politicscouk--2020-04-28--Breaking asylum seekers: Desperation and poverty under covid

During the coronavirus lockdown , Ahmed is isolating on his friend 's sofa in a small south London flat .
As an asylum seeker , he is not allowed to work and receives £37.75 per week to live on from the Home Office .
Ahmed is a torture survivor from West Africa and one of around 50,000 people in the UK waiting for a decision on their asylum application .
On a patchy phone signal , he speaks passionately to me about his wish to volunteer for the NHS , to work and `` be helpful when you feel helpless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it through the bureaucracy , he has his hands full with other things , like how to afford his next meal .
`` Trying to manage on this money is a full-time job , '' he says .
With the coronavirus outbreak and lockdown causing a hike in the price of food and essentials , asylum seekers like Ahmed are making impossible decisions between eating and keeping safe every day .
As charities struggle to deal with the unprecedented demands on our welfare and support services , Home Office ministers have been slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Home secretary Priti Patel has finally promised to appear before the home affairs select committee this week , having been notably absent until now .
She must demonstrate a sense of urgency about the vulnerable groups for whom she is directly responsible .
In a time of crisis , action needs to be taken .
First , she should immediately raise the asylum allowance by the same amount that others on mainstream benefits have received to help them cope .
Five weeks have passed since the government announced a £20 per week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still waiting for a desperately needed uplift .
Sixty charities and 17,000 people have joined Freedom from Torture in urging the home secretary to raise asylum support rates by the same amount of £20 per week .
It took the Home Office three weeks to produce a one-paragraph autoreply , dismissively telling us that it was `` reviewing policies and processes in relation to the Covid-19 outbreak '' .
Five weeks is a long time when you 're an asylum seeker living in poverty .
Second , the Home Office must release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Long before the global pandemic , the Home Office 's immigration detention practices have been the subject of widespread criticism .
We and other medical charities have repeatedly warned that incarceration risks re-traumatisation of vulnerable people .
Only last week a long-overdue inquiry into abuse of detainees at Brook House detention centre began , three years after it was uncovered by BBC Panorama .
Faith , a Congolese torture survivor who was sent to Yarl 's Wood , a female-only detention centre , recalls her time there .
`` They arrested me at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like I was a criminal .
I was put in a room with other people , still in my nightie .
It was like a prison cell and reminded me of when I was tortured '' .
We understand from Detention Action that vulnerable torture survivors are among those still detained in immigration removal centres for administrative reasons , unable to isolate and unlikely to be receiving adequate medical provision .
These places are more dangerous now than ever , and prioritising immigration enforcement over protection is risking a mental and physical health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its asylum accommodation providers must work with public health experts to ensure it complies with public health requirements .
The Home Office moved quickly to protect people from eviction from these properties until June .
However , suitability of accommodation continues to be a problem , especially with people sharing rooms with non-family members .
Isolation and social distancing are near impossible in these circumstances .
There was some optimism earlier this year when Wendy Williams published her Lessons Learned report on the failures of the UK immigration system .
The Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big test .
Will the Home Office revert to the inhumane practices and rejection of scrutiny which the report so roundly criticised it for during the Windrush scandal – or will it have learned its lessons ?
As the death toll in the UK this weekend passes 20,000 , we need more than just lamenting speeches from the home secretary .
Urgent action is needed to protect those who are most vulnerable in our community .
People like Ahmed fled their homes to escape torture and beat the odds by surviving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have compromised immune systems linked to the past abuse they have suffered or are unable to buy paracetamol to stave off a fever .
To die of hunger or Coronavirus in Britain for want of £20 would be a tragedy .
It is all very well for the Home Office to say that it is `` reviewing policy and processes '' .
But in these unprecedented times , actions weigh more than words .
Aalia Khan works at Freedom from Torture , a charity dedicated to providing rehabilitation and protection for torture survivors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Aalia Khan
During the coronavirus lockdown, Ahmed is isolating on his friend's sofa in a small south London flat. As an asylum seeker, he is not allowed to work and receives £37.75 per week to live on from the Home Office. Ahmed is a torture survivor from West Africa and one of around 50,000 people in the UK waiting for a decision on their asylum application. On a patchy phone signal, he speaks passionately to me about his wish to volunteer for the NHS, to work and "be helpful when you feel helpless".
But even if Ahmed made it through the bureaucracy, he has his hands full with other things, like how to afford his next meal. "Trying to manage on this money is a full-time job," he says.
With the coronavirus outbreak and lockdown causing a hike in the price of food and essentials, asylum seekers like Ahmed are making impossible decisions between eating and keeping safe every day. As charities struggle to deal with the unprecedented demands on our welfare and support services, Home Office ministers have been slow to respond and quick to avoid scrutiny.
Home secretary Priti Patel has finally promised to appear before the home affairs select committee this week, having been notably absent until now. She must demonstrate a sense of urgency about the vulnerable groups for whom she is directly responsible. In a time of crisis, action needs to be taken.
First, she should immediately raise the asylum allowance by the same amount that others on mainstream benefits have received to help them cope. Five weeks have passed since the government announced a £20 per week increase to Universal Credit but asylum seekers are still waiting for a desperately needed uplift.
Sixty charities and 17,000 people have joined Freedom from Torture in urging the home secretary to raise asylum support rates by the same amount of £20 per week. It took the Home Office three weeks to produce a one-paragraph autoreply, dismissively telling us that it was "reviewing policies and processes in relation to the Covid-19 outbreak". Five weeks is a long time when you're an asylum seeker living in poverty.
Second, the Home Office must release everyone currently detained under immigration powers. Long before the global pandemic, the Home Office's immigration detention practices were the subject of widespread criticism. We and other medical charities have repeatedly warned that incarceration risks re-traumatisation of vulnerable people. Only last week a long-overdue inquiry into abuse of detainees at Brook House detention centre began, three years after it was uncovered by BBC Panorama.
Faith, a Congolese torture survivor who was sent to Yarl's Wood, a female-only detention centre, recalls her time there. "They arrested me at dawn," she says, "like I was a criminal. I was put in a room with other people, still in my nightie. It was like a prison cell and reminded me of when I was tortured".
We understand from Detention Action that vulnerable torture survivors are among those still detained in immigration removal centres for administrative reasons, unable to isolate and unlikely to be receiving adequate medical provision. These places are more dangerous now than ever, and prioritising immigration enforcement over protection is risking a mental and physical health catastrophe.
Finally, the Home Office and its asylum accommodation providers must work with public health experts to ensure it complies with public health requirements. The Home Office moved quickly to protect people from eviction from these properties until June. However, suitability of accommodation continues to be a problem, especially with people sharing rooms with non-family members. Isolation and social distancing are near impossible in these circumstances.
There was some optimism earlier this year when Wendy Williams published her Lessons Learned report on the failures of the UK immigration system. The Home Office's response to the Coronavirus is a big test. Will the Home Office revert to the inhumane practices and rejection of scrutiny which the report so roundly criticised it for during the Windrush scandal – or will it have learned its lessons?
As the death toll in the UK this weekend passes 20,000, we need more than just lamenting speeches from the home secretary. Urgent action is needed to protect those who are most vulnerable in our community. People like Ahmed fled their homes to escape torture and beat the odds by surviving a dangerous journey across the world. Others have compromised immune systems linked to the past abuse they have suffered or are unable to buy paracetamol to stave off a fever. To die of hunger or Coronavirus in Britain for want of £20 would be a tragedy.
It is all very well for the Home Office to say that it is "reviewing policy and processes". But in these unprecedented times, actions weigh more than words.
Aalia Khan works at Freedom from Torture, a charity dedicated to providing rehabilitation and protection for torture survivors, and fighting torture globally.
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--2020-04-29--Immigration in the age of covid

Immigration in the age of covid

Back in 2010 , I pointed out to David Cameron that achieving the government 's target to reduce net migration below 100,000 would require restrictions that would represent an act of economic and political self-harm or , failing that , an extremely nasty economic shock .
Doubling down on a target that was either unachievable or undesirable would only come back to bite him politically .
This was n't rocket science – just basic economics and an understanding of how the UK economy , labour market and immigration system actually worked – but the prime minister was n't impressed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereafter .
The current government , very sensibly , abandoned the target when setting out its proposals for a new `` points based '' immigration system to be introduced after Brexit .
