politicscouk--2020-09-29--Covid: The libertarian population immunity strategy is wrong-headed & dangerous

It 's the argument that wo n't go away .
Every day , a commentator or politician insists that we just need covid to work its way through the 'low risk ' population so most of us can go back to normal .
It 's wrong and it 's dangerous .
Here are the basics .
When a large proportion of a community becomes immune to a disease , its spread from person to person becomes substantially reduced .
As a result , the whole community becomes protected , not just those who are immune .
This phenomenon is often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'population immunity ' as a less loaded term .
Population immunity can be achieved in two ways : general spread of the disease through the population , or through vaccination .
The latter is routinely used to generate population immunity as part of our childhood immunisation programme : for instance , the Measles , Mumps and Rubella ( MMR ) vaccination .
There is currently no vaccine for covid , so any existing immunity in our population has been acquired through infection during the pandemic or through pre-existing resistance .
Accepting that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very different to advocating a national strategy of allowing a significant portion of the population to become infected without a vaccine in an attempt to reach that threshold .
As cases of covid in the UK surge once again , the debate has restarted about whether to suppress covid until a vaccine becomes available , or whether to pursue a deliberate strategy of achieving population immunity without a vaccine .
The assumption is that vulnerable populations can be protected while the rest of the population , who are at low risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged to live life normally and be exposed to the virus without a vaccine .
Some even advocate that younger people , because they are at lower risk , should be the first to actively seek infection .
`` Not only is it a good thing for young people to go out there and become immune , '' one commentator said , `` but that is almost their duty '' .
It is this deliberate strategy which I find so troubling , for six reasons .
Achieving population immunity without a vaccine might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet how long immunity after recovery from covid infection lasts .
While we hope it will be several years , it might be less than one year , as it is for other coronaviruses that cause colds .
A few confirmed cases of reinfection have already happened .
If immunity does fade within a year , then a population immunity strategy would not be enough to reduce the epidemic until the availability of an effective vaccine , because too many people would be losing their immunity every month .
Even a vaccine may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular boosters .
Even if immunity lasted long enough to sustainably reduce the reproduction ratio ( R ) to below one , there would still be new infections whenever a susceptible person was exposed to someone who had an active infection .
Declining cases after population immunity is reached does not guarantee rapid decline .
We can not seal off the vulnerable Older age , deprivation , obesity , being from a black and ethnic minority background and health problems such as diabetes , heart disease , lung disease , kidney disease and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with higher risk of severe illness and death from covid .
A study analysing GP records from almost 4 million adults estimated that over 20 % of the UK population is in a high-risk category , a quarter of whom are under the age of 70 .
Another study estimated that almost 30 % of the UK population has at least one condition that places them at high risk of severe covid .
This equates to somewhere between 12 and 20 million people who would need to be sufficiently protected , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with other family members , including grandchildren and children .
This applies particularly to those living in multigenerational families .
Even if higher risk people agreed to isolate for many months , they would need access to care , health care and key workers such as supermarket staff , plumbers , electricians , delivery drivers and others .
Many would be living with lower risk family who themselves would need to isolate or live a restricted outside life to avoid bringing covid home with them .
The many young people who live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disproportionately those of ethnic minority background - or whose parents are vulnerable would be unable to live a normal life .
And , of course , there are millions of people of working age who are at higher risk and would either be exposed in the workplace - including teachers , health care staff and other key workers - or need to stop work .
Just concentrating on the very high risk – the 2 million people who were in the shielding category over the spring and summer – is not a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is known as the 'prevention paradox ' .
If we lift restrictions on the general population and concentrate only on aggressively protecting those 2 million , the remaining millions of people who are at moderate risk will be exposed to covid much more as the virus spreads in an attempt to get to population immunity , leading to a substantial amount of severe illness and death .
Covid is not harmless in younger people without other health conditions It is certainly true that younger people without health risks are at very low risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the risk is not zero .
Previously healthy young adults have been admitted to hospital and some have died .
Recent evidence given to parliament and from Italy suggests that 85 % -90 % of people discharged from hospital following covid are still experiencing health problems months later .
Covid is still a new disease .
