politicscouk--2020-03-05--Rise of Sinn Fein: Irish unity is now mainstream

`` There are decades where nothing happens , '' remarked Vladimir Lenin , `` and there are weeks where decades happen . ''
You do n't get much chance to quote Lenin approvingly these days , yet Mary-Lou McDonald managed it when she responded to Sinn Fein 's remarkable breakthrough in the Irish general election .
It was pretty apt .
In her first election as Gerry Adams ' successor as Sinn Fein president , McDonald has shattered the cosy cartel running Irish politics - dominated , as it has been for nearly a century , by two decrepit but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fine Gael and Fianna Fail .
With 24.5 % of the vote in the Irish Republic 's election – on a 10.7 % swing - Sinn Fein has truly moved centre-stage .
It beat Fianna Fail on 22.2 % and Fine Gael on 20.9 % .
Still , this only netted 38 seats in the 160-seat Dáil .
The surge in public support caught their own strategists off-guard , with the party only standing 40 candidates to maximise their vote in the complex multi-member system used in Irish elections .
Nevertheless , having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fianna Fail in terms of seats , Sinn Fein is in the ascendant .
This week will see talks intensify about forming a new Irish government between Leo Varadkar 's Fine Gael , in power since 2011 and latterly reliant on a confidence and supply arrangement with the other behemoth of Irish political , Fianna Fail , led by former Irish foreign minister , Micheál Martin .
Both parties are trying to freeze-out Sinn Fein as they discuss forming a `` grand coalition '' .
Trouble is , they are doing so with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandas - and quite possibly with the same outcome .
There 's a palpable sense that something has changed and for the old parties to try and cook up a deal , when they have been so roundly rejected by voters , feels contrary to the moment .
Indeed , there are voices within Fianna Fail that want to break free from their support of Varadkar and see a tie-up with Sinn Fein as a good fit .
If not , then a new poll suggests that if there needs to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the vote and batter both parties .
Three things happened in this Irish election .
The first and most obvious is that Sinn Fein went mainstream – and in a big way .
So long on the margins of southern Irish politics , the Shinners have assiduously positioned themselves as the centre-left alternative to an old pals network where two centre-right parties , albeit presiding over a booming economy – have done little to spread the benefits fairly .
Housing , healthcare and homelessness dominated the election .
As a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in the state retirement age and emphasis on the spiralling costs of rents and childcare struck a chord , particularly with frazzled younger voters .
In the south , the party of Irish unity is also the party of reducing economic inequality .
The Irish Labour Party – like the British Lib Dems – is still blamed for the crushing austerity measures they drove through as junior coalition partners to Fine Gael a decade ago and is now effectively moribund .
The second is that Sinn Fein has a popular and resonant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland 's oldest party , McDonald is a class act .
The 48 year-old Dubliner is poised , fluent and likeable , with a classless appeal .
A poll over the weekend showed her satisfaction rating is now 22 points ahead of Martin , her nearest rival .
It has increased 13 % since the election .
Sinn Fein 's campaigning – particularly on social media – is streets ahead of the other parties .
The third is that Varadkar 's diplomatic 'victory ' over the UK in the Brexit negotiations did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either him or Fine Gael .
There is something tin-eared about Varadkar .
The warning signs in terms of domestic disquiet about widening inequality were ignored for too long .
Tip O'Neill ’ s aphorism that `` all politics is local '' serves as a perennial reminder that the electorate is always primarily concerned with standard of living issues .
Something structural is changing , though , to Sinn Fein ’ s longer-term advantage .
There was a co-ordinated attempt between their opponents and the panjandrums of the Irish media class to rake-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , it is alleged , by former IRA members – it barely affected their popularity .
The cordon sanitaire that Dublin 's media and political classes have erected around Sinn Fein no longer has any effect .
For many southern voters , the past is becoming the past .
Although Ireland 's age profile is actually rising , a third of the population remains under 25 .
Memories of the Troubles are mainly vicarious for anyone under 40 .
But this election was also about something prosaic .
It 's another incremental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcing a bigger realignment in Irish politics .
For McDonald , it was part of a strategy about locking-in three-party politics and then , over time , forcing Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to cannibalise each other 's support , allowing a more familiar right-left model to emerge .
What does it all mean for Northern Ireland ?
The southern political establishment , so long reluctant to engage meaningfully with the prospect of Irish unity , will now find the subject impossible to ignore .
Either Sinn Fein ends up as a coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or it influences the political weather as the main opposition party .
The ancien regime would n't be the ancien regime unless it tried to cling onto power .
But if a deal between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael falters and opens the door to Sinn Fein entering government instead , then it will see British ministers dealing with Mary-Lou McDonald either as foreign minister and Tánaiste ( deputy PM ) or even , perhaps , as Taoiseach .
If Boris Johnson thought his dealings with Varadkar were difficult , he 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the author of A United Ireland : Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about .
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 Kevin Meagher
“There are decades where nothing happens,” remarked Vladimir Lenin, “and there are weeks where decades happen.” You don’t get much chance to quote Lenin approvingly these days, yet Mary-Lou McDonald managed it when she responded to Sinn Fein’s remarkable breakthrough in the Irish general election.
It was pretty apt. In her first election as Gerry Adams’ successor as Sinn Fein president, McDonald has shattered the cosy cartel running Irish politics – dominated, as it has been for nearly a century, by two decrepit but maddeningly resilient parties of the centre-right – Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.
With 24.5% of the vote in the Irish Republic’s election – on a 10.7% swing – Sinn Fein has truly moved centre-stage. It beat Fianna Fail on 22.2% and Fine Gael on 20.9%. Still, this only netted 38 seats in the 160-seat Dáil. The surge in public support caught their own strategists off-guard, with the party only standing 40 candidates to maximise their vote in the complex multi-member system used in Irish elections.
Nevertheless, having won the popular vote and tied with Fianna Fail in terms of seats, Sinn Fein is in the ascendant. This week will see talks intensify about forming a new Irish government between Leo Varadkar’s Fine Gael, in power since 2011 and latterly reliant on a confidence and supply arrangement with the other behemoth of Irish political, Fianna Fail, led by former Irish foreign minister, Micheál Martin.
Both parties are trying to freeze-out Sinn Fein as they discuss forming a “grand coalition”. Trouble is, they are doing so with all the energy and enthusiasm of mating pandas – and quite possibly with the same outcome. There’s a palpable sense that something has changed and for the old parties to try and cook up a deal, when they have been so roundly rejected by voters, feels contrary to the moment.
Indeed, there are voices within Fianna Fail that want to break free from their support of Varadkar and see a tie-up with Sinn Fein as a good fit. If not, then a new poll suggests that if there needs to be a second election, SF would win 35% of the vote and batter both parties.
Three things happened in this Irish election. The first and most obvious is that Sinn Fein went mainstream – and in a big way. So long on the margins of southern Irish politics, the Shinners have assiduously positioned themselves as the centre-left alternative to an old pals network where two centre-right parties, albeit presiding over a booming economy – have done little to spread the benefits fairly.
Housing, healthcare and homelessness dominated the election. As a result, Sinn Fein’s opposition to any increase in the state retirement age and emphasis on the spiralling costs of rents and childcare struck a chord, particularly with frazzled younger voters.
In the south, the party of Irish unity is also the party of reducing economic inequality. The Irish Labour Party – like the British Lib Dems – is still blamed for the crushing austerity measures they drove through as junior coalition partners to Fine Gael a decade ago and is now effectively moribund.
The second is that Sinn Fein has a popular and resonant leader. As the new face leading Ireland’s oldest party, McDonald is a class act. The 48 year-old Dubliner is poised, fluent and likeable, with a classless appeal. A poll over the weekend showed her satisfaction rating is now 22 points ahead of Martin, her nearest rival. It has increased 13% since the election. Sinn Fein’s campaigning – particularly on social media – is streets ahead of the other parties.
The third is that Varadkar’s diplomatic ‘victory’ over the UK in the Brexit negotiations didn’t translate through into sustainable domestic popularity for either him or Fine Gael. There is something tin-eared about Varadkar. The warning signs in terms of domestic disquiet about widening inequality were ignored for too long. Tip O’Neill’s aphorism that “all politics is local” serves as a perennial reminder that the electorate is always primarily concerned with standard of living issues.