Ironically , now that the second prong of my prediction has materialised in a form I never anticipated , we may never know exactly what happened to immigration to the UK during the covid crisis .
Even before the lockdown , the official immigration statistics , based on the International Passenger Survey , had lost their National Statistics designation .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for obvious reasons .
Immigration and emigration have obviously fallen sharply , and it would n't be surprising if net migration was now negative , with long-term residents here returning for family or health reasons to their countries of origin .
But what happens when restrictions are eased and international travel returns , even in restricted form ?
What will have changed ?
In the US , President Donald Trump has used the pretext of the `` Chinese virus '' to announce draconian restrictions on immigration .
There 's little doubt he hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The broadly pro-immigration economist Tyler Cowen describes the likely impact as `` powerful , long-lasting and unfortunate '' .
He argues that restrictions on immigration will outlast the virulent phase of the epidemic , perhaps for good reasons - but more likely simply because public concerns will make it easier for Trump to maintain them .
Can we expect the same here ?
I suspect it is less likely .
Indeed , in contrast to most other countries , the UK has followed scientific advice that there would be little to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or so people still arriving daily at UK airports in current circumstances .
After all , most of them are from countries where the prevalence of covid is considerably lower than here in the UK .
No doubt international travel , for immigration but also business and tourism , will take time to recover .
And when the spread of the virus has been definitively suppressed here , it will become necessary to worry about the arrival of infectious people from abroad .
But the UK is exceptionally dependent on international travel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is n't .
That means that the imperative on policymakers will be to find a way to allow people to move across our borders in very large numbers again , whether through screening , testing , post-arrival monitoring , or some combination of them .
Such measures – not to mention social distancing on planes , if required – will make international travel more difficult , time-consuming and costly , but that will hit tourism more than immigration .
Immigrants already pay multiple thousands in visa fees and the like , and wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and higher plane fares .
What about the system itself ?
The most important feature of the government 's proposals is a salary threshold above which workers are classified as 'skilled ' .
It 's set at £25,600 for the basic level , but is more in some high-paid occupations , and less for trainees or younger workers .
From an economist 's perspective , this basic design makes a lot of sense .
If you want to maximise the economic benefits of immigration – but , for political , cultural or social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purely market solution – then a salary threshold is an obvious way to go , because it puts the market , rather than bureaucrats or politicians , in charge of the selection process .
This avoids having to pick winners , engage in central planning , or allow the loudest business voices to determine which occupations and sectors qualify and which do n't .
It 's not surprising that the Migration Advisory Committee , which is dominated by labour market economists , went down this route .
But such an approach already sat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic strategy , which , despite caricature , is very far from a purist free-market approach .
Instead , it combines two strands : the 'levelling-up ' agenda , which prioritises the need to address regional and spatial inequalities , and a view that the UK 's economic future will be driven by commercial opportunities growing out of science and technology , including 'big data ' and artificial intelligence .
Both of these strands require active policy , including an element of planning and picking winners – a 'developmental state ' rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an immigration system that , by definition , is likely to further advantage those sectors and regions where salaries are already highest and that therefore already benefit the most - notably London and the financial sector .
And on top of that , covid is likely to change the political dynamic .
Most obviously , as many have observed , it has highlighted the fact that economic value , as measured by market wages , is n't necessarily a great reflection of wider social value .
Care workers , bus drivers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it is far from obvious that there will be public support for an immigration system that excludes them all in favour of relatively junior bankers .
As John Curtice points out , this is n't new – public opinion has always been much more nuanced about immigration than politicians give them credit for .
So , as Sophia Wolfers of London First puts it , are the government 's proposals `` based on what is rapidly becoming old thinking '' ?
Yes and no .
The most serious problem the government faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new immigration system in time for the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of the year – a goal which looked hopelessly optimistic even before the current crisis put everything else on hold .
But given the government 's strong political commitment not to extend transition , it 's hard to see this timetable being allowed to slip .
Nevertheless , the broader policy environment has changed .
While the suffering has been widely spread , no-one disputes that immigrants and their children working in the NHS and care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death and illness .
In contrast to the US , anti-immigration sentiment – which had already fallen sharply over the last few years – is likely to decrease even further .
As a political issue , it has almost dropped off the agenda .
At the same time , the UK 's economic problem after covid – especially if we find ourselves facing a Brexit cliff edge in December – is likely to be too few immigrants in sectors that will be crucial to recovery , from health and social care to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both can and should take the opportunity to address the criticisms of its approach and ensure that the new system supports its wider economic strategy as well as making it fairer and more humane .
What does that mean ?
Some steps would be relatively easy and do n't require system change .
They include reducing exorbitant fees , particularly for visa extensions and renewals , settlement and citizenship .
It should also end the double taxation of the so-called NHS surcharge , which imposes an arbitrary extra tax on immigrants , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same taxes we do .
The government should , as the Migration Advisory Committee recommends , loosen the current restrictive rules on settlement , which discourage people who 've contributed to the UK for years from making it their permanent home .
All this would help ensure we do n't lose the people who we 've needed so much in the last few months – and may well need again .
The government must step back and think again about what it really wants .
Which sectors are the priority , from social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you adjust a salary-based scheme to take account of that ?
What regional or national flexibility would spread the benefits of migration outside London , and who decides ?
How do you adjust the system – which , inevitably , will be very far from perfect initially – quickly and flexibly without falling into the central planning trap ?
Suggesting that covid will mark a revolution , either in attitudes or policy towards immigration , likely overstates the case .
We were already heading in a more economically liberal direction .
Covid should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change that .
But good immigration policy is n't just about economics .
If covid has given us a greater appreciation of the wider social benefits of immigration , then that too is welcome , if overdue .
Jonathan Portes is professor of Economics and Public Policy at King 's College London and senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe .
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 Jonathan Portes
Back in 2010, I pointed out to David Cameron that achieving the government's target to reduce net migration below 100,000 would require restrictions that would represent an act of economic and political self-harm or, failing that, an extremely nasty economic shock. Doubling down on a target that was either unachievable or undesirable would only come back to bite him politically.
This wasn't rocket science – just basic economics and an understanding of how the UK economy, labour market and immigration system actually worked – but the prime minister wasn't impressed and I left the civil service not long thereafter. The current government, very sensibly, abandoned the target when setting out its proposals for a new "points based" immigration system to be introduced after Brexit.
Ironically, now that the second prong of my prediction has materialised in a form I never anticipated, we may never know exactly what happened to immigration to the UK during the covid crisis. Even before the lockdown, the official immigration statistics, based on the International Passenger Survey, had lost their National Statistics designation. Now the survey itself has been suspended, for obvious reasons. Immigration and emigration have obviously fallen sharply, and it wouldn't be surprising if net migration was now negative, with long-term residents here returning for family or health reasons to their countries of origin.
But what happens when restrictions are eased and international travel returns, even in restricted form? What will have changed? In the US, President Donald Trump has used the pretext of the "Chinese virus" to announce draconian restrictions on immigration. There's little doubt he hopes to extend them as long as possible. The broadly pro-immigration economist Tyler Cowen describes the likely impact as "powerful, long-lasting and unfortunate". He argues that restrictions on immigration will outlast the virulent phase of the epidemic, perhaps for good reasons – but more likely simply because public concerns will make it easier for Trump to maintain them.
Can we expect the same here? I suspect it is less likely. Indeed, in contrast to most other countries, the UK has followed scientific advice that there would be little to be gained by screening or quarantining the 15,000 or so people still arriving daily at UK airports in current circumstances. After all, most of them are from countries where the prevalence of covid is considerably lower than here in the UK.
No doubt international travel, for immigration but also business and tourism, will take time to recover. And when the spread of the virus has been definitively suppressed here, it will become necessary to worry about the arrival of infectious people from abroad. But the UK is exceptionally dependent on international travel and connectivity in a way that the US isn't. That means that the imperative on policymakers will be to find a way to allow people to move across our borders in very large numbers again, whether through screening, testing, post-arrival monitoring, or some combination of them.
Such measures – not to mention social distancing on planes, if required – will make international travel more difficult, time-consuming and costly, but that will hit tourism more than immigration. Immigrants already pay multiple thousands in visa fees and the like, and won't be deterred by some extra bureaucracy and higher plane fares.