We are finding out much more about longer term health problems after recovering from the initial infection , including in people who did not need hospitalisation and even in those who never experienced symptoms .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been discovered in the heart , including damage to the heart muscle and lining , damage to blood vessels which creates a risk of clots and stroke , lung damage , brain damage and kidney disease .
We do not yet know whether this damage is permanent nor what proportion of people could be affected .
There is also 'long-covid ' , where many people who never needed hospital admission report significant symptoms months after initial infection .
These often include debilitating fatigue , muscle aches , coughing and breathlessness .
The Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 million users across the UK , found that ten per cent of people had symptoms for longer than three weeks .
A recent study from Ireland found that over half of people who had recovered from their initial bout of covid experienced persistent fatigue ten weeks later , regardless of how severe their initial illness was .
A study from the US found that one in five people between 18 and 34 years old with no chronic medical conditions had not returned to normal health two to three weeks after they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also been reported with severe multisystem disease .
It is not ethical to risk the long-term health of people like this , particularly without any form of public consultation or explanation of the risks .
Infection levels are highest in the most deprived areas , compounded by more severity of disease among black and minority ethnic populations .
These groups are disproportionately represented among key workers , including those in public facing roles and in the gig economy , and they are more exposed to covid because they are less able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to be able to afford to self-isolate if sick , more likely to work in covid-unsafe environments and more likely to live in overcrowded , multigenerational and substandard housing .
Covid will spread more rapidly , and with greater severity , in these communities while more advantaged communities remain relatively protected .
A disproportionate burden of achieving population immunity would fall to our most deprived communities .
We should give science more time to find effective treatments Since the initial wave in March and April , research has discovered some effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Patients admitted to hospital with covid now have a much better chance of survival than they would have in March .
An enormous amount of medical research is ongoing into new treatments so suppressing transmission of the disease for as long as we can - while waiting for an effective vaccine - will substantially improve outcomes if and when there are future spikes in infection .
We know how to suppress the virus without lockdown Advocates of a population immunity strategy often suggest that population immunity is the only option .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppression `` is increasingly infeasible '' and that suppression is too damaging to the economy and involves too many restrictions on our personal freedoms , whether that is wearing masks or socialising with as many people as we want .
The implicit assumption is that strict comprehensive lockdowns are the only means of suppressing the virus .
This is not true .
It ignores the substantial evidence worldwide of countries who have not only suppressed the virus during the initial wave , but are continuing to suppress the virus with very few daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes New Zealand , which is a much smaller and less crowded country than the UK , but also countries with large urban populations such as South Korea ( 50 million people ) , Japan ( 126 million people ) , Thailand ( 70 million people ) and Vietnam ( 97 million people ) .
We can learn a lot from these countries : they managed to suppress the spread of covid through a combination of consistent public health messaging , behavioural strategies including social distancing , hand hygiene and mask wearing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most importantly , using robust testing , contact tracing and isolation .
Those countries which suppressed the virus most aggressively and rapidly tended to experience the least impact on their economy .
The European country with the best testing and tracing system is probably Germany : they experienced far fewer deaths and less economic impact than similarly sized European countries , including the UK .
While we still do not have a test and trace system that is fit for purpose , we have good evidence as to how it should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and partnership between local government , public health bodies , primary care and local communities .
Given the current rise in cases and hospitalisations , we do need more restrictions to halt the spread of covid until testing and tracing can take much of the strain – but this is a matter of weeks , not months , and restrictions do not have to reach full lockdown levels .
We should not just give up and pursue a population immunity strategy simply because building a good test , trace and isolate system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operational Research at UCL and director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit .
Her main research area is using mathematical tools to support delivery of health services .
She is a member of Independent Sage , a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain 's recovery from the covid crisis .
Their report on population immunity is here .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Christina Pagel
It's the argument that won't go away. Every day, a commentator or politician insists that we just need covid to work its way through the 'low risk' population so most of us can go back to normal. It's wrong and it's dangerous.
Here are the basics. When a large proportion of a community becomes immune to a disease, its spread from person to person becomes substantially reduced. As a result, the whole community becomes protected, not just those who are immune. This phenomenon is often called 'herd immunity' but I prefer 'population immunity' as a less loaded term.