Something structural is changing, though, to Sinn Fein’s longer-term advantage. There was a co-ordinated attempt between their opponents and the panjandrums of the Irish media class to rake-up a brutal murder from 2007 – carried out, it is alleged, by former IRA members – it barely affected their popularity. The cordon sanitaire that Dublin’s media and political classes have erected around Sinn Fein no longer has any effect. For many southern voters, the past is becoming the past. Although Ireland’s age profile is actually rising, a third of the population remains under 25. Memories of the Troubles are mainly vicarious for anyone under 40.
But this election was also about something prosaic. It’s another incremental step both in normalising Sinn Fein and forcing a bigger realignment in Irish politics. For McDonald, it was part of a strategy about locking-in three-party politics and then, over time, forcing Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to cannibalise each other’s support, allowing a more familiar right-left model to emerge.
What does it all mean for Northern Ireland? The southern political establishment, so long reluctant to engage meaningfully with the prospect of Irish unity, will now find the subject impossible to ignore. Either Sinn Fein ends up as a coalition partner in government and actively promotes it, or it influences the political weather as the main opposition party.
The ancien regime wouldn’t be the ancien regime unless it tried to cling onto power. But if a deal between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael falters and opens the door to Sinn Fein entering government instead, then it will see British ministers dealing with Mary-Lou McDonald either as foreign minister and Tánaiste (deputy PM) or even, perhaps, as Taoiseach.
If Boris Johnson thought his dealings with Varadkar were difficult, he’s not seen anything yet.
Kevin Meagher is the author of A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about.
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--2020-03-09--Starmer is the John Smith of our times

Starmer is the John Smith of our times

By Stefan Stern The Labour leadership contest seems to have gone on longer than those endless repeats of Friends on Comedy Central , only without the laughs and occasional dramatic highs .
And while another episode of Friends is usually worth a watch , many will have already switched off from this leadership battle .
Tension was not increased by the results of a recent YouGov poll , which suggested Keir Starmer is heading for a comfortable victory , perhaps on the first ballot .
Pulses have not been set racing by the speeches and hustings of the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps this is sensible .
Fireworks displays are exciting but are over rapidly , leaving a big clear-up job to do .
It has all gone on too long , but the winner , whoever it is , will not have been overhyped .
'Whoever it is ' ... let 's not be coy .
Starmer is almost certainly going to be the next Labour leader .
And much of the criticism of this overlong , under-thrilling contest has been directed at him .
Why is he playing it so safe , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dazzling clarity ?
Why wo n't he confront Labour members with what they need to hear ?
Political courage can take different forms .
Sometimes it might involve picking a fight .
But sometimes it might mean being patient and choosing your moment to strike .
It must have taken courage as well as persistence for Starmer to help drag the Labour party to a rational - if convoluted - position on Brexit .
But he got there in the end .
The election result was terrible for Labour , but if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly less enthusiastic , Leave party it would surely have been worse .
Folk memory has it that , in the mid 1990s , the dynamic phenomenon of New Labour appeared , seized the moment and drove on to a glorious victory in 1997 .
And the folk memory is roughly right .
But it is an incomplete and perhaps misleading version of events .
On May 11th 1994 the pollsters ICM gave Labour an 18 point lead over the Conservative government .
But Tony Blair was not yet leader of the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of the biggest 'what ifs ' of post-war British politics is : what if John Smith had not died at the far too early age of 55 ?
The short and accurate answer is we do n't know .
But it seems likely Labour was heading to election victory .
Black Wednesday and its aftermath had destroyed the Conservatives ' reputation for economic competence .
Smith had declared that John Major was `` the devalued prime minister of a devalued government '' and nobody could disagree .
The generation of Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Blair , Brown , Mandelson , Campbell – were to varying degrees troubled by Smith 's steady and cautious approach to leadership .
They were impatient for faster change .
Jack Straw had raised the possibility of amending the party 's old clause IV – something Blair was to do later – but Smith had rejected the idea .
He argued that the old clause IV , which in theory committed the party to widespread nationalisation , was rather like an old religious icon in a church .
According to Smith 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be moved to the side of the church because it was no longer central , but people could still go and see it if they wanted to .
When asked about his pragmatic and incremental leadership , Smith explained : `` I do n't think you should rush forward and put everything in your shop window for next Wednesday .
I think you 've got to do the patient and careful work , taking some original thoughts , working them through in practical ways , and when you 're ready to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way which commands and maximises not only support for the policies but for the party . ''
Remind you of anybody ?
Starmer is also being criticised for not moving faster against the far left and for trying to maintain party unity , much as Smith had done , for instance by working closely with deputy leader Margaret Beckett , a former Tony Benn supporter .
`` Proof that the rehabilitation of offenders act is working , '' he joked .
Are there any other similarities between Starmer and Smith ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are or were lawyers , and powerful advocates .
`` Both offered a pause for breath , '' Stuart says , `` after a period of dramatic change – rarely is a reforming leader followed by another one – the Labour party can only absorb so much change .
Both emphasised social justice and inequality .
Both understand that governments often fail , rather than oppositions winning elections .
Starmer has all the forensic skills of Smith in terms of holding the government to account over Brexit , but he may have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fail .
Both too would offer reassurance to an English middle class electorate that is always wary of Labour running away with their money . ''
Smith was the superior public speaker , however , and rather more entertaining .
As Stuart adds : `` Smith had to contain his natural exuberance in order to come across as a safe bank manager figure , Starmer has no natural exuberance to contain . ''
Even after a few years of a Smith government , New Labour in one form or another would probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clause IV would have gone too .
When it did , as well as the old language about `` production , distribution and exchange '' , another phrase that went referred to `` the workers by hand or by brain '' .
Labour 's problems with its heartland voters may stem back to its memory loss with regard to manual workers .
Starmer can be criticised for being careful and untheatrical .
He is not being rash .
He is no Tony Blair tribute act .
But maybe up against the debauched incompetence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent lawyer who works steadily to build support while maintaining party unity is exactly what Labour needs .
Pretty soon , it seems , we shall find out .
Stefan Stern is a journalist and author .
He is a regular contributor to The Guardian and the Financial Times .
His latest book `` How To Be A Better Leader '' was published last 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 @

By Stefan Stern
The Labour leadership contest seems to have gone on longer than those endless repeats of Friends on Comedy Central, only without the laughs and occasional dramatic highs. And while another episode of Friends is usually worth a watch, many will have already switched off from this leadership battle.
Tension was not increased by the results of a recent YouGov poll, which suggested Keir Starmer is heading for a comfortable victory, perhaps on the first ballot. Pulses have not been set racing by the speeches and hustings of the past few weeks. Enthusiasm has been contained.
Perhaps this is sensible. Fireworks displays are exciting but are over rapidly, leaving a big clear-up job to do. It has all gone on too long, but the winner, whoever it is, will not have been overhyped.
'Whoever it is'… let's not be coy. Starmer is almost certainly going to be the next Labour leader. And much of the criticism of this overlong, under-thrilling contest has been directed at him. Why is he playing it so safe, people have asked. Where is the boldness and dazzling clarity? Why won't he confront Labour members with what they need to hear?
Political courage can take different forms. Sometimes it might involve picking a fight. But sometimes it might mean being patient and choosing your moment to strike. It must have taken courage as well as persistence for Starmer to help drag the Labour party to a rational – if convoluted – position on Brexit. But he got there in the end. The election result was terrible for Labour, but if the party had stood as another, slightly less enthusiastic, Leave party it would surely have been worse.
Folk memory has it that, in the mid 1990s, the dynamic phenomenon of New Labour appeared, seized the moment and drove on to a glorious victory in 1997. And the folk memory is roughly right. But it is an incomplete and perhaps misleading version of events.
On May 11th 1994 the pollsters ICM gave Labour an 18 point lead over the Conservative government. But Tony Blair was not yet leader of the Labour party. The leader was John Smith.
One of the biggest 'what ifs' of post-war British politics is: what if John Smith had not died at the far too early age of 55? The short and accurate answer is we don't know. But it seems likely Labour was heading to election victory. Black Wednesday and its aftermath had destroyed the Conservatives' reputation for economic competence. Smith had declared that John Major was "the devalued prime minister of a devalued government" and nobody could disagree.