What about the system itself? The most important feature of the government's proposals is a salary threshold above which workers are classified as 'skilled'. It's set at £25,600 for the basic level, but is more in some high-paid occupations, and less for trainees or younger workers.
From an economist's perspective, this basic design makes a lot of sense. If you want to maximise the economic benefits of immigration – but, for political, cultural or social reasons, you can't have a purely market solution – then a salary threshold is an obvious way to go, because it puts the market, rather than bureaucrats or politicians, in charge of the selection process. This avoids having to pick winners, engage in central planning, or allow the loudest business voices to determine which occupations and sectors qualify and which don't. It's not surprising that the Migration Advisory Committee, which is dominated by labour market economists, went down this route.
But such an approach already sat rather oddly with the government's wider economic strategy, which, despite caricature, is very far from a purist free-market approach. Instead, it combines two strands: the 'levelling-up' agenda, which prioritises the need to address regional and spatial inequalities, and a view that the UK's economic future will be driven by commercial opportunities growing out of science and technology, including 'big data' and artificial intelligence.
Both of these strands require active policy, including an element of planning and picking winners – a 'developmental state' rather than a nightwatchman. Neither is necessarily compatible with an immigration system that, by definition, is likely to further advantage those sectors and regions where salaries are already highest and that therefore already benefit the most – notably London and the financial sector.
And on top of that, covid is likely to change the political dynamic. Most obviously, as many have observed, it has highlighted the fact that economic value, as measured by market wages, isn't necessarily a great reflection of wider social value. Care workers, bus drivers and supermarket staff all fulfil essential functions, and it is far from obvious that there will be public support for an immigration system that excludes them all in favour of relatively junior bankers. As John Curtice points out, this isn't new – public opinion has always been much more nuanced about immigration than politicians give them credit for.
So, as Sophia Wolpers of London First puts it, are the government's proposals "based on what is rapidly becoming old thinking"? Yes and no. The most serious problem the government faces is still its political commitment to deliver a new immigration system in time for the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of the year – a goal which looked hopelessly optimistic even before the current crisis put everything else on hold. But given the government's strong political commitment not to extend transition, it's hard to see this timetable being allowed to slip.
Nevertheless, the broader policy environment has changed. While the suffering has been widely spread, no-one disputes that immigrants and their children working in the NHS and care systems have born a hugely disproportionate burden of death and illness. In contrast to the US, anti-immigration sentiment – which had already fallen sharply over the last few years – is likely to decrease even further. As a political issue, it has almost dropped off the agenda.
At the same time, the UK's economic problem after covid – especially if we find ourselves facing a Brexit cliff edge in December – is likely to be too few immigrants in sectors that will be crucial to recovery, from health and social care to universities to restaurants. So the government both can and should take the opportunity to address the criticisms of its approach and ensure that the new system supports its wider economic strategy as well as making it fairer and more humane.
What does that mean? Some steps would be relatively easy and don't require system change. They include reducing exorbitant fees, particularly for visa extensions and renewals, settlement and citizenship. It should also end the double taxation of the so-called NHS surcharge, which imposes an arbitrary extra tax on immigrants, including NHS workers, who already pay the same taxes we do. The government should, as the Migration Advisory Committee recommends, loosen the current restrictive rules on settlement, which discourage people who've contributed to the UK for years from making it their permanent home. All this would help ensure we don't lose the people who we've needed so much in the last few months – and may well need again.
The government must step back and think again about what it really wants. Which sectors are the priority, from social care to science, and how do you adjust a salary-based scheme to take account of that? What regional or national flexibility would spread the benefits of migration outside London, and who decides? How do you adjust the system – which, inevitably, will be very far from perfect initially – quickly and flexibly without falling into the central planning trap?
Suggesting that covid will mark a revolution, either in attitudes or policy towards immigration, likely overstates the case. We were already heading in a more economically liberal direction. Covid should not, and hopefully will not, change that. But good immigration policy isn't just about economics. If covid has given us a greater appreciation of the wider social benefits of immigration, then that too is welcome, if overdue.
Jonathan Portes is professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College London and senior fellow at UK in a Changing Europe.
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--2020-04-30--Covid-19: Where are the women?

Covid-19: Where are the women?

Perhaps it 's the war lingo and the fighting rhetoric that means the government 's response to the coronavirus has all been a bit macho .
It took over three weeks of daily Downing Street briefings before a female minister took the stand – Priti Patel on April 11th .
While women bear the brunt of the hit to the economy , are trapped in dangerous households , and make up the majority of coronavirus diagnoses in some regions , their voices in Westminster have been notably absent .
Even the government 's 'war Cabinet ' to deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rishi Sunak , Matt Hancock , Michael Gove and Dominic Raab .
But how exactly is the coronavirus affecting women 's safety and access to equality ?
And how should the government address the impact on women ?
The crisis has led to an economic downturn , with even the most conservative estimates pointing towards a devastating rise in unemployment .
According to analysis from the Women 's Budget Group , whose Commission on a Gender Equal Economy has identified pre-existing economic inequalities , the crisis will increase the economic challenges women already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in insecure or low-paid work , and low-paid workers are seven times more likely to work in a sector that has been shut down since the crisis began .
While the furlough scheme has helped ensure women 's incomes do n't completely collapse , any drop in an already low wage is going to increase financial pressures on low-income families .
At the same time , women make up the majority of workers on zero hour contracts .
While they are covered by the furlough scheme , the Women 's Budget Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to simply cancel shifts .
Then there 's unpaid care work , the vast majority of which is done by women .
On April 4th , the government announced an extension to its furlough scheme to cover employees for whom childcare makes it impossible to work .
This was a really positive , if poorly publicised , step .
However , with women already more likely to take on unpaid caring responsibilities than men , and the majority of single parent families headed by women , the crisis will only increase women 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 % of workers in roles that are designated as high risk for exposure to the coronavirus .
They also make up 77 % of healthcare workers , ranging from doctors to cleaners .
Women really are on the frontline of fighting the virus .
Data from Italy showed that women healthcare workers were more likely to contract the virus than men .
Here in the UK , data from Wales shows that working-age women are catching coronavirus at higher rates than men , simply because they 're more likely to be working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with carriers .
The situation is particularly acute in care homes , where women make up 83 % of the workforce and where growing numbers of residents are dying from the virus .
Unison has highlighted how workers are at risk of catching the virus , thanks in part to a lack of PPE and staff being told to come in even if they have childcare issues or underlying health risks .
At the same time , many care workers are unable to claim statutory sick pay , meaning they are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they simply can not afford to call in sick .
According to the Women 's Budget Group , the `` current pandemic is exposing the unfairness of the labour market where some of the most essential workers are among the worst paid '' .
They point out that women care workers take home , on average , £385 a week – £200 less than the UK median earnings .
And yet , these are workers responsible for protecting the lives of the sick and vulnerable – often while putting their own health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy is not working and we can not continue to prioritise gross domestic product over care of people , '' Women 's Budget Group director Mary-Anne Stephenson explains .
Since the lockdown was put in place , campaigners have identified 16 domestic abuse killings , including of children .
Calls to the National Domestic Abuse helpline saw a 700 % increase in a single day earlier this month .
In lockdown , many of the safety nets available to women have vanished .
This comes on top of a decade of cuts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referrals to refuges turned away for lack of space even before the crisis began .
Domestic abuse is a gendered crime – over 80 % of repeat incident victims are women .
The government has now announced £2 million to support domestic abuse helplines and web chats .
But many are concerned this does n't go far enough .
After all , there are 1.6 million women affected by domestic abuse in England and Wales .
This new funding works out at 95p per victim .
We are constantly being told the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , this is exposed as an unhelpful analysis .
More men are dying of the virus than women .
More BAME people are dying .
And the wider health , equality and safety impact of coronavirus is gendered , with women more at risk of poverty , of contracting the virus while at work , and of being trapped in a dangerous home .
The lack of women 's voices in the government ’ s response has helped exacerbate the unequal burden the virus has placed on women 's shoulders .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your governing body is female , then women 's issues will get on the agenda .
That 's not happening in this current government .
It urgently needs to recognise that women will be impacted differently from men during this crisis .
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist .
She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women 's Literature Festival .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners .

By Sian Norris
Perhaps it's the war lingo and the fighting rhetoric that means the government's response to the coronavirus has all been a bit macho. It took over three weeks of daily Downing Street briefings before a female minister took the stand – Priti Patel on April 11th. While women bear the brunt of the hit to the economy, are trapped in dangerous households, and make up the majority of coronavirus diagnoses in some regions, their voices in Westminster have been notably absent. Even the government's 'war Cabinet' to deal with the pandemic is headed up by men – Rishi Sunak, Matt Hancock, Michael Gove and Dominic Raab.
But how exactly is the coronavirus affecting women's safety and access to equality? And how should the government address the impact on women?
Poverty and the economy
The crisis has led to an economic downturn, with even the most conservative estimates pointing towards a devastating rise in unemployment. According to analysis from the Women's Budget Group, whose Commission on a Gender Equal Economy has identified pre-existing economic inequalities, the crisis will increase the economic challenges women already face.
Women are more likely to be in insecure or low-paid work, and low-paid workers are seven times more likely to work in a sector that has been shut down since the crisis began. While the furlough scheme has helped ensure women's incomes don't completely collapse, any drop in an already low wage is going to increase financial pressures on low-income families. At the same time, women make up the majority of workers on zero hour contracts. While they are covered by the furlough scheme, the Women's Budget Group expressed concern employers may be more likely to simply cancel shifts.
Then there's unpaid care work, the vast majority of which is done by women. On April 4th, the government announced an extension to its furlough scheme to cover employees for whom childcare makes it impossible to work. This was a really positive, if poorly publicised, step. However, with women already more likely to take on unpaid caring responsibilities than men, and the majority of single parent families headed by women, the crisis will only increase women's unpaid care burden.
Exposure and health
Women make up 77% of workers in roles that are designated as high risk for exposure to the coronavirus. They also make up 77% of healthcare workers, ranging from doctors to cleaners. Women really are on the frontline of fighting the virus.
Data from Italy showed that women healthcare workers were more likely to contract the virus than men. Here in the UK, data from Wales shows that working-age women are catching coronavirus at higher rates than men, simply because they're more likely to be working in roles where they come into contact with carriers.
The situation is particularly acute in care homes, where women make up 83% of the workforce and where growing numbers of residents are dying from the virus. Unison has highlighted how workers are at risk of catching the virus, thanks in part to a lack of PPE and staff being told to come in even if they have childcare issues or underlying health risks. At the same time, many care workers are unable to claim statutory sick pay, meaning they are going to work even if they have symptoms because they simply cannot afford to call in sick.
According to the Women's Budget Group, the "current pandemic is exposing the unfairness of the labour market where some of the most essential workers are among the worst paid". They point out that women care workers take home, on average, £385 a week – £200 less than the UK median earnings. And yet, these are workers responsible for protecting the lives of the sick and vulnerable – often while putting their own health and wellbeing at severe risk.
"The economy is not working and we cannot continue to prioritise gross domestic product over care of people," Women's Budget Group director Mary-Anne Stephenson explains.
Violence and fear
Since the lockdown was put in place, campaigners have identified 16 domestic abuse killings, including of children. Calls to the National Domestic Abuse helpline saw a 700% increase in a single day earlier this month. In lockdown, many of the safety nets available to women have vanished. This comes on top of a decade of cuts to support services, with 60% of referrals to refuges turned away for lack of space even before the crisis began.
Domestic abuse is a gendered crime – over 80% of repeat incident victims are women. The government has now announced £2 million to support domestic abuse helplines and web chats. But many are concerned this doesn't go far enough. After all, there are 1.6 million women affected by domestic abuse in England and Wales. This new funding works out at 95p per victim.
Women's voices are needed
We are constantly being told the coronavirus doesn't discriminate. But day after day, this is exposed as an unhelpful analysis. More men are dying of the virus than women. More BAME people are dying. And the wider health, equality and safety impact of coronavirus is gendered, with women more at risk of poverty, of contracting the virus while at work, and of being trapped in a dangerous home.
The lack of women's voices in the government’s response has helped exacerbate the unequal burden the virus has placed on women's shoulders. It's often estimated that if a third of your governing body is female, then women's issues will get on the agenda. That's not happening in this current government. It urgently needs to recognise that women will be impacted differently from men during this crisis.
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-05-01--Week in Review: The covid detonation

Week in Review: The covid detonation

It hits one thing after another .
In nearly every area of our existing political debate , covid has the same deadening , ghastly effect : it makes things worse .
It serves to take pre-existing problems and exacerbate them .
People often think that what is happening is new and unusual .
But that is only the virus itself .
The politics of the virus is all too well known .
Donald Trump has seized on it to attack his three main categories of enemy : Immigrants , international institutions and the press .
He has announced plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably through a ban on the provision of new green cards and work visas and a continuation of emergency powers to expel undocumented immigrants on the southern border .
He has lashed out against the World Health Organisation , in the same way that he does the WTO , the EU and the UN .
He has regularly tried to bully and humiliate reporters in his daily press briefings .
They are now , to all intents and purposes , just a stand-up routine by a raving lunatic .
But as absurd as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have significant deleterious effects .
His promotion of the drug hydroxychloroquine as some kind of miracle cure , for instance , meant that patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis , who actually needed it , struggled to get it .
In the EU , we see a similar process along its own faultlines .
There , the problem is different .
It relates to its ongoing internal division over relative levels of government debt .
The economic impact of the disease will hit everyone .
But countries are not all in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Holland and Germany , do not have a debt problem , and can therefore borrow on tolerable interest rates .
Some , like Italy and Spain , do , and there is a danger that those interest rates will spiral upwards to account for the increased risk of lending to them .
The preemptive efforts of the EU to deal with that situation have shown many of the same qualities we saw during the debt crisis in the early 2010s - piecemeal efforts , slotted into complex mechanisms the public do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of solidarity which are supposed to underpin the European project .
It is prime fodder for populists in each country , with their own unique and contradictory narratives of EU failure and betrayal .
Meanwhile , the Brexit process , like some terrible family shame which has been locked away in a drawer , keeps crawling out .
The UK and EU are currently embroiled , beyond any possible dimension of sanity , in discussions over the implementation of customs checks and controls in Northern Ireland for June 1st .
Reading the reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Pacific island who still think the Second World War is going on .
And yet it remains official policy , a completely deranged statement of priorities , which can not be done , but simultaneously must be done , for political reasons which no-one can properly articulate .
Johnson has been far superior to Trump in his recognition of scientific expertise and refusal to attack immigration .
But the relentless suspicion of international institutions is the same , as is the approach to journalism , even if it 's done in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate stories `` ludicrous '' and gleefully repeat daily that trust in media has collapsed .
Health secretary Matt Hancock tells journalists that their manner of asking critical questions `` irritates a lot of the public '' .
Tory MPs routinely round on media figures , including , with a level of democratic illiteracy which is difficult to believe , by demanding they congratulate the prime minister on the birth of his baby .
And then there is the broader , long-running background horror show , that will play out over the months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been sluggish for a long time now , since the double-whammy of austerity and Brexit knocked it into standby mode .
There is simply no spare capacity for a medium-term reduction in economic activity .
The same is true for local councils , who have been forced to slash their spending since the Tories took charge in 2010 .
There is nothing left to cut and yet demands for services will rise in the face of unemployment and underemployment .
For those of us lucky enough to still be healthy , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm .
We are where everyone outside the financial sector was in 2008 , when Lehman Brothers collapsed - so far unaffected , but aware of an awful wave heading our way .
It could n't have happened at a worse time .
The very worst people are in charge .
But we have at least that one advantage - a slim one , but a real one - that we can at least see it coming .
And that means that those who know better can make the case now , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better response .
One which recognises that covid does not disprove the need for international cooperation , solidarity , expertise , an active state , and independent journalism .
It makes it .
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 .

It hits one thing after another. In nearly every area of our existing political debate, covid has the same deadening, ghastly effect: it makes things worse. It serves to take pre-existing problems and exacerbate them.
People often think that what is happening is new and unusual. But that is only the virus itself. The politics of the virus is all too well known.
Donald Trump has seized on it to attack his three main categories of enemy: Immigrants, international institutions and the press.