Population immunity can be achieved in two ways: general spread of the disease through the population, or through vaccination. The latter is routinely used to generate population immunity as part of our childhood immunisation programme: for instance, the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination. There is currently no vaccine for covid, so any existing immunity in our population has been acquired through infection during the pandemic or through pre-existing resistance.
Accepting that a population immunity threshold exists is, however, very different to advocating a national strategy of allowing a significant portion of the population to become infected without a vaccine in an attempt to reach that threshold.
As cases of covid in the UK surge once again, the debate has restarted about whether to suppress covid until a vaccine becomes available, or whether to pursue a deliberate strategy of achieving population immunity without a vaccine. The assumption is that vulnerable populations can be protected while the rest of the population, who are at low risk of hospitalisation and death, can be safely encouraged to live life normally and be exposed to the virus without a vaccine. Some even advocate that younger people, because they are at lower risk, should be the first to actively seek infection. "Not only is it a good thing for young people to go out there and become immune," one commentator said, "but that is almost their duty".
It is this deliberate strategy which I find so troubling, for six reasons.
Achieving population immunity without a vaccine might not be possible
We don't know yet how long immunity after recovery from covid infection lasts. While we hope it will be several years, it might be less than one year, as it is for other coronaviruses that cause colds. A few confirmed cases of reinfection have already happened. If immunity does fade within a year, then a population immunity strategy would not be enough to reduce the epidemic until the availability of an effective vaccine, because too many people would be losing their immunity every month. Even a vaccine may only provide short term protection and require regular boosters.
Even if immunity lasted long enough to sustainably reduce the reproduction ratio (R) to below one, there would still be new infections whenever a susceptible person was exposed to someone who had an active infection. Declining cases after population immunity is reached does not guarantee rapid decline.
We cannot seal off the vulnerable
Older age, deprivation, obesity, being from a black and ethnic minority background and health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease and those who are immuno-compromised are all associated with higher risk of severe illness and death from covid. A study analysing GP records from almost 4 million adults estimated that over 20% of the UK population is in a high-risk category, a quarter of whom are under the age of 70. Another study estimated that almost 30% of the UK population has at least one condition that places them at high risk of severe covid.
This equates to somewhere between 12 and 20 million people who would need to be sufficiently protected, many of whom will be in close and regular contact with other family members, including grandchildren and children. This applies particularly to those living in multigenerational families.
Even if higher risk people agreed to isolate for many months, they would need access to care, health care and key workers such as supermarket staff, plumbers, electricians, delivery drivers and others. Many would be living with lower risk family who themselves would need to isolate or live a restricted outside life to avoid bringing covid home with them.
The many young people who live with elderly relatives in intergenerational homes – disproportionately those of ethnic minority background – or whose parents are vulnerable would be unable to live a normal life. And, of course, there are millions of people of working age who are at higher risk and would either be exposed in the workplace – including teachers, health care staff and other key workers – or need to stop work.
Just concentrating on the very high risk – the 2 million people who were in the shielding category over the spring and summer – is not a way out. It leaves us with what is known as the 'prevention paradox'. If we lift restrictions on the general population and concentrate only on aggressively protecting those 2 million, the remaining millions of people who are at moderate risk will be exposed to covid much more as the virus spreads in an attempt to get to population immunity, leading to a substantial amount of severe illness and death.
Covid is not harmless in younger people without other health conditions
It is certainly true that younger people without health risks are at very low risk of hospitalisation or death. That said, the risk is not zero. Previously healthy young adults have been admitted to hospital and some have died. Recent evidence given to parliament and from Italy suggests that 85%-90% of people discharged from hospital following covid are still experiencing health problems months later.
Covid is still a new disease. We are finding out much more about longer term health problems after recovering from the initial infection, including in people who did not need hospitalisation and even in those who never experienced symptoms. So far, potentially long term problems have been discovered in the heart, including damage to the heart muscle and lining, damage to blood vessels which creates a risk of clots and stroke, lung damage, brain damage and kidney disease. We do not yet know whether this damage is permanent nor what proportion of people could be affected.
