for example, the great carbon sinks of oceanic life start to falter. This could lead to the release of exponentially greater levels of greenhouse gases rather than the slow grind toward a warmer Earth that we are currently experiencing.
Just like Covid-19, these crises require a coordinated response at both the largest and smallest scales – from international cooperation down to the level of neighbourhoods or even households. Neither scale of approach will be enough on its own. While a global drama plays out, it is our local governments that are keeping our public services in motion, our local communities that are supporting vulnerable people amid self-isolation.
Finally, each of these crises will increasingly demand that we get used to the cold calculations of crisis mitigation: a kind of politics where there are often no good outcomes, only less-worse ones, and where the incredible complexity of each decision highlights the looming possibility of unintended consequences. In such a world, as we are already finding from the pandemic, there is no place for the simplistic populism of so many contemporary politicians.
The last few weeks have exposed both the fundamental strength of our society and the ways in which it can be preserved. We already have the tools we need to make our communities more resilient. But if we fail to learn the lessons of Covid-19, total crises may once again become a normal part of our lives.
Simon Kaye is senior policy researcher at the New Local Government Network.
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--2020-04-03--Week in Review: The last day of Jeremy Corbyn

Finally , it 's done .
This is Jeremy Corbyn 's last day as Labour leader .
The experiment has been a disaster of biblical proportions .
That is a point of electoral fact which can not be negated by insisting that he 'won the argument ' or with limp suggestions that the coronavirus response is somehow a validation of his political ideology .
He failed at the ballot box .
He failed to provide opposition during one of the most crucial periods of British political history .
He failed to even have a policy on the only debate taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He failed to tackle anti-semitism .
He failed in his ideas , he failed in presenting them and he failed in implementing them .
His failures are legion and could go on for pages .
It was the worst possible moment for it .
Labour went absent just as the country was facing a powerful resurgence of reactionary nationalist sentiment .
It meant that internationalists were denied an effective parliamentary vehicle to fight back and were instead reduced to rebellious MPs and a protest movement .
Those two groups fought a brave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from left and right .
But without the opposition party behind it , it was always an uphill battle .
When the history books are written , it will be Corbyn - not Theresa May or Boris Johnson- who is treated as the main explanatory factor in Britain 's deluded festival of hara kiri .
But we know all that .
It 's done .
So today is a useful opportunity to ask a different question .
What did we learn from the Corbyn movement which might stop us making similar mistakes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that is not policy , but attitude .
The Corbyn machine was based on denial of reality born out of faith .
And it is the faith that must be killed .
There is no place for it in politics .
It does not nurture hope .
It encourages hatred .
Corbyn pursued politics without any suspicion that he might ever be wrong .
His views were fundamentally unchangeable .
They were set in the 70s and they lasted until today .
No evidence against them could ever permeate the certainty with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the character of those at the top and this was equally true for his movement .
Corbyn was the saint , the prophet , the man whose inability to scrutinise himself was rebranded as unshakeable conviction .
So many of those who followed him - not all , by any measure , but enough to define the movement - adopted the same approach .
Saint Jeremy could not be challenged .
If events went against him , it was not because he failed in some way .
That was unthinkable .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him , from the media , or opponents in the Labour party , or the Remain movement .
The motivations of those who criticised him could never be genuine or their opinions truly held .
They had to be cynical , scheming , in-it-for-themselves , liars , cheats , hypocrites , in league with big media or big money .
The Corbyn movement was an example of epistemological breakdown .
It 's psychologically identical to what happens to conspiracy theorists .
You accept your truth .
It becomes unchallengeable .
Then everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to a shadowy effort by powerful forces to undermine it .
And soon reality falls away .
The world is degraded in order to shore up one 's faith .
It is no coincidence that Labour fell victim to anti-semitism , the oldest of all the conspiracy theories .
The structure of that form of thinking is identical .
It is just a short step from questioning the motivations of those who challenge the leader to deciding that anyone who interrogates their record on anti-semitism is in the pay of Israel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same which constructed mental defences against objective reality .
And the party structure which failed to deal with it was the same which treated any criticism of itself as suspect .
The Corbyn movement was motivated by decent sentiments about helping the poor , nationally and internationally .
But this messianic approach to politics never ends in kindness or gentleness .
It always ends with tribal hatred .
And you can see it today .
The remains of the Corbyn movement online are behaving now precisely the way they behaved in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who disagree with them .
Anyone who has ever criticised Corbyn on social media knows how this works .
They know the constant stream of hatred which follows .