He has announced plans to suspend all immigration to the US – probably through a ban on the provision of new green cards and work visas and a continuation of emergency powers to expel undocumented immigrants on the southern border. He has lashed out against the World Health Organisation, in the same way that he does the WTO, the EU and the UN. He has regularly tried to bully and humiliate reporters in his daily press briefings. They are now, to all intents and purposes, just a stand-up routine by a raving lunatic.
But as absurd as many of his comments are, they have significant deleterious effects. His promotion of the drug hydroxychloroquine as some kind of miracle cure, for instance, meant that patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, who actually needed it, struggled to get it.
In the EU, we see a similar process along its own faultlines. There, the problem is different. It relates to its ongoing internal division over relative levels of government debt.
The economic impact of the disease will hit everyone. But countries are not all in the same position to deal with it. Some, like Holland and Germany, do not have a debt problem, and can therefore borrow on tolerable interest rates. Some, like Italy and Spain, do, and there is a danger that those interest rates will spiral upwards to account for the increased risk of lending to them.
The preemptive efforts of the EU to deal with that situation have shown many of the same qualities we saw during the debt crisis in the early 2010s – piecemeal efforts, slotted into complex mechanisms the public do not understand, without the basic elements of solidarity which are supposed to underpin the European project. It is prime fodder for populists in each country, with their own unique and contradictory narratives of EU failure and betrayal.
Meanwhile, the Brexit process, like some terrible family shame which has been locked away in a drawer, keeps crawling out. The UK and EU are currently embroiled, beyond any possible dimension of sanity, in discussions over the implementation of customs checks and controls in Northern Ireland for June 1st. Reading the reports, it's like finding soldiers on a Pacific island who still think the Second World War is going on. And yet it remains official policy, a completely deranged statement of priorities, which cannot be done, but simultaneously must be done, for political reasons which no-one can properly articulate.
Johnson has been far superior to Trump in his recognition of scientific expertise and refusal to attack immigration. But the relentless suspicion of international institutions is the same, as is the approach to journalism, even if it's done in a more subtle way.
No.10 spokespeople brand legitimate stories "ludicrous" and gleefully repeat daily that trust in media has collapsed. Health secretary Matt Hancock tells journalists that their manner of asking critical questions "irritates a lot of the public". Tory MPs routinely round on media figures, including, with a level of democratic illiteracy which is difficult to believe, by demanding they congratulate the prime minister on the birth of his baby.
And then there is the broader, long-running background horror show, that will play out over the months and years to come. The economy has been sluggish for a long time now, since the double-whammy of austerity and Brexit knocked it into standby mode. There is simply no spare capacity for a medium-term reduction in economic activity.
The same is true for local councils, who have been forced to slash their spending since the Tories took charge in 2010. There is nothing left to cut and yet demands for services will rise in the face of unemployment and underemployment.
For those of us lucky enough to still be healthy, this lockdown period is the calm before the storm. We are where everyone outside the financial sector was in 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed – so far unaffected, but aware of an awful wave heading our way.
It couldn't have happened at a worse time. The very worst people are in charge.
But we have at least that one advantage – a slim one, but a real one – that we can at least see it coming. And that means that those who know better can make the case now, before the debate starts properly, for a better response. One which recognises that covid does not disprove the need for international cooperation, solidarity, expertise, an active state, and independent journalism. It makes it.
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--2020-05-07--Surviving on £5.39: Home Office maintains punishing asylum conditions even under covid

The Covid-19 pandemic affects us all .
We all face the risk of catching this terrible virus .
We all live with the constraints of self-isolation .
And we can all be a part of a successful response , by respecting government guidelines and helping others around us .
But we are n't equally at risk .
Many groups in our society are disproportionately affected by this crisis : people with health conditions , older people , those on the breadline , people of colour , disabled people , flat dwellers and those living alone .
Each of these groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are getting considerable attention in the government response .
They are recognised as a priority , discussed in the daily press conferences , and prominent in media coverage .
I truly hope they will benefit from this .
But others are less visible .
People seeking asylum are disproportionately affected .
You ca n't follow government guidelines if this has not been explained to you in your own language , you live in unsafe housing or are destitute , or ca n't afford essentials due to an impossibly low weekly allowance .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bemoan these problems .
We 're doing all we possibly can to persuade Home Office ministers to put practical solutions in place now , including increasing financial support to people in desperate need .
People seeking asylum in the UK have fled war , conflict and persecution .
They have left behind all that they loved and cherished .
On arrival in the UK they are housed in accommodation that is often overcrowded and unsuitable , expected to live on £5.39 a day , and given no support to build relationships with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many is poverty and destitution .
This is our asylum system .
It often fails people in urgent need of support to rebuild their lives .
In the current crisis these failures create more poverty and trauma .
The Home Office response to date has been too slow and is putting people at additional risk .
Put yourself in the place of Kemal , who was forced to live on the street while waiting to receive his asylum support .
It took a court order to force the government to find him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been struggling with his health while living in initial accommodation for five months .
John should have been properly housed in January with access to an allowance .
Both live in fear while they 're stuck sharing a small room with strangers .
Our front-line staff at Refugee Action work with people affected in this way every day .
We 've radically altered the way we work and are doing everything we can to help those affected .
We 'll continue to do so .
But additional action by government is absolutely critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic needs through this crisis .
The Home Office must work with charities to design and deliver an approach that recognises the particular impacts of this pandemic on all vulnerable people and prioritises their needs .
Three actions are particularly urgent to enable people seeking asylum to follow government guidance on public health and ensure they do not go hungry or suffer additional unnecessary distress .
First , financial support must be increased to people in the asylum system .
Now more than ever it 's impossible for people to live on £5.39 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £20 a week is essential .
In the long term the allowance must be tied to benefit rates for UK residents .
Second , people must be housed in accommodation that is safe and not overcrowded .
Third , people need far better access to information .
The lack of up-to-date information in different languages and lack of phones , computers and Wifi means that people are unclear what is expected of them .
These three actions are needed now to ensure that the asylum system complies with the public health imperative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all this .
When we exit this crisis we must hold on to some simple truths .
Everyone 's health matters .
Everyone 's wellbeing matters .
The asylum system must be made fit for purpose , so that people who have already been through so much can successfully rebuild their lives in the UK .
Stephen Hale is the chief executive of Refugee Action .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The names of the people in this article have been changed .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Stephen Hale
The Covid-19 pandemic affects us all. We all face the risk of catching this terrible virus. We all live with the constraints of self-isolation. And we can all be a part of a successful response, by respecting government guidelines and helping others around us.
But we aren't equally at risk. Many groups in our society are disproportionately affected by this crisis: people with health conditions, older people, those on the breadline, people of colour, disabled people, flat dwellers and those living alone. Each of these groups faces immediate and specific challenges.
Some are getting considerable attention in the government response. They are recognised as a priority, discussed in the daily press conferences, and prominent in media coverage. I truly hope they will benefit from this.
But others are less visible. People seeking asylum are disproportionately affected. You can't follow government guidelines if this has not been explained to you in your own language, you live in unsafe housing or are destitute, or can't afford essentials due to an impossibly low weekly allowance.
Our concern at Refugee Action is not to bemoan these problems. We're doing all we possibly can to persuade Home Office ministers to put practical solutions in place now, including increasing financial support to people in desperate need.
People seeking asylum in the UK have fled war, conflict and persecution. They have left behind all that they loved and cherished. On arrival in the UK they are housed in accommodation that is often overcrowded and unsuitable, expected to live on £5.39 a day, and given no support to build relationships with the communities around them.
The result for many is poverty and destitution. This is our asylum system. It often fails people in urgent need of support to rebuild their lives.
In the current crisis these failures create more poverty and trauma. The Home Office response to date has been too slow and is putting people at additional risk.
Put yourself in the place of Kemal, who was forced to live on the street while waiting to receive his asylum support. It took a court order to force the government to find him a roof over his head.
Amin has been struggling with his health while living in initial accommodation for five months. John should have been properly housed in January with access to an allowance. Both live in fear while they're stuck sharing a small room with strangers.
Our front-line staff at Refugee Action work with people affected in this way every day. We've radically altered the way we work and are doing everything we can to help those affected. We'll continue to do so. But additional action by government is absolutely critical to keep people safe and meet their basic needs through this crisis.