There is also 'long-covid', where many people who never needed hospital admission report significant symptoms months after initial infection. These often include debilitating fatigue, muscle aches, coughing and breathlessness. The Covid Symptom Tracker App, which has over 4 million users across the UK, found that ten per cent of people had symptoms for longer than three weeks. A recent study from Ireland found that over half of people who had recovered from their initial bout of covid experienced persistent fatigue ten weeks later, regardless of how severe their initial illness was. A study from the US found that one in five people between 18 and 34 years old with no chronic medical conditions had not returned to normal health two to three weeks after they were tested. Childhood admissions following covid infection have also been reported with severe multisystem disease.
It is not ethical to risk the long-term health of people like this, particularly without any form of public consultation or explanation of the risks.
Such a strategy would make existing inequalities worse
Infection levels are highest in the most deprived areas, compounded by more severity of disease among black and minority ethnic populations. These groups are disproportionately represented among key workers, including those in public facing roles and in the gig economy, and they are more exposed to covid because they are less able to work from home.
They are also less likely to be able to afford to self-isolate if sick, more likely to work in covid-unsafe environments and more likely to live in overcrowded, multigenerational and substandard housing. Covid will spread more rapidly, and with greater severity, in these communities while more advantaged communities remain relatively protected. A disproportionate burden of achieving population immunity would fall to our most deprived communities.
We should give science more time to find effective treatments
Since the initial wave in March and April, research has discovered some effective treatments for people severely ill with covid. Patients admitted to hospital with covid now have a much better chance of survival than they would have in March. An enormous amount of medical research is ongoing into new treatments so suppressing transmission of the disease for as long as we can – while waiting for an effective vaccine – will substantially improve outcomes if and when there are future spikes in infection.
We know how to suppress the virus without lockdown
Advocates of a population immunity strategy often suggest that population immunity is the only option. They base this assertion on the belief that suppression "is increasingly infeasible" and that suppression is too damaging to the economy and involves too many restrictions on our personal freedoms, whether that is wearing masks or socialising with as many people as we want. The implicit assumption is that strict comprehensive lockdowns are the only means of suppressing the virus.
This is not true. It ignores the substantial evidence worldwide of countries who have not only suppressed the virus during the initial wave, but are continuing to suppress the virus with very few daily cases and deaths. This not only includes New Zealand, which is a much smaller and less crowded country than the UK, but also countries with large urban populations such as South Korea (50 million people), Japan (126 million people), Thailand (70 million people) and Vietnam (97 million people).
We can learn a lot from these countries: they managed to suppress the spread of covid through a combination of consistent public health messaging, behavioural strategies including social distancing, hand hygiene and mask wearing, some restrictions on mass gatherings, and, most importantly, using robust testing, contact tracing and isolation.
Those countries which suppressed the virus most aggressively and rapidly tended to experience the least impact on their economy. The European country with the best testing and tracing system is probably Germany: they experienced far fewer deaths and less economic impact than similarly sized European countries, including the UK. While we still do not have a test and trace system that is fit for purpose, we have good evidence as to how it should be done: a de-centralised local strategy, and partnership between local government, public health bodies, primary care and local communities.
Given the current rise in cases and hospitalisations, we do need more restrictions to halt the spread of covid until testing and tracing can take much of the strain – but this is a matter of weeks, not months, and restrictions do not have to reach full lockdown levels. We should not just give up and pursue a population immunity strategy simply because building a good test, trace and isolate system is hard.
Christina Pagel is professor of Operational Research at UCL and director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit. Her main research area is using mathematical tools to support delivery of health services. She is a member of Independent Sage, a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain's recovery from the covid crisis. Their report on population immunity is here. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-01--Financial 'Long Covid': How lockdown debts drag families under

'Long Covid ' is one of the most vicious aspects of coronavirus .
Affecting survivors of the disease of all ages , it describes how symptoms can drag on for months .
It debilitates sufferers long after they are out of immediate danger , causing lasting harm to their quality of life .
The economic impact of coronavirus is not dissimilar .
There is the immediate spike in unemployment and shorter working hours , with many falling through the safety net of the furlough scheme and self-employment support .
Benefit claims have soared in response , as has food bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is debt - and debt drags .
Thanks to the design of the benefit system , it could drag hardest and longest on those least able to respond .
The problem - as so often - is Universal Credit ( UC ) , the government 's all-encompassing welfare scheme .