The generation of Labour figures who were waiting in the wings – Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell – were to varying degrees troubled by Smith's steady and cautious approach to leadership. They were impatient for faster change. Jack Straw had raised the possibility of amending the party's old clause IV – something Blair was to do later – but Smith had rejected the idea. He argued that the old clause IV, which in theory committed the party to widespread nationalisation, was rather like an old religious icon in a church. According to Smith's biographer Mark Stuart, he felt it could be moved to the side of the church because it was no longer central, but people could still go and see it if they wanted to.
When asked about his pragmatic and incremental leadership, Smith explained: "I don't think you should rush forward and put everything in your shop window for next Wednesday. I think you've got to do the patient and careful work, taking some original thoughts, working them through in practical ways, and when you're ready to do so, presenting them to the public in a way which commands and maximises not only support for the policies but for the party."
Remind you of anybody? Starmer is also being criticised for not moving faster against the far left and for trying to maintain party unity, much as Smith had done, for instance by working closely with deputy leader Margaret Beckett, a former Tony Benn supporter. "Proof that the rehabilitation of offenders act is working," he joked.
Are there any other similarities between Starmer and Smith? Stuart provides a few parallels. Both are or were lawyers, and powerful advocates. "Both offered a pause for breath," Stuart says, "after a period of dramatic change – rarely is a reforming leader followed by another one – the Labour party can only absorb so much change. Both emphasised social justice and inequality. Both understand that governments often fail, rather than oppositions winning elections. Starmer has all the forensic skills of Smith in terms of holding the government to account over Brexit, but he may have to wait a fair while for the Tories to fail. Both too would offer reassurance to an English middle class electorate that is always wary of Labour running away with their money."
Smith was the superior public speaker, however, and rather more entertaining. As Stuart adds: "Smith had to contain his natural exuberance in order to come across as a safe bank manager figure, Starmer has no natural exuberance to contain."
Even after a few years of a Smith government, New Labour in one form or another would probably have arrived eventually. Maybe the old Clause IV would have gone too. When it did, as well as the old language about "production, distribution and exchange", another phrase that went referred to "the workers by hand or by brain". Labour's problems with its heartland voters may stem back to its memory loss with regard to manual workers.
Starmer can be criticised for being careful and untheatrical. He is not being rash. He is no Tony Blair tribute act. But maybe up against the debauched incompetence of Boris Johnson, a careful, competent lawyer who works steadily to build support while maintaining party unity is exactly what Labour needs. Pretty soon, it seems, we shall find out.
Stefan Stern is a journalist and author. He is a regular contributor to The Guardian and the Financial Times. His latest book "How To Be A Better Leader" was published last 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--2020-03-13--Week in Review: More together and more apart

Strange collection of contradictory feelings .
The coronavirus does many different things to us at once .
It brings us together and keeps us apart .
Several unprecedented things happened this week .
They were the sorts of events which you watch take place and blink and imagine that you must be dreaming it .
The president of the US suspending travel from Europe .
The enforcement of a full containment policy in Italy .
A fast-forward collapse in the economy .
On the face of it , it 's like countries are distancing themselves from each other .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run several key countries .
You could see in Trump 's response that he really had nothing to offer except instinctive fear of the outsider as the default emotional and policy setting upon which his administration functions .
But underneath all that , there 's an odd kind of global emotional consistency , which you rarely get .
Today , pretty much every news service on the planet will run with the same lead story .
We are sharing an international fear .
It affects us not as nationalities , but as humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a societal level .
The typical divisions of politics are gone .
They will be back , of course .
But for now they are on hold .
Everyone has the same desire : for this to stop .
For it to go away .
That 's not to say that everyone has been equally sensible about it .
Some commentators simply can not help themselves , spouting half-understood gibberish into the Twitterverse .
Some people are unable to demonstrate any social conscience at all , piling products into the shopping cart with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But even where the actions are selfish or irresponsible , we are still all strangely similar .
It is unusual , in an era of culture war , in a period in which people who do not seem to be able to speak the same political language , for us all to share the same desired outcome .
And it 's unusual that we are all so powerless to achieve it .
All we can do is control our own behaviour .
And hope .
There 's a lack of social or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
World leaders get it at the same time as the people who tidy their office .
MPs get it alongside street cleaners .
Without a vaccine , there is no money you can pay to save you from it .
Coronavirus is a leveller .
It makes everyone equal .
And yet it also pulls us further apart from one another .
We ca n't shake hands anymore .
We do n't embrace friends .
We 've stopped kissing people on the cheek .
The daily rituals of human touch are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes .
It does n't really matter that the government has resisted imposing social controls yet .
People are doing it themselves .
Parties are cancelled , work meetings are done remotely , schools and colleges are disbanded .
For people who naturally like being at home , it does n't seem so bad .
For some school pupils it probably seems like Christmas .
But for those who need social interaction and struggle with feelings of isolation , it 's their worst nightmare .
And it 's going to go on for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of increasingly despairing news .
People will lose their businesses .
And they will lose their loved ones .
For many of us , maybe even all of us , remote communication will become the norm outside of our household .
We 're not typically very good at that .
We tend to emphasise our worst qualities online and then act nice in our day-to-day lives .
Sometimes social media feels like a hellhouse of screaming mean-spirited voices , which is thankfully diluted by the civility and manners you still find in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more social media and less public world .
So we 'd better improve the way we conduct ourselves online .
People will be lonely , and they will be afraid .
There 's a moral demand that we use what tools we have to help with that .
We can still make ourselves feel closer together , even as we have to drift physically further apart .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Strange collection of contradictory feelings. The coronavirus does many different things to us at once. It brings us together and keeps us apart.
Several unprecedented things happened this week. They were the sorts of events which you watch take place and blink and imagine that you must be dreaming it. The president of the US suspending travel from Europe. The enforcement of a full containment policy in Italy. A fast-forward collapse in the economy.
On the face of it, it's like countries are distancing themselves from each other. The virus hit at a time when nationalists run several key countries. You could see in Trump's response that he really had nothing to offer except instinctive fear of the outsider as the default emotional and policy setting upon which his administration functions.
But underneath all that, there's an odd kind of global emotional consistency, which you rarely get. Today, pretty much every news service on the planet will run with the same lead story. We are sharing an international fear. It affects us not as nationalities, but as humans.
That same process takes place at a societal level. The typical divisions of politics are gone. They will be back, of course. But for now they are on hold. Everyone has the same desire: for this to stop. For it to go away.
That's not to say that everyone has been equally sensible about it. Some commentators simply cannot help themselves, spouting half-understood gibberish into the Twitterverse. Some people are unable to demonstrate any social conscience at all, piling products into the shopping cart with no understanding for the needs of others.
But even where the actions are selfish or irresponsible, we are still all strangely similar. It is unusual, in an era of culture war, in a period in which people who do not seem to be able to speak the same political language, for us all to share the same desired outcome. And it's unusual that we are all so powerless to achieve it. All we can do is control our own behaviour. And hope.
There's a lack of social or economic injustice in the outcome of the virus. World leaders get it at the same time as the people who tidy their office. MPs get it alongside street cleaners. Without a vaccine, there is no money you can pay to save you from it. Coronavirus is a leveller. It makes everyone equal.
And yet it also pulls us further apart from one another. We can't shake hands anymore. We don't embrace friends. We've stopped kissing people on the cheek. The daily rituals of human touch are gone.
We are retreating into our homes. It doesn't really matter that the government has resisted imposing social controls yet. People are doing it themselves. Parties are cancelled, work meetings are done remotely, schools and colleges are disbanded.
For people who naturally like being at home, it doesn't seem so bad. For some school pupils it probably seems like Christmas. But for those who need social interaction and struggle with feelings of isolation, it's their worst nightmare. And it's going to go on for a long time, against a backdrop of increasingly despairing news. People will lose their businesses. And they will lose their loved ones.
For many of us, maybe even all of us, remote communication will become the norm outside of our household. We're not typically very good at that. We tend to emphasise our worst qualities online and then act nice in our day-to-day lives. Sometimes social media feels like a hellhouse of screaming mean-spirited voices, which is thankfully diluted by the civility and manners you still find in the public world. But now there will be more social media and less public world.