The Home Office must work with charities to design and deliver an approach that recognises the particular impacts of this pandemic on all vulnerable people and prioritises their needs.
Three actions are particularly urgent to enable people seeking asylum to follow government guidance on public health and ensure they do not go hungry or suffer additional unnecessary distress.
First, financial support must be increased to people in the asylum system. Now more than ever it's impossible for people to live on £5.39 a day. An immediate rise of £20 a week is essential. In the long term the allowance must be tied to benefit rates for UK residents. Second, people must be housed in accommodation that is safe and not overcrowded. Third, people need far better access to information. The lack of up-to-date information in different languages and lack of phones, computers and Wifi means that people are unclear what is expected of them.
These three actions are needed now to ensure that the asylum system complies with the public health imperative. We also need to heed the lessons of all this. When we exit this crisis we must hold on to some simple truths. Everyone's health matters. Everyone's wellbeing matters. The asylum system must be made fit for purpose, so that people who have already been through so much can successfully rebuild their lives in the UK.
Stephen Hale is the chief executive of Refugee Action. You can follow him on Twitter here. The names of the people in this article have been changed.
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--2020-05-11--Social care cuts coming in the middle of the pandemic

A couple of weeks ago it almost looked like the government was going to start taking social care seriously .
With a steady stream of stories about the rising number of deaths in care homes and lack of PPE for care workers , it pledged to address the challenges and promised quick injections of cash .
Hell , they even brought out a new badge for care workers .
Yet here we are just a few days later and the part of the public sector responsible for delivering social care has been thrust into its most serious financial crisis in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic has made huge financial demands on councils .
At first , the government promised to cover whatever extra costs councils incurred .
Then they rowed back from that , providing only £3.2 billion when the estimate for the shortfall is closer to £9 billion .
Now , remarkably , the secretary of state for local government has publicly admitted that councils will not get the full funding they need .
The consequences have been immediate .
Two major councils , Liverpool City Council and Cumbria County Council , have announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To put that in perspective , when Northamptonshire County Council declared bankruptcy last year , it was seen as a once-in-a-generation occurrence .
There are also early signs that councils are having to launch fire-sales of assets to the private sector just to keep their head above water .
There can be no doubt that for many other councils , unwilling to face bankruptcy or without lucrative assets to sell , the only other option is cuts .
All this as the prime minister states that he has no intention of returning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government to allow this crisis to swirl out of control in the middle of a pandemic would be an act of the most spectacular political vandalism .
The people most at risk from covid – the elderly and those with underlying health conditions – are exactly the same people who receive social care .
A sudden round of redundancies amongst care workers , reduced working hours or lower quality thresholds will have real , immediate impacts .
It will mean home workers with dwindling time or support to wash hands , surfaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own home getting fewer visits from carers to check on their health .
Those with dementia and learning disabilities receiving less support to look after themselves .
These and a million other tiny steps backward are precisely the things that not only increase the vulnerability of the already-vulnerable but make a new spike in cases among the wider population more likely .
The uninformed might think councils could slice off chunks from their other areas of activity to protect social care .
They should think again .
Councils have lost around a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
As a result , many already dedicate the vast majority of their budgets to social care .
The harsh laws of accountancy mean new cuts will inevitably scythe into care .
And even where it is possible , further cuts in those other areas might not look so smart post pandemic .
Public health work might prove slightly handy during a public health crisis .
Economic development has its uses during a recession .
Controlling pollution to keep lungs healthy seems like a good idea .
And it 's probably wise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the sudden rise in need from abused children , victims of domestic violence , evicted tenants and those with untreated illnesses that will occur when lockdown ends .
One of the most puzzling features of this impending crisis is the politics of it all .
Because there is not nearly enough money to go round , the government has had to make arbitrary decisions about where the money does flow .
And not much of it flows northwards - at least in the latest tranche of funding .
Some of the areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial crisis are precisely those that returned Tory MPs for the first time at the last election .
They are the same areas that have been noisily promised a great levelling-up by the PM .
The government might as well just hand Keir Starmer rocks to throw at Boris Johnson during PMQs .
This is not yet a full blown crisis .
And there are some signs that Conservative MPs recognise the profound risk in the current situation .
But we are getting perilously close to the stage where councils will be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while it will be the vulnerable who bear the brunt of that most immediately , it will not be long before the whole country feels the consequences .
Adam Lent is the director of the New Local Government Network .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Adam Lent
A couple of weeks ago it almost looked like the government was going to start taking social care seriously. With a steady stream of stories about the rising number of deaths in care homes and lack of PPE for care workers, it pledged to address the challenges and promised quick injections of cash. Hell, they even brought out a new badge for care workers.
Yet here we are just a few days later and the part of the public sector responsible for delivering social care has been thrust into its most serious financial crisis in decades.
Like other public services, the pandemic has made huge financial demands on councils. At first, the government promised to cover whatever extra costs councils incurred. Then they rowed back from that, providing only £3.2 billion when the estimate for the shortfall is closer to £9 billion. Now, remarkably, the secretary of state for local government has publicly admitted that councils will not get the full funding they need.
The consequences have been immediate. Two major councils, Liverpool City Council and Cumbria County Council, have announced that they are now close to effective bankruptcy. To put that in perspective, when Northamptonshire County Council declared bankruptcy last year, it was seen as a once-in-a-generation occurrence.
There are also early signs that councils are having to launch fire-sales of assets to the private sector just to keep their head above water. There can be no doubt that for many other councils, unwilling to face bankruptcy or without lucrative assets to sell, the only other option is cuts. All this as the prime minister states that he has no intention of returning to the days of austerity.
For the government to allow this crisis to swirl out of control in the middle of a pandemic would be an act of the most spectacular political vandalism. The people most at risk from covid – the elderly and those with underlying health conditions – are exactly the same people who receive social care.
A sudden round of redundancies amongst care workers, reduced working hours or lower quality thresholds will have real, immediate impacts. It will mean home workers with dwindling time or support to wash hands, surfaces and equipment. The infirm in their own home getting fewer visits from carers to check on their health. Those with dementia and learning disabilities receiving less support to look after themselves.
These and a million other tiny steps backward are precisely the things that not only increase the vulnerability of the already-vulnerable but make a new spike in cases among the wider population more likely.
The uninformed might think councils could slice off chunks from their other areas of activity to protect social care. They should think again. Councils have lost around a third of their revenue over the last ten years. As a result, many already dedicate the vast majority of their budgets to social care. The harsh laws of accountancy mean new cuts will inevitably scythe into care.
And even where it is possible, further cuts in those other areas might not look so smart post pandemic. Public health work might prove slightly handy during a public health crisis. Economic development has its uses during a recession. Controlling pollution to keep lungs healthy seems like a good idea. And it's probably wise to have some people around to deal with the sudden rise in need from abused children, victims of domestic violence, evicted tenants and those with untreated illnesses that will occur when lockdown ends.
One of the most puzzling features of this impending crisis is the politics of it all. Because there is not nearly enough money to go round, the government has had to make arbitrary decisions about where the money does flow. And not much of it flows northwards – at least in the latest tranche of funding.
Some of the areas that are now most at risk of financial crisis are precisely those that returned Tory MPs for the first time at the last election. They are the same areas that have been noisily promised a great levelling-up by the PM. The government might as well just hand Keir Starmer rocks to throw at Boris Johnson during PMQs.
This is not yet a full blown crisis. And there are some signs that Conservative MPs recognise the profound risk in the current situation. But we are getting perilously close to the stage where councils will be forced to take desperate measures to stay afloat. And while it will be the vulnerable who bear the brunt of that most immediately, it will not be long before the whole country feels the consequences.
Adam Lent is the director of the New Local Government Network. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-05-13--Lost in the covid emergency: Migrant women escaping domestic violence blocked from help

By Sian Norris `` We feel the government has totally forgotten us , '' Samira tells me over Zoom .
`` As a woman seeking asylum , the government gives me £37.85 a week .
We thought in the crisis they would ease that .
They have n't .
And we are scared .
Are they going to cut us out of the system ?
Before we have had a chance to settle here ? ''
Samira and her two children fled a violent home for the UK three years ago .
She 's not alone : according to research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of women seeking asylum have experienced gender-based violence before arriving in the UK .