UC payments can be cut substantially by the Department for Work and Pensions to repay various debts and loans , whether the claimant can afford it or not .
It 's not the first benefit to be subject to such clawbacks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt deductions - but the sheer quantity of claimants hit by these deductions is unprecedented .
Deductions rarely affected more than 30 % of tax credit claimants in any given year - itself a very high proportion , but nowhere near the 60 % of UC claimants whose benefits were being cut to repay debts as of last May .
With UC claims rocketing during the pandemic - rising from 2.9m in February to 5.5m in July - the number of people affected is likely to rise sharply too .
Part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Recipients of UC must wait five weeks for the first payment to arrive .
Claimants are left with an unappetising choice - tide themselves over with what money they have , live at a deficit until the money arrives , or take out an advance loan from the DWP .
For the million or so new claimants who took the advance loan , this will need to be repaid over up to 12 months - with the money owed deducted from ongoing benefit payments .
But the debts do n't stop there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax credit debts , with the DWP having decided to use its new UC system to pursue such debts going back many years , even though the passage of time makes it hard to assess whether these debts are genuine or down to administrative error .
And then there are Covid 's financial fangs - rent arrears , council tax debts and utility bills .
The fall in earnings and rise in unemployment , particularly for those already in insecure work , has exacerbated all of these .
Homelessness charity Shelter says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into arrears since the start of the pandemic .
Based on survey responses , Citizens Advice estimates three million people were behind on water bills in July , with 2.8m behind on energy bills , the same number behind on council tax , and 1.2m in rent arrears .
All these debts can be recovered by cutting UC benefit payments .
Up to 30 % of the basic UC payment - the 'standard allowance ' , excluding add-ons for things like housing costs , children or disability - can be cut each month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans .
A single claimant under 25 would be left with £55 a week to live on if their benefits are deducted by 30 % .
That would n't affect the housing element of UC , but if they pay the average rent in their local area , the housing element of UC wo n't actually cover their entire rent .
`` The central problem with benefit deductions is that they are , in effect , reducing an already minimal income , '' says Louisa McGeehan , director of policy , rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CPAG ) .
`` Means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit already fall short of a decent income and many families are having to use money intended to meet their children 's needs to make up shortfalls in housing costs . ''
CPAG has found that people who suffer deductions from their UC often accrue other debts , thus compounding the problem - a false economy in every sense .
Having their already low benefits cut to repay rent arrears or advance loans means they can not afford to keep up with utility bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy food or nappies , and end up resorting to food banks .
All this takes a toll on people 's mental health , especially if they are struggling to meet the basic needs of their children .
A survey by debt charity StepChange found that of its clients receiving UC , more than half had at least one deduction to their benefits in place , with 40 % experiencing at least two deductions at the same time .
Most common were UC advance loan repayments , followed by benefit overpayments and council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies are now forced to accept repayment plans based on debtors ' ability to pay , the DWP often ignores this when pursuing debts , with the onus on benefit claimants to tell the department if they 're struggling financially - even though the government already has plenty of data on claimants ' financial circumstances at its fingertips .
The lifting of the evictions ban means tenants are now at greater risk of losing their home .
But the backlog in the court system means eviction notices are liable to take months to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seek deductions from benefits to recover rent arrears .
The UC standard allowance can be cut by up to a fifth to repay rent arrears - a cut of £82 a month for single claimants over 25 , and £119 a month for couples where at least one partner is over 25 .
`` Shelter is being flooded with calls from worried renters unexpectedly plunged into debt , and the situation is likely to get even worse with a recession underway , '' says Polly Neate , chief executive of Shelter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will only be possible if they can clear these covid rent debts .
That 's why we are urging the government to give struggling renters emergency grants to help pay these one-off arrears caused by the pandemic . ''
CPAG suggests a variety of measures to address the problem - higher benefits , the reversal of cuts such as the bedroom tax , greater flexibility in the UC system to allow deductions at lower rates , more discretion regarding rent arrears and the write-off of historic benefit debt , and the introduction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furlough scheme , the limited scope of its replacement , and the weakness of the jobs market all mean the number of people on Universal Credit is likely to rise , and the debts that can be recouped from UC payments are liable to rise as well .