So we'd better improve the way we conduct ourselves online. People will be lonely, and they will be afraid. There's a moral demand that we use what tools we have to help with that. We can still make ourselves feel closer together, even as we have to drift physically further apart.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
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--2020-03-16--What happened to Freedom of Information?

Government and transparency are often uncomfortable bedfellows , but this government has taken the meaning of secrecy to a whole new level .
With the arrival of Dominic Cummings , Downing Street has stymied accountability and replaced it with vacuous social media stunts .
At the centre of the attack is the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ( FoI ) .
Heralded by then home secretary Jack Straw as a law that would `` transform the culture of government '' , it gave UK citizens the right to request data from public authorities .
From uncovering worsening emergency service response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FoI has given the public a greater understanding of what the government is doing and made the relationship between the public and the state more transparent .
2020 marks 20 years since the Act was enshrined into law , but there 's little to celebrate .
As the Institute for Government revealed in its Whitehall Monitor 2020 report , this anniversary is tainted by a rapid decline in transparency .
Less and less information is being disclosed .
The full force of the Act is rapidly fading away , with adherence to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first quarter of 2018 , government departments refused to disclose information in response to 45 % of FoI requests .
The decline is quite startling .
In the third quarter of 2010 , 15 government departments granted more than half the requests they received in full .
But in the third quarter of 2019 , only five did .
In 2010 , government departments withheld information in part or in full in response to just under 40 % of requests .
In 2019 , that figure is now closer to 60 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see if I could verify reports that Cummings had been using government resources to road test a 'Trust the People ' election slogan ahead of last year 's campaign .
In search of an answer , and determined to confirm whether Cummings has breached the Civil Service Code of Conduct , I submitted to the Cabinet Office asking for details on whether such focus groups had taken place .
I waited .
And waited .
And waited .
Until eventually the Cabinet Office 's FoI team had exceeded the statutory 20-day response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heated exchanges with the Cabinet Office press office , I finally got a response in December 2019 .
But it was not what I had expected .
Instead of commenting on whether the allegations were true , a member of the FoI Team merely offered an explanation of Cummings ' responsibilities as a special adviser .
I appealed for an internal review , which to this day has not been concluded .
In one last desperate attempt , I submitted a separate request and did receive a response .
This time , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such focus groups , despite evidence to the contrary .
The same stonewalling was taking place elsewhere .
Former Liberal Democrat MP Chuka Umuna had a similar request rebuffed by the Cabinet Office and was told he would have to wait until after the December 12th election for a response .
Unsurprisingly , the Cabinet Office happens to be one of the departments which has refused more than half of their requests in every quarter since 2010 .
The erosion of FoI is taking place at a pivotal time in British politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
MPs have had to resort to unusual parliamentary mechanisms to extract information from the government , as seen with the publication of the Yellowhammer Report .
A culture of obfuscation and cover-up has prevailed .
This government is now more secretive than ever .
Our right to know is fading away , replaced by the Facebook ramblings of the prime minister .
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 Oliver Murphy
Government and transparency are often uncomfortable bedfellows, but this government has taken the meaning of secrecy to a whole new level. With the arrival of Dominic Cummings, Downing Street has stymied accountability and replaced it with vacuous social media stunts.
At the centre of the attack is the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI). Heralded by then home secretary Jack Straw as a law that would "transform the culture of government", it gave UK citizens the right to request data from public authorities. From uncovering worsening emergency service response times to the MPs expenses scandal, FoI has given the public a greater understanding of what the government is doing and made the relationship between the public and the state more transparent.
2020 marks 20 years since the Act was enshrined into law, but there's little to celebrate. As the Institute for Government revealed in its Whitehall Monitor 2020 report, this anniversary is tainted by a rapid decline in transparency. Less and less information is being disclosed. The full force of the Act is rapidly fading away, with adherence to its provisions at a record low.
In first quarter of 2018, government departments refused to disclose information in response to 45% of FoI requests.
The decline is quite startling. In the third quarter of 2010, 15 government departments granted more than half the requests they received in full. But in the third quarter of 2019, only five did. In 2010, government departments withheld information in part or in full in response to just under 40% of requests. In 2019, that figure is now closer to 60%.
I recently fired off an FoI to see if I could verify reports that Cummings had been using government resources to road test a 'Trust the People' election slogan ahead of last year's campaign.
In search of an answer, and determined to confirm whether Cummings has breached the Civil Service Code of Conduct, I submitted to the Cabinet Office asking for details on whether such focus groups had taken place. I waited. And waited. And waited. Until eventually the Cabinet Office's FoI team had exceeded the statutory 20-day response time by 40 days.
After several heated exchanges with the Cabinet Office press office, I finally got a response in December 2019. But it was not what I had expected. Instead of commenting on whether the allegations were true, a member of the FoI Team merely offered an explanation of Cummings' responsibilities as a special adviser. I appealed for an internal review, which to this day has not been concluded. In one last desperate attempt, I submitted a separate request and did receive a response. This time, the Cabinet Office denied all knowledge of any such focus groups, despite evidence to the contrary.
The same stonewalling was taking place elsewhere. Former Liberal Democrat MP Chuka Umuna had a similar request rebuffed by the Cabinet Office and was told he would have to wait until after the December 12th election for a response. Unsurprisingly, the Cabinet Office happens to be one of the departments which has refused more than half of their requests in every quarter since 2010.
The erosion of FoI is taking place at a pivotal time in British politics. Brexit has taken place without suitable scrutiny. MPs have had to resort to unusual parliamentary mechanisms to extract information from the government, as seen with the publication of the Yellowhammer Report. A culture of obfuscation and cover-up has prevailed.
This government is now more secretive than ever. Our right to know is fading away, replaced by the Facebook ramblings of the prime minister.
Oliver Murphy 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--2020-04-17--Week in Review: A govt fixated on Brexit while covid runs rampant

This is what happens when you select for dogmatism instead of competence .
Yesterday , the drumbeat of refusal over extending Brexit transition grew in volume .
Probably Dom Cummings got out of self-isolation and took control of comms .
The messages had that easy staccato dimwit certainty which we have come to expect from him .
`` We will not extend the transition period , and if the EU asks we will say no , '' the prime minister 's spokesperson said .
Classic Dom sentence , all false simplicity and posturing - a drunken bloke in a pub @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Extending the transition period would simply prolong the negotiations , prolong business uncertainty , and delay the moment of control of our borders .
It would also keep us bound by EU legislation at a point where we need legislative flexibility to manage the response to the coronavirus pandemic . ''
It is , as usual , the most godawful unseemly hogwash .
Everything in the world has stopped .
The planes no longer fly , national borders are closed , sport has been cancelled , TV programmes are n't made , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed .
And yet somehow Brexit talks are the one part of the old world which slides ahead regardless .
Are we expected to believe that these talks will make headway on the issues of fishing rights , customs checks , country-of-origin requirements , level-playing-field provisions and arrangements in Northern Ireland ?
Of course they will not .
How could it possibly be a priority for anyone concerned ?
How could either side have the bandwidth to address them in a meaningful way ?
And if they did somehow go ahead , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a demonstration of utterly perverse priorities .
Even on its own terms , the No.10 statement made no sense at all .
Business uncertainty is prolonged specifically by insisting on system-wide regulatory change in the trade networks this year , rather than accepting they will stay as is until 2021 .
Control of the borders is an irrelevance .
Most national borders are closed anyway - except , funnily enough , Britain 's , which remains more open than most .
There is no EU legislation getting in the way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite .
In fact we have failed to make use of EU procurement mechanisms for PPE which might have helped with some of the shortages we have now .
And yet this is how the government is spending its time - working on a Brexit negotiation which does not exist in practical terms , to accomplish a goal which is not desirable or possible , at a time when it requires every spare bit of capacity on handling the health emergency at home .
Hundreds die every day .
We do n't really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be higher than the official numbers .
Many will have died from non-covid related problems which could not be addressed because of lack of NHS capacity or because they stayed at home .
And the death toll in care homes now seems certain to be much worse than we anticipated .
An ITV poll of 2,800 carers found 42 % said they were dealing with suspected covid cases , while another 28 % were dealing with cases which had been officially confirmed .
Twelve per cent were aware of staff who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Mail found 1.4 % of older residents in social care had died of suspected covid , which would translate into 5,300 additional deaths And yet health secretary Matt Hancock insists only 15 % of care homes have reported cases .