Life has never been easy for people seeking asylum in Britain .
The government provides them with just over £5 a day to live on .
They are not allowed to work , and restrictions exist on everything from accessing healthcare to driving licenses .
But since the coronavirus outbreak , life has become even harder .
This is , in part , because of the rising cost of living under lockdown .
While the government has increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people seeking asylum remains static .
When home secretary Priti Patel was asked about improving the support they receive in line with increases to Universal Credit , she said she had seen `` no evidence '' that asylum seekers were struggling to make ends meet on the current rate .
Sandhya Sharma , from the migrant support NGO Safety4Sisters , found this `` absolutely unbelievable '' .
The impact of having to survive on so little was severe enough as it was , according to Zoe Gardner , policy adviser at the Joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic `` it is all the more vital that people are able to purchase hygiene products and are n't forced to rely on charity '' .
People seeking asylum , she says , `` are no less in need of an increase in their support rate than other people made vulnerable by this crisis who rely on other forms of social security '' .
Then there 's the psychological impact of living in lockdown .
For Samira , the process of first being told by the Home Office what she can and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trapped at home because of the crisis , has triggered painful flashbacks of life with her abuser .
`` It feels like being in the relationship with my husband again , '' she says .
During her marriage she was often confined to one room .
`` You ca n't wear this .
You ca n't do that .
This lockdown has brought back all these memories .
I ca n't sleep , I have panic attacks .
When I do sleep I have nightmares . ''
Lockdown has also shut the doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Samira relies on to process her experiences of abuse , as well as for practical and financial assistance .
Safety4Sisters has moved its services online in response to the crisis , and while Samira admits that `` it 's nice to talk over Zoom '' she misses `` talking to a real person , sharing a meal and chatting nonsense '' .
The group is providing some financial support and fun activities , but the loss of human contact , a hot meal and a bus pass is taking its toll .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements .
Now lockdown has taken one of Samira 's few precious freedoms away .
The closure of face-to-face services is also a worry for Elizabeth Jimenéz-Yáñez , policy co-ordinator at the Latin American Women 's Rights Service ( LAWRS ) .
`` We are known among our service users by word of mouth , '' she explains .
She 's concerned that government efforts to signpost vulnerable women to services exclude the migrant women her organisation supports , who find it `` very difficult to contact mainstream services due to the language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culturally sensitive approach to the issues they ’ re facing '' .
Jimenéz-Yáñez and her team are `` seeing more cases of violence , and the cases we had before are made more complex by lockdown '' .
Worryingly , women whose situations `` were getting better , cases which were about to be closed , are now coming back to us '' .
Lockdown is exacerbating the issues migrant women already experienced , she says , including `` perpetrators using the immigration status of women to threaten them with deportation in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now being in the same room with your perpetrator and not being able to leave the house , and they threaten you with this . ''
The violence is also `` getting harder to contain .
Women ca n't go to work , they ca n't take their children to school , they are in lockdown with their partners . ''
A report published by the Women 's Budget Group in May 2020 reflects the experiences of Samira , Sharma , and Jimenéz-Yáñez .
It found there was no safety net for migrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no recourse to public funds and public services like housing and refuges are closed off .
`` Migrant women are denied access to safety , justice , and support , '' Jimenéz-Yáñez says .
`` Because the government has put immigration control above women 's safety . ''
The crisis has added momentum to the growing movement to scrap the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule .
MPs of all political stripes used the second reading of the domestic abuse bill to call for guarantees of support for migrant women .
Labour 's Abena Oppong-Asare , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that `` the domestic abuse bill should extend eligibility for the existing domestic violence rule , to ensure all victims , despite their immigration status can access refuge spaces , financial support and housing '' .
Amendments to the bill will be welcome , but women like Samira need immediate help to meet the emotional , practical and financial challenges caused by the coronavirus crisis right now – including increased cash support .
And while the government 's announcement of an additional £28 million to support domestic abuse survivors is welcome , none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Safety4Sisters and LAWRS who work with migrant women .
`` We know that when lockdown lifts , a lot of women will be coming to our services , '' Jimenéz-Yáñez explains .
`` And we do n't have anything from the government .
There have n't been any emergency plans and there is no clear information about how funding is going to be distributed . ''
Sharma believes this crisis has to be the catalyst for change .
`` We are utterly appalled that migrant women 's needs are so far down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even been thought of – in the midst of a global health pandemic this is unconscionable .
Every single person will be remembered for what you do during this time .
People will be remembered for how they treated people and what they said , and what they did n't say . ''
The Home Office said : `` We have made protecting all victims of domestic abuse a priority during these difficult times , including announcing over £28m to support victims of these awful crimes during this pandemic .
We are reviewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to asylum seekers ] , as we do every year as part of normal business , and we are taking coronavirus factors into consideration . ''
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist .
She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women 's Literature Festival .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Sian Norris
"We feel the government has totally forgotten us," Samira tells me over Zoom. "As a woman seeking asylum, the government gives me £37.85 a week. We thought in the crisis they would ease that. They haven't. And we are scared. Are they going to cut us out of the system? Before we have had a chance to settle here?"
Samira and her two children fled a violent home for the UK three years ago. She's not alone: according to research from Women for Refugee Women, 75% of women seeking asylum have experienced gender-based violence before arriving in the UK.
Life has never been easy for people seeking asylum in Britain. The government provides them with just over £5 a day to live on. They are not allowed to work, and restrictions exist on everything from accessing healthcare to driving licenses. But since the coronavirus outbreak, life has become even harder.
This is, in part, because of the rising cost of living under lockdown. While the government has increased some state benefits, the support for people seeking asylum remains static. When home secretary Priti Patel was asked about improving the support they receive in line with increases to Universal Credit, she said she had seen "no evidence" that asylum seekers were struggling to make ends meet on the current rate. Sandhya Sharma, from the migrant support NGO Safety4Sisters, found this "absolutely unbelievable".
The impact of having to survive on so little was severe enough as it was, according to Zoe Gardner, policy adviser at the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants. In a pandemic "it is all the more vital that people are able to purchase hygiene products and aren't forced to rely on charity". People seeking asylum, she says, "are no less in need of an increase in their support rate than other people made vulnerable by this crisis who rely on other forms of social security".
Then there's the psychological impact of living in lockdown. For Samira, the process of first being told by the Home Office what she can and can't do, and now being trapped at home because of the crisis, has triggered painful flashbacks of life with her abuser.
"It feels like being in the relationship with my husband again," she says. During her marriage she was often confined to one room. "You can't wear this. You can't do that. This lockdown has brought back all these memories. I can't sleep, I have panic attacks. When I do sleep I have nightmares."
Lockdown has also shut the doors of the support network of Safety4Sisters, which Samira relies on to process her experiences of abuse, as well as for practical and financial assistance.
Safety4Sisters has moved its services online in response to the crisis, and while Samira admits that "it's nice to talk over Zoom" she misses "talking to a real person, sharing a meal and chatting nonsense". The group is providing some financial support and fun activities, but the loss of human contact, a hot meal and a bus pass is taking its toll. The asylum system already restricts women's movements. Now lockdown has taken one of Samira's few precious freedoms away.
The closure of face-to-face services is also a worry for Elizabeth Jimenéz-Yáñez, policy co-ordinator at the Latin American Women's Rights Service (LAWRS). "We are known among our service users by word of mouth," she explains. She's concerned that government efforts to signpost vulnerable women to services exclude the migrant women her organisation supports, who find it "very difficult to contact mainstream services due to the language barrier, and the need for a culturally sensitive approach to the issues they’re facing".
Jimenéz-Yáñez and her team are "seeing more cases of violence, and the cases we had before are made more complex by lockdown". Worryingly, women whose situations "were getting better, cases which were about to be closed, are now coming back to us".
Lockdown is exacerbating the issues migrant women already experienced, she says, including "perpetrators using the immigration status of women to threaten them with deportation in order for them not to report. Imagine now being in the same room with your perpetrator and not being able to leave the house, and they threaten you with this." The violence is also "getting harder to contain. Women can't go to work, they can't take their children to school, they are in lockdown with their partners."
A report published by the Women's Budget Group in May 2020 reflects the experiences of Samira, Sharma, and Jimenéz-Yáñez. It found there was no safety net for migrant women in this crisis. They have no recourse to public funds and public services like housing and refuges are closed off.