The government , utility firms , landlords and even councils can all afford to take some of the strain of bad debts far more than cash-strapped debtors themselves , especially during a pandemic .
It is entirely a political choice that all the burden should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bear it .
A statement from the DWP said : `` Universal Credit advance repayments are made gradually over 12 months , and deductions are capped at 30 % of claimants ’ standard allowance .
From October 2021 , the repayment period will be extended from 12 months to 24 months and the reduction of the deductions cap from 30 % to 25 % .
For those who find themselves in unexpected hardship , advance repayments can be deferred for up to three months in certain cases . ''
Chaminda Jayanetti is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
'Long Covid' is one of the most vicious aspects of coronavirus. Affecting survivors of the disease of all ages, it describes how symptoms can drag on for months. It debilitates sufferers long after they are out of immediate danger, causing lasting harm to their quality of life.
The economic impact of coronavirus is not dissimilar. There is the immediate spike in unemployment and shorter working hours, with many falling through the safety net of the furlough scheme and self-employment support. Benefit claims have soared in response, as has food bank use.
Where there is deprivation, there is debt – and debt drags. Thanks to the design of the benefit system, it could drag hardest and longest on those least able to respond.
The problem – as so often – is Universal Credit (UC), the government's all-encompassing welfare scheme. UC payments can be cut substantially by the Department for Work and Pensions to repay various debts and loans, whether the claimant can afford it or not.
It's not the first benefit to be subject to such clawbacks. The tax credit system was riven with debt deductions – but the sheer quantity of claimants hit by these deductions is unprecedented. Deductions rarely affected more than 30% of tax credit claimants in any given year – itself a very high proportion, but nowhere near the 60% of UC claimants whose benefits were being cut to repay debts as of last May.
With UC claims rocketing during the pandemic – rising from 2.9m in February to 5.5m in July – the number of people affected is likely to rise sharply too.
Part of the problem is the design of UC itself. Recipients of UC must wait five weeks for the first payment to arrive. Claimants are left with an unappetising choice – tide themselves over with what money they have, live at a deficit until the money arrives, or take out an advance loan from the DWP.
For the million or so new claimants who took the advance loan, this will need to be repaid over up to 12 months – with the money owed deducted from ongoing benefit payments.
But the debts don't stop there. Many claimants are already burdened with tax credit debts, with the DWP having decided to use its new UC system to pursue such debts going back many years, even though the passage of time makes it hard to assess whether these debts are genuine or down to administrative error.
And then there are Covid's financial fangs – rent arrears, council tax debts and utility bills. The fall in earnings and rise in unemployment, particularly for those already in insecure work, has exacerbated all of these.
Homelessness charity Shelter says that more than 300,000 private renters have fallen into arrears since the start of the pandemic. Based on survey responses, Citizens Advice estimates three million people were behind on water bills in July, with 2.8m behind on energy bills, the same number behind on council tax, and 1.2m in rent arrears.
All these debts can be recovered by cutting UC benefit payments. Up to 30% of the basic UC payment – the 'standard allowance', excluding add-ons for things like housing costs, children or disability – can be cut each month in order to repay these debts and loans.
A single claimant under 25 would be left with £55 a week to live on if their benefits are deducted by 30%. That wouldn't affect the housing element of UC, but if they pay the average rent in their local area, the housing element of UC won't actually cover their entire rent.
"The central problem with benefit deductions is that they are, in effect, reducing an already minimal income," says Louisa McGeehan, director of policy, rights and advocacy at Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). "Means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit already fall short of a decent income and many families are having to use money intended to meet their children's needs to make up shortfalls in housing costs."
CPAG has found that people who suffer deductions from their UC often accrue other debts, thus compounding the problem – a false economy in every sense. Having their already low benefits cut to repay rent arrears or advance loans means they cannot afford to keep up with utility bills and consumer debts. Parents struggle to buy food or nappies, and end up resorting to food banks.
All this takes a toll on people's mental health, especially if they are struggling to meet the basic needs of their children.
A survey by debt charity StepChange found that of its clients receiving UC, more than half had at least one deduction to their benefits in place, with 40% experiencing at least two deductions at the same time. Most common were UC advance loan repayments, followed by benefit overpayments and council tax arrears.