He promised all residents and carers would be able to get tested and that PPE would be provided .
Another Hancock promise .
But they are starting to look unreliable .
Eighty per cent of those responding to the ITV survey said there had been no testing of staff .
Seventy-five per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fifty-four per cent of carers said they still did not have the PPE they needed .
How could it possibly be the case that the tests and equipment are not already in place ?
Since the very start , it was clear that covid could be easily transmitted and that it was particularly dangerous for the elderly .
That makes institutional settings with elderly members particularly vulnerable , because they are not closed off - staff , relatives and many residents go in and out and can bring the virus with them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week that the health secretary pledged that everybody going from hospital to social care would be tested for covid .
How could it take so long for that to become policy ?
Why was Public Health England guidance on February 25th that `` it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or the community will be infected '' ?
How could it be possible to come to that conclusion , at any stage of this crisis , given what we have have always known about covid ?
The testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Writing in the Guardian today , Gianmarco Raddi , a swab tester in Milton Keynes , said they are still being underused .
`` Our shifts were meant to be excruciating 12-hour marathons .
In reality , they are rather more like laid-back morning jogs , '' he said .
`` They told us we should prepare for a 24-hour operation , but we are done in four or five . ''
Why is our death rate so high ?
The government insists that international comparisons are not helpful .
And of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you do international comparisons that you see the difference between countries which locked down early , which prepared in advance , and which had the equipment and the logistical awareness to deploy it properly .
How else do you account for the fact that Greece , which has an elderly population and far less money than the UK , has had 108 deaths so far , next to the UK 's 14,576 ?
How do you account for the fact that South Korea , which has a capital city as populous as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that backdrop it is simply obscene for the government to be talking guff about pursuing Brexit talks , or engaging in its nonsense game of idiot macho posturing over EU legislation .
And it 's not just obscene .
It is criminally irresponsible .
There is no moral basis whatsoever , no matter what your politics are , to be pursuing anything but covid .
They should be ashamed to make even one statement which does not address it and explain , immediately , why they have failed so far and what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

This is what happens when you select for dogmatism instead of competence. Yesterday, the drumbeat of refusal over extending Brexit transition grew in volume. Probably Dom Cummings got out of self-isolation and took control of comms. The messages had that easy staccato dimwit certainty which we have come to expect from him.
"We will not extend the transition period, and if the EU asks we will say no," the prime minister's spokesperson said. Classic Dom sentence, all false simplicity and posturing – a drunken bloke in a pub picking a fight with the bouncer. "Extending the transition period would simply prolong the negotiations, prolong business uncertainty, and delay the moment of control of our borders. It would also keep us bound by EU legislation at a point where we need legislative flexibility to manage the response to the coronavirus pandemic."
It is, as usual, the most godawful unseemly hogwash. Everything in the world has stopped. The planes no longer fly, national borders are closed, sport has been cancelled, TV programmes aren't made, films aren't released, shops have closed. And yet somehow Brexit talks are the one part of the old world which slides ahead regardless.
Are we expected to believe that these talks will make headway on the issues of fishing rights, customs checks, country-of-origin requirements, level-playing-field provisions and arrangements in Northern Ireland? Of course they will not. How could it possibly be a priority for anyone concerned? How could either side have the bandwidth to address them in a meaningful way? And if they did somehow go ahead, that would not be a victory. It would be a demonstration of utterly perverse priorities.
Even on its own terms, the No.10 statement made no sense at all. Business uncertainty is prolonged specifically by insisting on system-wide regulatory change in the trade networks this year, rather than accepting they will stay as is until 2021. Control of the borders is an irrelevance. Most national borders are closed anyway – except, funnily enough, Britain's, which remains more open than most. There is no EU legislation getting in the way of Britain's covid response. Quite the opposite. In fact we have failed to make use of EU procurement mechanisms for PPE which might have helped with some of the shortages we have now.
And yet this is how the government is spending its time – working on a Brexit negotiation which does not exist in practical terms, to accomplish a goal which is not desirable or possible, at a time when it requires every spare bit of capacity on handling the health emergency at home.
Hundreds die every day. We don't really know how many. The real figures will be higher than the official numbers. Many will have died from non-covid related problems which could not be addressed because of lack of NHS capacity or because they stayed at home.
And the death toll in care homes now seems certain to be much worse than we anticipated. An ITV poll of 2,800 carers found 42% said they were dealing with suspected covid cases, while another 28% were dealing with cases which had been officially confirmed. Twelve per cent were aware of staff who had tested positive.
Another poll for the Daily Mail found 1.4% of older residents in social care had died of suspected covid, which would translate into 5,300 additional deaths
And yet health secretary Matt Hancock insists only 15% of care homes have reported cases. He promised all residents and carers would be able to get tested and that PPE would be provided.
Another Hancock promise. But they are starting to look unreliable. Eighty per cent of those responding to the ITV survey said there had been no testing of staff. Seventy-five per cent said residents had not been tested. Fifty-four per cent of carers said they still did not have the PPE they needed.
How could it possibly be the case that the tests and equipment are not already in place? Since the very start, it was clear that covid could be easily transmitted and that it was particularly dangerous for the elderly. That makes institutional settings with elderly members particularly vulnerable, because they are not closed off – staff, relatives and many residents go in and out and can bring the virus with them.
And yet it was only this week that the health secretary pledged that everybody going from hospital to social care would be tested for covid. How could it take so long for that to become policy?
Why was Public Health England guidance on February 25th that "it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home or the community will be infected"? How could it be possible to come to that conclusion, at any stage of this crisis, given what we have have always known about covid?
The testing regime is still not in place now. Writing in the Guardian today, Gianmarco Raddi, a swab tester in Milton Keynes, said they are still being underused. "Our shifts were meant to be excruciating 12-hour marathons. In reality, they are rather more like laid-back morning jogs," he said. "They told us we should prepare for a 24-hour operation, but we are done in four or five."
Why is our death rate so high? The government insists that international comparisons are not helpful. And of course they do, because it is when you do international comparisons that you see the difference between countries which locked down early, which prepared in advance, and which had the equipment and the logistical awareness to deploy it properly. How else do you account for the fact that Greece, which has an elderly population and far less money than the UK, has had 108 deaths so far, next to the UK's 14,576? How do you account for the fact that South Korea, which has a capital city as populous as London, has had 230?
Against that backdrop it is simply obscene for the government to be talking guff about pursuing Brexit talks, or engaging in its nonsense game of idiot macho posturing over EU legislation.
And it's not just obscene. It is criminally irresponsible. There is no moral basis whatsoever, no matter what your politics are, to be pursuing anything but covid. They should be ashamed to make even one statement which does not address it and explain, immediately, why they have failed so far and what they are doing to put it right.
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--2020-04-20--NHS tracking app could solve crisis - but at the cost of our privacy

The solution to decelerating the spread of covid and easing lockdown restrictions in the UK may be on the horizon .
That solution could come in the form of the contact tracing app currently in development by the NHSX , the digital transformation unit of the NHS .
The contact tracing app , due to be available in the UK in the coming weeks , will be offered for users to download on a voluntary basis .
The app will use Bluetooth signals on a user 's phone to communicate anonymously with other users ' phones nearby and maintain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proximity to one another for a set period of time .
If a user experiences symptoms and suspects potentially being infected with the virus , or if the user tests positive , he or she can indicate as such into their app .
The app will then send an alert to other users who were recently within the vicinity of the anonymous infected user for a sustained amount of time and encourage them to self-isolate to limit their potential of spreading the virus further .
Experts have indicated that at least 60 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ download the app and participate in order for it to be effective in slowing the spread of the virus .
Apart from the questions surrounding the likely rate of adoption , and therefore viability , its potential for abuse and trolling , and other inherent functional issues , there are very serious concerns regarding data privacy well past the lifetime of the crisis .
In the short term , relaxing some of our expectations for personal privacy in the name of the public good and navigating us safely out of this health crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial that these measures are temporary .
The application is being offered on a completely voluntary basis , however that should n't give the app developers license to collect any more user data than what is absolutely necessary .
Nor should it give government authorities the jurisdiction to de-anonymise the data collected from the app , or repurpose any of its functionality for any other objectives beyond the scope of its original intent .