"Migrant women are denied access to safety, justice, and support," Jimenéz-Yáñez says. "Because the government has put immigration control above women's safety."
The crisis has added momentum to the growing movement to scrap the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule. MPs of all political stripes used the second reading of the domestic abuse bill to call for guarantees of support for migrant women. Labour's Abena Oppong-Asare, who spoke in the debate, told Politics.co.uk that "the domestic abuse bill should extend eligibility for the existing domestic violence rule, to ensure all victims, despite their immigration status can access refuge spaces, financial support and housing".
Amendments to the bill will be welcome, but women like Samira need immediate help to meet the emotional, practical and financial challenges caused by the coronavirus crisis right now – including increased cash support. And while the government's announcement of an additional £28 million to support domestic abuse survivors is welcome, none of it is ring-fenced for specialist organisations like Safety4Sisters and LAWRS who work with migrant women.
"We know that when lockdown lifts, a lot of women will be coming to our services," Jimenéz-Yáñez explains. "And we don't have anything from the government. There haven't been any emergency plans and there is no clear information about how funding is going to be distributed."
Sharma believes this crisis has to be the catalyst for change. "We are utterly appalled that migrant women's needs are so far down the pecking order that they have not even been thought of – in the midst of a global health pandemic this is unconscionable. Every single person will be remembered for what you do during this time. People will be remembered for how they treated people and what they said, and what they didn't say."
The Home Office said:
"We have made protecting all victims of domestic abuse a priority during these difficult times, including announcing over £28m to support victims of these awful crimes during this pandemic. We are reviewing the level of the cash allowance [to asylum seekers], as we do every year as part of normal business, and we are taking coronavirus factors into consideration."
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-05-14--Immigration policy: From harmful to catastrophic

By Kate Allen and Nazek Ramadan Coronavirus has challenged each and every one of us in its own way .
Whether you 're rich or poor , in good health or bad , live alone or have children - we have all been confronted by a very new way of living and forced to wrestle with how our futures might be quite different to what we had anticipated .
But many migrants in this country are enduring a particularly difficult lockdown because of a deeply flawed immigration system .
Some are even being forced to break covid rules outlined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and instruction at this time is for social distancing and self-isolation .
But how can you do this if you do n't have a place to call home or your accommodation is unsafe ?
And what if you ca n't afford food , shelter , medicine and other essentials ?
Many migrants will have been faced with the stark choice of going hungry or taking on work that is exploitative and unsafe .
And if you 're held in immigration detention , whether you can stay safe at this time is out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discriminate on the basis of citizenship or immigration status , but the UK 's immigration system does – and it does so in profoundly harmful ways , even without this pandemic .
What is patently clear is that the government 's Covid-19 response must do more to address the immigration system and those stuck inside it at a time of national and global crisis .
Perhaps most urgently , ministers must ensure that everyone has access to safe accommodation and support and that no provider of vital necessities has any hesitation in giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants are excluded from renting accommodation , or working , or accessing various social and welfare services that they need to keep safe .
Before the pandemic , many migrants were heavily reliant on charities and food banks to survive .
Under lockdown , these people are now almost entirely cut off from the world .
They face stark choices .
With no access to wifi and unable to afford food , they are often hungry , lonely and have little idea how their families are coping abroad .
One man we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tin of baked beans a day and drinking tea to stem the hunger .
This should absolutely not be allowed to happen in 21st century Britain .
The government must also immediately stop all data-sharing that might deter people from contacting vital services .
Indeed many are too scared to contact public services for fear of being reported to the immigration authorities .
We know of one migrant who contracted Covid-19 and was too scared to seek healthcare for fear of being reported to the Home Office .
He died in his home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow this to happen ?
Everyone who needs healthcare must be able to get it .
Treatment for the virus has been made free for everyone , but as long as people are still being charged for all other conditions – including underlying ones that might make someone vulnerable to coronavirus – many can not seek the help they desperately need .
Immigration detention must also be urgently reviewed in the current crisis .
Where this is unsafe , or being used for immigration purposes that are not possible at this time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independent experts have made clear the risks of Covid-19 spreading rapidly inside places of detention and cases have already been confirmed in the centres .
And as long as travel restrictions mean people can not be removed from the UK , there is no lawful basis for continuing to detain them .
Finally , we must ensure that the information that migrants need about these essential matters is received and understood .
None of the above will be easy – the immigration system has been very effective at isolating people and making them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many decades .
But right now there is a sense of urgency that has not been felt in a lifetime - and postponing action any longer could prove catastrophic .
This is a chance to do the right thing and set an example to the world in how we treat some of the most vulnerable in our society .
Doing all that is needed to ensure everyone in the UK can stay safe , healthy and adhere to government guidance must be the first and last priority of the home secretary and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing what the immigration system does .
Nobody is safe , unless we 're all safe .
Kate Allen is director of Amnesty UK .
Nazek Ramadan is director of Migrant Voice .
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 Kate Allen and Nazek Ramadan
Coronavirus has challenged each and every one of us in its own way. Whether you’re rich or poor, in good health or bad, live alone or have children – we have all been confronted by a very new way of living and forced to wrestle with how our futures might be quite different to what we had anticipated.
But many migrants in this country are enduring a particularly difficult lockdown because of a deeply flawed immigration system. Some are even being forced to break covid rules outlined by the government.
No.10’s key message and instruction at this time is for social distancing and self-isolation. But how can you do this if you don’t have a place to call home or your accommodation is unsafe? And what if you can’t afford food, shelter, medicine and other essentials? Many migrants will have been faced with the stark choice of going hungry or taking on work that is exploitative and unsafe. And if you’re held in immigration detention, whether you can stay safe at this time is out of your hands altogether.
Covid-19 doesn’t discriminate on the basis of citizenship or immigration status, but the UK’s immigration system does – and it does so in profoundly harmful ways, even without this pandemic.
What is patently clear is that the government’s Covid-19 response must do more to address the immigration system and those stuck inside it at a time of national and global crisis.
Perhaps most urgently, ministers must ensure that everyone has access to safe accommodation and support and that no provider of vital necessities has any hesitation in giving what is needed. Currently, many migrants are excluded from renting accommodation, or working, or accessing various social and welfare services that they need to keep safe.
Before the pandemic, many migrants were heavily reliant on charities and food banks to survive. Under lockdown, these people are now almost entirely cut off from the world. They face stark choices. With no access to wifi and unable to afford food, they are often hungry, lonely and have little idea how their families are coping abroad. One man we have worked with is currently surviving on a tin of baked beans a day and drinking tea to stem the hunger. This should absolutely not be allowed to happen in 21st century Britain.
The government must also immediately stop all data-sharing that might deter people from contacting vital services. Indeed many are too scared to contact public services for fear of being reported to the immigration authorities. We know of one migrant who contracted Covid-19 and was too scared to seek healthcare for fear of being reported to the Home Office. He died in his home. Again, how can the government allow this to happen?
Everyone who needs healthcare must be able to get it. Treatment for the virus has been made free for everyone, but as long as people are still being charged for all other conditions – including underlying ones that might make someone vulnerable to coronavirus – many cannot seek the help they desperately need.
Immigration detention must also be urgently reviewed in the current crisis. Where this is unsafe, or being used for immigration purposes that are not possible at this time, all those detained should be released. Independent experts have made clear the risks of Covid-19 spreading rapidly inside places of detention and cases have already been confirmed in the centres. And as long as travel restrictions mean people cannot be removed from the UK, there is no lawful basis for continuing to detain them.
Finally, we must ensure that the information that migrants need about these essential matters is received and understood.
None of the above will be easy – the immigration system has been very effective at isolating people and making them fearful of government and public services for many decades. But right now there is a sense of urgency that has not been felt in a lifetime – and postponing action any longer could prove catastrophic.
This is a chance to do the right thing and set an example to the world in how we treat some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Doing all that is needed to ensure everyone in the UK can stay safe, healthy and adhere to government guidance must be the first and last priority of the home secretary and all her officials. And that means radically changing what the immigration system does.
Nobody is safe, unless we’re all safe.
Kate Allen is director of Amnesty UK. Nazek Ramadan is director of Migrant Voice.
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.