For many people - especially Jewish people , especially women - that became a nightmare that followed them into the real world , requiring security protection or forcing them from the party .
But when that happened , there was no moment of self-doubt , no flicker of moral recognition about the severity of what had occurred .
There could n't be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set .
So this too had to be translated into an attack against the leadership .
The Corbyn movement became a self-perpetuating system for moral justification .
Even when the things it witnessed were the direct results of its own actions , they had to be reformulated as evidence of conspiracy against it .
That 's the lesson we can take from this .
It is not about policy .
Any number of Corbyn policies - although perhaps not all of them at the same time - could win in a British general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent way .
It 's not even about presentation , even though that left much to be desired .
It is about how you conduct yourself in politics .
That goes no matter where you are on the political spectrum .
We must never give in to the pull of hero worship .
We must temper our support for a leader with a commitment to objective reality .
We must resist the allure of conspiracy theory .
We must leave ourselves open to doubt .
We must reject faith .
We 've lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if we can take that from this debacle , at least we 'll have gained something .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out later this year .
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 .

Finally, it's done. This is Jeremy Corbyn's last day as Labour leader.
The experiment has been a disaster of biblical proportions. That is a point of electoral fact which cannot be negated by insisting that he 'won the argument' or with limp suggestions that the coronavirus response is somehow a validation of his political ideology.
He failed at the ballot box. He failed to provide opposition during one of the most crucial periods of British political history. He failed to even have a policy on the only debate taking place in the country since the referendum. He failed to tackle anti-semitism. He failed in his ideas, he failed in presenting them and he failed in implementing them.
His failures are legion and could go on for pages. It was the worst possible moment for it. Labour went absent just as the country was facing a powerful resurgence of reactionary nationalist sentiment. It meant that internationalists were denied an effective parliamentary vehicle to fight back and were instead reduced to rebellious MPs and a protest movement.
Those two groups fought a brave, principled campaign, under constant attack from left and right. But without the opposition party behind it, it was always an uphill battle. When the history books are written, it will be Corbyn – not Theresa May or Boris Johnson- who is treated as the main explanatory factor in Britain's deluded festival of hara kiri.
But we know all that. It's done. So today is a useful opportunity to ask a different question. What did we learn from the Corbyn movement which might stop us making similar mistakes in the future? And at the heart of that is not policy, but attitude.
The Corbyn machine was based on denial of reality born out of faith. And it is the faith that must be killed. There is no place for it in politics. It does not nurture hope. It encourages hatred.
Corbyn pursued politics without any suspicion that he might ever be wrong. His views were fundamentally unchangeable. They were set in the 70s and they lasted until today. No evidence against them could ever permeate the certainty with which they were held.
Organisations take on the character of those at the top and this was equally true for his movement. Corbyn was the saint, the prophet, the man whose inability to scrutinise himself was rebranded as unshakeable conviction. So many of those who followed him – not all, by any measure, but enough to define the movement – adopted the same approach.
Saint Jeremy could not be challenged. If events went against him, it was not because he failed in some way. That was unthinkable. It had to be because of a conspiracy against him, from the media, or opponents in the Labour party, or the Remain movement. The motivations of those who criticised him could never be genuine or their opinions truly held. They had to be cynical, scheming, in-it-for-themselves, liars, cheats, hypocrites, in league with big media or big money.
The Corbyn movement was an example of epistemological breakdown. It's psychologically identical to what happens to conspiracy theorists. You accept your truth. It becomes unchallengeable. Then everything which might disprove it must be put down to a shadowy effort by powerful forces to undermine it. And soon reality falls away. The world is degraded in order to shore up one's faith.
It is no coincidence that Labour fell victim to anti-semitism, the oldest of all the conspiracy theories. The structure of that form of thinking is identical. It is just a short step from questioning the motivations of those who challenge the leader to deciding that anyone who interrogates their record on anti-semitism is in the pay of Israel. The culture which fostered anti-semitism is the same which constructed mental defences against objective reality. And the party structure which failed to deal with it was the same which treated any criticism of itself as suspect.
The Corbyn movement was motivated by decent sentiments about helping the poor, nationally and internationally. But this messianic approach to politics never ends in kindness or gentleness. It always ends with tribal hatred. And you can see it today. The remains of the Corbyn movement online are behaving now precisely the way they behaved in the early days: with threats and abuse against those who disagree with them.
Anyone who has ever criticised Corbyn on social media knows how this works. They know the constant stream of hatred which follows. For many people – especially Jewish people, especially women – that became a nightmare that followed them into the real world, requiring security protection or forcing them from the party.