Health secretary Matt Hancock announced that the data collected from the app will be `` handled according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , an alarming draft government memo leaked to the Guardian indicates that the NHS privately considered giving ministers the authority to de-anonymise the data and identify individual users if necessary under `` proportionate '' circumstances .
Granted , the memo was just a draft and NHSX representatives deny it was ever in the cards , but if the mere notion of de-anonymisation was discussed , even incidentally , it presents a very worrying illustration of how government authorities contemplate stretching their powers into highly questionable territories .
The reality is that anonymised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never be truly 100 % anonymous .
The app might not record the user 's MAC address - a unique identifier - and restrict itself to a regularly re-generated Universally Unique Identifier ( UUID ) , transmitted from a user 's phone via Bluetooth .
But that does n't stop the NHS linking that identifier to a specific user , regardless of how often it is re-generated .
As authorities in the UK scramble to combat the spread of covid , they must not lose sight of their duty to protect UK residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The NHS contact tracing app absolutely has the potential to be a game-changer in helping the UK effectively navigate the crisis and slow the spread of the virus .
At the same time , it does also have the potential to be misused .
It is therefore imperative that the application is deployed with care and appropriate transparency .
It must also be limited in scope and only collect data expressly necessary for its purpose and only for the duration of time absolutely necessary in addressing the crisis .
If the government can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy safeguards and appropriate transparency regarding the scope of the data collected and the extent to which it will be used , it could go a long way in encouraging adoption of the app .
In turn , this could significantly enhance its viability in addressing the pandemic .
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 Attila Tomaschek
The solution to decelerating the spread of covid and easing lockdown restrictions in the UK may be on the horizon. That solution could come in the form of the contact tracing app currently in development by the NHSX, the digital transformation unit of the NHS.
The contact tracing app, due to be available in the UK in the coming weeks, will be offered for users to download on a voluntary basis. The app will use Bluetooth signals on a user's phone to communicate anonymously with other users' phones nearby and maintain a record of which users were within close proximity to one another for a set period of time. If a user experiences symptoms and suspects potentially being infected with the virus, or if the user tests positive, he or she can indicate as such into their app. The app will then send an alert to other users who were recently within the vicinity of the anonymous infected user for a sustained amount of time and encourage them to self-isolate to limit their potential of spreading the virus further.
Experts have indicated that at least 60% of the adult population will need to download the app and participate in order for it to be effective in slowing the spread of the virus. Apart from the questions surrounding the likely rate of adoption, and therefore viability, its potential for abuse and trolling, and other inherent functional issues, there are very serious concerns regarding data privacy well past the lifetime of the crisis.
In the short term, relaxing some of our expectations for personal privacy in the name of the public good and navigating us safely out of this health crisis might be necessary, but it is crucial that these measures are temporary.
The application is being offered on a completely voluntary basis, however that shouldn't give the app developers license to collect any more user data than what is absolutely necessary. Nor should it give government authorities the jurisdiction to de-anonymise the data collected from the app, or repurpose any of its functionality for any other objectives beyond the scope of its original intent.
Health secretary Matt Hancock announced that the data collected from the app will be "handled according to the highest ethical and security standards". However, an alarming draft government memo leaked to the Guardian indicates that the NHS privately considered giving ministers the authority to de-anonymise the data and identify individual users if necessary under "proportionate" circumstances.
Granted, the memo was just a draft and NHSX representatives deny it was ever on the cards, but if the mere notion of de-anonymisation was discussed, even incidentally, it presents a very worrying illustration of how government authorities contemplate stretching their powers into highly questionable territories.
The reality is that anonymised data broadcast via a Bluetooth signal can never be truly 100% anonymous. The app might not record the user's MAC address – a unique identifier – and restrict itself to a regularly re-generated Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), transmitted from a user's phone via Bluetooth. But that doesn't stop the NHS linking that identifier to a specific user, regardless of how often it is re-generated.
As authorities in the UK scramble to combat the spread of covid, they must not lose sight of their duty to protect UK residents' fundamental right to personal privacy.
The NHS contact tracing app absolutely has the potential to be a game-changer in helping the UK effectively navigate the crisis and slow the spread of the virus. At the same time, it does also have the potential to be misused. It is therefore imperative that the application is deployed with care and appropriate transparency. It must also be limited in scope and only collect data expressly necessary for its purpose and only for the duration of time absolutely necessary in addressing the crisis.
If the government can provide users with an assurance of proper privacy safeguards and appropriate transparency regarding the scope of the data collected and the extent to which it will be used, it could go a long way in encouraging adoption of the app. In turn, this could significantly enhance its viability in addressing the pandemic.
Attila Tomaschek is digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy.com.
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--2020-04-21--The government must prevent Big Pharma profiteering from covid

The covid pandemic continues to escalate globally and , with it , the understanding that it will not affect everyone equally .
One of the major disparities that we are likely to see is who will be able to access a vaccine and who will not .
Promising candidates for treating and preventing the spread of covid have been identified and are being trialled .
The UK government is supporting such research and is a leading donor in vaccine research , having already committed £250 million .
But there is a real danger that without effective safeguards , big pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over who is able to manufacture , sell or access a vaccine .
We at STOPAIDS have seen too many examples of Big Pharma prioritising extortionate and unreasonable pricing which has then meant many patients ca n't afford life-saving treatments and become sick or even die .
Lifesaving treatments must be available to everyone who needs them , especially the most vulnerable , if we are to collectively stop the spread of this pandemic .
Taxpayers play a huge role in the research and development of medicines and vaccines .
But promising drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Pharma , who are granted patents or other monopoly rights for their treatments .
These allow them to decide who can manufacture their products , who can sell and what price they will charge .
It also hinders research efforts , as important data and know-how are obscured by a matrix of legal protection .
In our report , written with Global Justice Now , 'Pills and Profits : How drug companies make a killing out of public research ' , we discovered that the NHS spent over £1 billion in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK public funding .
In fact , two out of five of the NHS 's most expensive drugs in 2015/16 were discovered with substantial support from UK taxpayers .
One example of a drug that benefitted from UK publicly funded research was abiraterone , an effective drug for treating advanced prostate cancer .
The use of abiraterone for patients on the NHS was restricted for years due in part to it being unaffordable .
It is unfair that NHS patients have had to wait sometimes years to receive a medicine because a pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially when the UK public have had a hand in developing that medicine .
It is also unacceptable that 100 million people around the world each year are pushed into extreme poverty because of the costs of medicines .
The 'business as usual ' approach to drug development can not continue .
We must take urgent action now to ensure future covid treatments and vaccines are affordable to all .
On Thursday , over 20 international organisations , including Oxfam and MSF UK , called for just that .
Our letter addressed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies do not profiteer from covid at the expense of patient lives .
We echo the calls of 130 cross-party parliamentarians in a letter to the prime minister 's office , who ask for the government to safeguard access to any new covid vaccine or treatment developed with the help of taxpayer funds to all who need it .
We also support their call for the UK to support the proposal for an international pooling mechanism for covid research to be set up by the WHO .
This pool would allow open access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in testing , treating and preventing infections .
Doing so would accelerate global research efforts , protect universal access and enable the production of a vaccine or other health products at scale .
The idea of an international pool is supported by the WHO , the European Union , the government of the Netherlands and UNITAID .
However , more government backing , including from the UK , is needed to ensure that this urgent initiative takes off .
We should learn from the response to other global health challenges .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic in the early 2000s that civil society , governments and industry took steps to drastically increase access to medicines .
This included re-affirming the rights of governments to use the flexibilities outlined in the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( Trips ) Agreement , such as issuing compulsory licenses .
Such flexibilities helped bring down the price of HIV treatments from over $ 10,000 per person per year to just a few hundred dollars per year .
With the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths escalating , now more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the pooling mechanism , and guarantees that when we develop a vaccine everyone can benefit .
Mike Podmore is the director of STOPAIDS .
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 Mike Podmore
The Covid-19 pandemic continues to escalate globally and, with it, the understanding that it will not affect everyone equally. One of the major disparities that we are likely to see is who will be able to access a vaccine and who will not.
Promising candidates for treating and preventing the spread of Covid-19 have been identified and are being trialled. The UK government is supporting such research and is a leading donor in vaccine research, having already committed £250 million.