But when that happened, there was no moment of self-doubt, no flicker of moral recognition about the severity of what had occurred. There couldn't be, because the mental walls were too strongly set. So this too had to be translated into an attack against the leadership. The Corbyn movement became a self-perpetuating system for moral justification. Even when the things it witnessed were the direct results of its own actions, they had to be reformulated as evidence of conspiracy against it.
That's the lesson we can take from this. It is not about policy. Any number of Corbyn policies – although perhaps not all of them at the same time – could win in a British general election if presented in a convincing and competent way. It's not even about presentation, even though that left much to be desired. It is about how you conduct yourself in politics.
That goes no matter where you are on the political spectrum. We must never give in to the pull of hero worship. We must temper our support for a leader with a commitment to objective reality. We must resist the allure of conspiracy theory. We must leave ourselves open to doubt. We must reject faith.
We've lost so much over the last few years. But if we can take that from this debacle, at least we'll have gained something.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
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--2020-03-31--Brexit & coronavirus: This is no time for ideology

By Jonathan Lis Last week the government did something so jaw-dropping , so irrational , and so fully against the national interest that even hardened Brexit observers struggled to take it in .
In a quieter news cycle , it would have constituted a national scandal .
But this is not such a news cycle .
The facts are these .
We are gripped by a deadly pandemic .
We urgently require ventilators we do not have .
The government first declined an opportunity to procure them through the EU , then announced it was because we were no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had ever even received the invitation .
The story is literally incredible .
In the last few days a chronology of events has begun to take shape .
According to the Guardian , which has seen official documents , EU meetings about the virus began in January , with the UK participating in eight of them .
On January 31st – Brexit day , and also the day the first infected patient was identified in the UK – the EU held a meeting about the joint procurement of personal protective equipment .
UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further meetings addressing procurement , according to the Guardian , including , on March 13th , ventilators .
Two days later , European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced the scheme amid wide publicity , reported across the British media .
The EU publicly confirmed that the UK , as a de facto member during the transition period , was eligible to take part .
On March 19th , health secretary Matt Hancock confirmed on the BBC ’ s Question Time that the government had been invited to join the scheme and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , so adult .
But then something peculiar happened .
In the middle of the UK 's worst public health crisis in a century , when doctors were clamouring for life-saving equipment they did n't have , the British government announced that it would not be joining the EU 's scheme .
On March 26th , the prime minister 's spokesman declared it was `` because we are no longer members of the EU '' and were `` doing our own work on ventilators '' .
And then something even more peculiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government changed its story .
Later that day , it announced that it was not joining the scheme because , `` owing to an initial communication problem , the UK did not receive an invitation in time '' .
They were genuinely claiming to have missed an email .
True or false , it 's intolerable .
If the government missed an email , it was guilty of the grossest incompetence , especially as it knew full well the scheme existed .
If it entirely manufactured the story about the email , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British public on a matter of life-or-death importance .
If it thought it did n't need the EU , it was ignoring all the available evidence , including from its own 2016 pandemic review , which revealed a severe absence of life-saving equipment .
And if it did know it needed the ventilators , it was consciously privileging its hatred of the EU over British people 's lives .
When questioned by Andrew Marr on Sunday , Michael Gove spun the old cynical nonsense that the UK was now an `` independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spain are n't , and as though this was a question of choosing one 's own resources or the EU 's .
It is not , in fact , a choice .
The UK was fully entitled to participate in the joint procurement scheme while sourcing other ventilators unilaterally .
A ventilator has no sovereignty .
We can take back control and still help people to breathe .
The conclusion is stark .
It 's pretty clear that the government was offered help , refused , and then lied to cover it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems clear as well .
The government seriously misread the public mood .
Ministers presumably thought that cooperating with the EU in any circumstances would offer bad optics and negative headlines .
But they were wrong .
Nobody who needs a ventilator cares where it is coming from , provided it is safe , legal and operated by a qualified doctor or nurse .
People want more cooperation , not less .
They are prepared to make any number of personal sacrifices to defeat the virus and help the NHS .
A Focaldata @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even indicated that 64 % of the public wanted to extend the Brexit transition period – something the government has so far categorically refused .
If there is anything positive to draw from this wretched episode , it is that the British people are far less ideological than their leaders .
Ideology is fast succumbing to events .
Hard-right politicians have become de facto socialists , investing unprecedented sums to rescue livelihoods and stimulate the economy .
British exceptionalism , as expressed through the myth that the UK was uniquely prepared for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replaced by ministers desperately emulating their continental neighbours .
Even the culture war is fraying , with the 'it's-only-flu ' brigade relegated to the margins of the debate .
Only the government 's founding ideology and last obsessive redoubt remains : its europhobia .
The basic lesson now strikes harder than ever : this is not the time for ideology .
Coronavirus could kill tens of thousands of Britons , and we have only one chance to stop it .
If the government can momentarily abandon capitalism to save the economy , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU to save people 's lives .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator .
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 .

Last week the government did something so jaw-dropping, so irrational, and so fully against the national interest that even hardened Brexit observers struggled to take it in. In a quieter news cycle, it would have constituted a national scandal. But this is not such a news cycle.
The facts are these. We are gripped by a deadly pandemic. We urgently require ventilators we do not have. The government first declined an opportunity to procure them through the EU, then announced it was because we were no longer a member, then finally denied it had ever even received the invitation. The story is literally incredible.
In the last few days a chronology of events has begun to take shape. According to the Guardian, which has seen official documents, EU meetings about the virus began in January, with the UK participating in eight of them. On January 31st – Brexit day, and also the day the first infected patient was identified in the UK – the EU held a meeting about the joint procurement of personal protective equipment.
UK officials were present in at least three further meetings addressing procurement, according to the Guardian, including, on March 13th, ventilators. Two days later, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced the scheme amid wide publicity, reported across the British media. The EU publicly confirmed that the UK, as a de facto member during the transition period, was eligible to take part. On March 19th, health secretary Matt Hancock confirmed on the BBC’s Question Time that the government had been invited to join the scheme and was engaging with the EU.
So far, so adult. But then something peculiar happened. In the middle of the UK’s worst public health crisis in a century, when doctors were clamouring for life-saving equipment they didn’t have, the British government announced that it would not be joining the EU’s scheme. On March 26th, the prime minister’s spokesman declared it was “because we are no longer members of the EU” and were “doing our own work on ventilators”.
And then something even more peculiar happened. Amid a growing outcry, the government changed its story. Later that day, it announced that it was not joining the scheme because, “owing to an initial communication problem, the UK did not receive an invitation in time”. They were genuinely claiming to have missed an email.
True or false, it’s intolerable. If the government missed an email, it was guilty of the grossest incompetence, especially as it knew full well the scheme existed. If it entirely manufactured the story about the email, it was telling a barefaced lie to the British public on a matter of life-or-death importance. If it thought it didn’t need the EU, it was ignoring all the available evidence, including from its own 2016 pandemic review, which revealed a severe absence of life-saving equipment. And if it did know it needed the ventilators, it was consciously privileging its hatred of the EU over British people’s lives.
When questioned by Andrew Marr on Sunday, Michael Gove spun the old cynical nonsense that the UK was now an “independent country” – as though France and Spain aren’t, and as though this was a question of choosing one’s own resources or the EU’s. It is not, in fact, a choice. The UK was fully entitled to participate in the joint procurement scheme while sourcing other ventilators unilaterally. A ventilator has no sovereignty. We can take back control and still help people to breathe.
The conclusion is stark. It’s pretty clear that the government was offered help, refused, and then lied to cover it up.
The reason for the communications U-turn seems clear as well. The government seriously misread the public mood. Ministers presumably thought that cooperating with the EU in any circumstances would offer bad optics and negative headlines. But they were wrong. Nobody who needs a ventilator cares where it is coming from, provided it is safe, legal and operated by a qualified doctor or nurse.
People want more cooperation, not less. They are prepared to make any number of personal sacrifices to defeat the virus and help the NHS. A Focaldata poll for Best for Britain last week even indicated that 64% of the public wanted to extend the Brexit transition period – something the government has so far categorically refused. If there is anything positive to draw from this wretched episode, it is that the British people are far less ideological than their leaders.
Ideology is fast succumbing to events. Hard-right politicians have become de facto socialists, investing unprecedented sums to rescue livelihoods and stimulate the economy. British exceptionalism, as expressed through the myth that the UK was uniquely prepared for the horror and responding differently, has been replaced by ministers desperately emulating their continental neighbours. Even the culture war is fraying, with the ‘it’s-only-flu’ brigade relegated to the margins of the debate. Only the government’s founding ideology and last obsessive redoubt remains: its europhobia.
The basic lesson now strikes harder than ever: this is not the time for ideology. Coronavirus could kill tens of thousands of Britons, and we have only one chance to stop it. If the government can momentarily abandon capitalism to save the economy, it can momentarily abandon its hatred of the EU to save people’s lives.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
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.