But there is a real danger that without effective safeguards, big pharmaceutical companies could have far too much control over who is able to manufacture, sell or access a vaccine. We at STOPAIDS have seen too many examples of Big Pharma prioritising extortionate and unreasonable pricing which has then meant many patients can't afford life-saving treatments and become sick or even die. Lifesaving treatments must be available to everyone who needs them, especially the most vulnerable, if we are to collectively stop the spread of this pandemic.
Taxpayers play a huge role in the research and development of medicines and vaccines. But promising drug candidates are too often snatched up by Big Pharma, who are granted patents or other monopoly rights for their treatments. These allow them to decide who can manufacture their products, who can sell and what price they will charge. It also hinders research efforts, as important data and know-how are obscured by a matrix of legal protection.
In our report, written with Global Justice Now, 'Pills and Profits: How drug companies make a killing out of public research', we discovered that the NHS spent over £1 billion in 2016 alone on medicines developed with support from UK public funding.
In fact, two out of five of the NHS's most expensive drugs in 2015/16 were discovered with substantial support from UK taxpayers. One example of a drug that benefitted from UK publicly funded research was abiraterone, an effective drug for treating advanced prostate cancer. The use of abiraterone for patients on the NHS was restricted for years due in part to it being unaffordable.
It is unfair that NHS patients have had to wait sometimes years to receive a medicine because a pharmaceutical company refuses to drop the price, especially when the UK public have had a hand in developing that medicine. It is also unacceptable that 100 million people around the world each year are pushed into extreme poverty because of the costs of medicines.
The 'business as usual' approach to drug development cannot continue. We must take urgent action now to ensure future Covid-19 treatments and vaccines are affordable to all.
On Thursday, over 20 international organisations, including Oxfam and MSF UK, called for just that. Our letter addressed to the UK government demands that big pharmaceutical companies do not profiteer from Covid-19 at the expense of patient lives. We echo the calls of 130 cross-party parliamentarians in a letter to the prime minister's office, who ask for the government to safeguard access to any new Covid-19 vaccine or treatment developed with the help of taxpayer funds to all who need it.
We also support their call for the UK to support the proposal for an international pooling mechanism for Covid-19 research to be set up by the WHO. This pool would allow open access to the data, rights and technologies used in testing, treating and preventing infections. Doing so would accelerate global research efforts, protect universal access and enable the production of a vaccine or other health products at scale.
The idea of an international pool is supported by the WHO, the European Union, the government of the Netherlands and UNITAID. However, more government backing, including from the UK, is needed to ensure that this urgent initiative takes off.
We should learn from the response to other global health challenges. It was during the height of the HIV epidemic in the early 2000s that civil society, governments and industry took steps to drastically increase access to medicines. This included re-affirming the rights of governments to use the flexibilities outlined in the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips) Agreement, such as issuing compulsory licenses. Such flexibilities helped bring down the price of HIV treatments from over $10,000 per person per year to just a few hundred dollars per year.
With the number of Covid-19 cases and deaths escalating, now more than ever, we need global solutions, like the pooling mechanism, and guarantees that when we develop a vaccine everyone can benefit.
Mike Podmore is the director of STOPAIDS.
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--2020-04-23--Covid in the camps: Refugees need urgent help

The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted large-scale state intervention to protect the population in France and the UK , but the hostility against people stuck in the border zones between these countries continues unabated .
Displaced people in informal settlements in northern France , many of whom are fleeing conflict and protracted crises and hope to re-join family and friends in the UK , have typically lived in inhumane and degrading conditions for years .
Women , men and children stay in crowded informal settlements in the woods or on the edge of the road , lacking basic sanitation facilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information .
These people are vulnerable and require protection , rather than the continuation of a harmful and ineffective regime of hostility .
The continuation of the policy of daily evictions of living settlements , with the tacit political and financial support of the UK , harms the people in the settlements and puts everyone at risk of contracting the virus , including police officers .
The number of people in the settlements with Covid-19 is rising .
While much has been said about the ways in which the UK government 's Hostile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we rarely acknowledge that the UK also operates this policy abroad .
For over 30 years , the UK and France have experimented with the externalisation of borders , by placing UK border controls , personnel and detention facilities in Calais , Dunkirk and beyond .
As a direct result , safe and legal pathways to the UK have become inaccessible for people seeking protection .
They are unable to reach the UK to claim asylum without travelling by irregular means .
As evidenced by years of violent measures and ever-expanding border controls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ineffective , costly and dangerous .
But the current moment also offers an opportunity for developing a different approach .
As the UK works out its future relationship with the EU and seeks to regain control of its asylum system under the new immigration bill , there is a chance to develop a more constructive response that upholds the UK 's international credibility and honours its commitments to fundamental human rights and justice .
Refugee Rights Europe , a long-term advocate for the rights of displaced people in spaces of transit across Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the UK to process asylum claims at its extraterritorial borders , with the support of a range of partner organisations .
They are calling for the development of : 1 ) a mechanism for individuals to make an asylum claim where the UK has placed its border control facilities and wields legal powers and 2 ) measures to identify and accelerate transfers of particularly at-risk groups , in collaboration with French counterparts , without compromising access to rights and justice .
This is a chance for the UK to start reversing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped to create in northern France , which has put people 's lives at risk for many years and requires an urgent response in the current health emergency .
This approach would also meet the UK 's legal and ethical obligations both nationally and internationally .
It requires a shift in thinking about what the border is and what it does : from seeing it primarily as a tool for keeping people out , to understanding that the imposition of borders abroad also creates responsibility abroad .
Faced with the current emergency in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer able to ignore this .
Leonie Ansems de Vries is a senior lecturer in International Relations and chair of the Migration Research Group at King 's College London .
Frances Timberlake is the UK advocacy officer for Refugee Rights Europe and is based in Dunkirk , northern France .
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 Leonie Ansems de Vries and Frances Timberlake
The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted large-scale state intervention to protect the population in France and the UK, but the hostility against people stuck in the border zones between these countries continues unabated.
Displaced people in informal settlements in northern France, many of whom are fleeing conflict and protracted crises and hope to re-join family and friends in the UK, have typically lived in inhumane and degrading conditions for years. Women, men and children stay in crowded informal settlements in the woods or on the edge of the road, lacking basic sanitation facilities, shelter and access to legal and health information.
These people are vulnerable and require protection, rather than the continuation of a harmful and ineffective regime of hostility. The continuation of the policy of daily evictions of living settlements, with the tacit political and financial support of the UK, harms the people in the settlements and puts everyone at risk of contracting the virus, including police officers. The number of people in the settlements with Covid-19 is rising.
While much has been said about the ways in which the UK government's Hostile Environment policies operate within UK society, we rarely acknowledge that the UK also operates this policy abroad.
For over 30 years, the UK and France have experimented with the externalisation of borders, by placing UK border controls, personnel and detention facilities in Calais, Dunkirk and beyond. As a direct result, safe and legal pathways to the UK have become inaccessible for people seeking protection. They are unable to reach the UK to claim asylum without travelling by irregular means.
As evidenced by years of violent measures and ever-expanding border controls, this security-led approach to migration is ineffective, costly and dangerous. But the current moment also offers an opportunity for developing a different approach. As the UK works out its future relationship with the EU and seeks to regain control of its asylum system under the new immigration bill, there is a chance to develop a more constructive response that upholds the UK's international credibility and honours its commitments to fundamental human rights and justice.
Refugee Rights Europe, a long-term advocate for the rights of displaced people in spaces of transit across Europe, is putting forward a new proposal for the UK to process asylum claims at its extraterritorial borders, with the support of a range of partner organisations. They are calling for the development of: 1) a mechanism for individuals to make an asylum claim where the UK has placed its border control facilities and wields legal powers and 2) measures to identify and accelerate transfers of particularly at-risk groups, in collaboration with French counterparts, without compromising access to rights and justice.
This is a chance for the UK to start reversing the harmful and costly hostile environment it has helped to create in northern France, which has put people's lives at risk for many years and requires an urgent response in the current health emergency. This approach would also meet the UK's legal and ethical obligations both nationally and internationally.
It requires a shift in thinking about what the border is and what it does: from seeing it primarily as a tool for keeping people out, to understanding that the imposition of borders abroad also creates responsibility abroad. Faced with the current emergency in northern France, the UK is no longer able to ignore this.
Leonie Ansems de Vries is a senior lecturer in International Relations and chair of the Migration Research Group at King's College London. Frances Timberlake is the UK advocacy officer for Refugee Rights Europe and is based in Dunkirk, northern France.
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--2020-04-24--Week in Review: Breaking journalism

Week in Review: Breaking journalism

Brutal results for journalists in the recent YouGov polling for Sky News .
Asked how much people trusted newspaper journalists when it comes to coronavirus , only 17 % of respondents said they did , next to 72 % who did n't .
The same applied , to a slightly lesser degree , to TV journalists , who are regulated to ensure impartiality .
Twenty-four per cent trusted them next to 64 % who did n't .
Even when you broke down the findings along left and right , or Remain and Leave , lines , it made little difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for TV journalists from Labour and Lib Dem voters - 32 % and 35 % respectively - compared to Tory voters - 18 % - but it was basically the same picture .
Politicians , even those who are not trusted , are all trusted more than the people tasked with scrutinising them .
That is a disaster , a flat out defeat for the basic purpose of journalism .
Part of this is a result of the way the questions were framed .
Politicians were singled out as individuals , meaning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lines of people 's support for them .
The media was bundled up together , so left-wingers could not say they trusted the Guardian and did not trust the Mail , for instance , they just had to give a flat-out judgement .
But there 's no messing about with the severity of the result .
It is a horror show .
Trust levels in media have been falling for a long time , but this is a particularly brutal result at a particularly sensitive time .
Part of the reason for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media itself .
This is all well rehearsed now , especially online , where attacking journalistic output is a spectator sport , but that does n't make it any less pertinent .
The newspapers contort the world through their political agendas , praising their favoured leader , ignoring their failures , and endlessly trying to sabotage their opponents .
This is particularly dangerous in the Johnson era , given many of them are passionately supportive of him .
Brexit sent many newspapers over the edge completely .
The Daily Express , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credibility at all .
The Mail and the Sun turned into populist cheerleaders .
The Telegraph , which was once a respectable Tory newspaper , degraded itself badly .
The broadcast media was supposed to be the antidote to this .
But it has struggled in recent years .
Expert journalists in trade or health are not deployed , in favour of sending out Westminster journalists who do not have the same grasp of detail as their colleagues .
This helps turn everything into a power-drama soap opera which does little to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no point pretending that the distrust of journalism all comes from frustration at their lack of informative coverage or their support of the government .
For many Leavers , any mention of a cliff edge at the end of the Brexit process - an objectively valid description of what no-deal entailed - was considered evidence of bias .
What we 're seeing is culture war impact on pre-existing low levels of trust.And that is not just on the right .
The left , including liberals and Remainers , also have a tendency to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the product of conspiracy or partiality .
There is a responsibility on those who are rightly critical of the media to be critical in a useful and accurate way .
Good journalists can , and very often do , work for newspapers which have an editorial direction which is otherwise irresponsible .
It 's worth remembering that , and recognising their work , or else we incentive the opposite of what we want to create .
Where mistakes are made , it is not always the result of cynicism .
This is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day - often every minute .
There will be errors .
That is in the nature of things .
And it is better that journalism is produced with errors than not at all , which is what would happen if it was barred from making any .
Journalists of all kinds should look at those results and feel a shiver creep up the back of their spine .
They should recognise just how dangerous this moment is .
But readers and viewers need to take responsibility too .
If journalism is written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage .
It will simply help the authoritarians of the world .
Look at the trend .
Trump made attacks on journalists a cornerstone of his campaign to reach the White House and then his administration .
He prompted crowds at rallies to abuse them .
He calls them the enemy of the people .
He repeatedly attacks and denigrates those who try to scrutinise him .
In the UK , journalists and outlets are blacklisted by the Johnson administration .
Those who embarrass the prime minister are briefed against to other journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standby during the covid emergency , but it is likely to return once it is over .
Authoritarians dislike the free press because it is an obstruction to executive power .
Any situation in which it loses trust is an advantage to them .
Rebuilding journalism is going to need more than just criticism .
It requires focused criticism .
Pointing out what is wrong and recognising what is right - even when that journalist or that article appears in a publication which people otherwise disagree with .
It needs specificity .
Blanket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Brutal results for journalists in the recent YouGov polling for Sky News. Asked how much people trusted newspaper journalists when it comes to coronavirus, only 17% of respondents said they did, next to 72% who didn't. The same applied, to a slightly lesser degree, to TV journalists, who are regulated to ensure impartiality. Twenty-four per cent trusted them next to 64% who didn't.
Even when you broke down the findings along left and right, or Remain and Leave, lines, it made little difference. There was a bit more trust for TV journalists from Labour and Lib Dem voters – 32% and 35% respectively – compared to Tory voters – 18% – but it was basically the same picture.
Politicians, even those who are not trusted, are all trusted more than the people tasked with scrutinising them. That is a disaster, a flat out defeat for the basic purpose of journalism.
Part of this is a result of the way the questions were framed. Politicians were singled out as individuals, meaning that trust levels presumably broke down partly along the lines of people's support for them. The media was bundled up together, so left-wingers could not say they trusted the Guardian and did not trust the Mail, for instance, they just had to give a flat-out judgement.
But there's no messing about with the severity of the result. It is a horror show. Trust levels in media have been falling for a long time, but this is a particularly brutal result at a particularly sensitive time.
Part of the reason for this trend is the behaviour of the media itself. This is all well rehearsed now, especially online, where attacking journalistic output is a spectator sport, but that doesn't make it any less pertinent. The newspapers contort the world through their political agendas, praising their favoured leader, ignoring their failures, and endlessly trying to sabotage their opponents. This is particularly dangerous in the Johnson era, given many of them are passionately supportive of him.
Brexit sent many newspapers over the edge completely. The Daily Express, which was already very far gone, lost any credibility at all. The Mail and the Sun turned into populist cheerleaders. The Telegraph, which was once a respectable Tory newspaper, degraded itself badly.
The broadcast media was supposed to be the antidote to this. But it has struggled in recent years. Expert journalists in trade or health are not deployed, in favour of sending out Westminster journalists who do not have the same grasp of detail as their colleagues. This helps turn everything into a power-drama soap opera which does little to provide information for viewers.
But there's no point pretending that the distrust of journalism all comes from frustration at their lack of informative coverage or their support of the government. For many Leavers, any mention of a cliff edge at the end of the Brexit process – an objectively valid description of what no-deal entailed – was considered evidence of bias. What we're seeing is culture war impact on pre-existing low levels of trust.And that is not just on the right. The left, including liberals and Remainers, also have a tendency to dismiss coverage they don't like as the product of conspiracy or partiality.
There is a responsibility on those who are rightly critical of the media to be critical in a useful and accurate way. Good journalists can, and very often do, work for newspapers which have an editorial direction which is otherwise irresponsible. It's worth remembering that, and recognising their work, or else we incentive the opposite of what we want to create.
Where mistakes are made, it is not always the result of cynicism. This is an industry which churns out product, literally every day – often every minute. There will be errors. That is in the nature of things. And it is better that journalism is produced with errors than not at all, which is what would happen if it was barred from making any.
Journalists of all kinds should look at those results and feel a shiver creep up the back of their spine. They should recognise just how dangerous this moment is. But readers and viewers need to take responsibility too. If journalism is written off wholesale it will not achieve better coverage. It will simply help the authoritarians of the world.
Look at the trend. Trump made attacks on journalists a cornerstone of his campaign to reach the White House and then his administration. He prompted crowds at rallies to abuse them. He calls them the enemy of the people. He repeatedly attacks and denigrates those who try to scrutinise him. In the UK, journalists and outlets are blacklisted by the Johnson administration. Those who embarrass the prime minister are briefed against to other journalists. That process has been put on standby during the covid emergency, but it is likely to return once it is over.
Authoritarians dislike the free press because it is an obstruction to executive power. Any situation in which it loses trust is an advantage to them.
Rebuilding journalism is going to need more than just criticism. It requires focused criticism. Pointing out what is wrong and recognising what is right – even when that journalist or that article appears in a publication which people otherwise disagree with. It needs specificity. Blanket rejection just sets the authoritarians free.
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.