While private debt collection agencies are now forced to accept repayment plans based on debtors' ability to pay, the DWP often ignores this when pursuing debts, with the onus on benefit claimants to tell the department if they're struggling financially – even though the government already has plenty of data on claimants' financial circumstances at its fingertips.
The lifting of the evictions ban means tenants are now at greater risk of losing their home. But the backlog in the court system means eviction notices are liable to take months to pursue, and landlords may instead decide to seek deductions from benefits to recover rent arrears.
The UC standard allowance can be cut by up to a fifth to repay rent arrears – a cut of £82 a month for single claimants over 25, and £119 a month for couples where at least one partner is over 25.
"Shelter is being flooded with calls from worried renters unexpectedly plunged into debt, and the situation is likely to get even worse with a recession underway," says Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter. "Keeping people safe in their homes will only be possible if they can clear these covid rent debts. That's why we are urging the government to give struggling renters emergency grants to help pay these one-off arrears caused by the pandemic."
CPAG suggests a variety of measures to address the problem – higher benefits, the reversal of cuts such as the bedroom tax, greater flexibility in the UC system to allow deductions at lower rates, more discretion regarding rent arrears and the write-off of historic benefit debt, and the introduction of rent control.
The ending of the furlough scheme, the limited scope of its replacement, and the weakness of the jobs market all mean the number of people on Universal Credit is likely to rise, and the debts that can be recouped from UC payments are liable to rise as well.
The government, utility firms, landlords and even councils can all afford to take some of the strain of bad debts far more than cash-strapped debtors themselves, especially during a pandemic.
It is entirely a political choice that all the burden should continue to fall on people least able to bear it.
A statement from the DWP said: "Universal Credit advance repayments are made gradually over 12 months, and deductions are capped at 30% of claimants’ standard allowance. From October 2021, the repayment period will be extended from 12 months to 24 months and the reduction of the deductions cap from 30% to 25%. For those who find themselves in unexpected hardship, advance repayments can be deferred for up to three months in certain cases."
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-02--Week in Review: Brain-dead and heartless response to asylum boats sums up No.10

Grim smattering of briefings this week , filling up the news agenda with the most horrible muck .
They revealed various government ideas to stop boats carrying asylum seekers to Britain .
Officials in several departments were spreading the plans - some of them 'blue skies thinking ' , some much more thoroughly thought through - in a bid to embarrass different figures .
But the ins-and-outs of the briefing war are much less interesting than the ideas themselves and what they say about the people formulating them .
They included deploying boats with pumps to generate waves to force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to link-up as some kind of sea barrier - ideas so profoundly , bone-crunchingly stupid even Donald Trump might have balked at them .
Other plans seemed to ape the inhumane Australian system of offshore asylum processing , either through an immigration centre in Ascension Island , or on disused ferries moored off the British coast , or decommissioned oil platforms in the North Sea , or in facilities on the Isle of Wight , or , bafflingly , in Moldova , Morocco or Papua New Guinea .
Some of these ideas were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a secret consultation with the maritime industry into how a Channel border might work .
They reflect a level of stupidity which is nearly always present in this government 's thinking , but is rarely quite so blisteringly obvious .
The wave-pumping and border formation ideas in particular are those that a child would devise , the most basic and infantile of all possible responses to the situation .
The foolishness is not just practical .
It is also financial .
Any one of these ideas would be more expensive than simply dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would involve providing safe routes to the UK and then operating an efficient asylum evaluation process once they arrive .
As things stand , many asylum seekers are kept waiting for a decision well past the six month deadline , often for years .
This has a demeaning , deadening impact on them , forcing them into a kind of unlife , where they must subsist on meagre dribbles of money and are barred from work .
But it also costs the UK more .
Everyone loses due to the inadequacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week even attempted to grapple with that .
More than stupidity , though , the briefings contained a deeper message .
It 's not just their brains that are small , but their hearts .
This is the quality which is so often missed in political journalism .
It does n't fit with the mannerism of political analysis .
These proposals are unkind .
They are morally wrong , regardless of their efficacy or legality .
They lack compassion , a basic ethical temperament which it is not fashionable to talk about but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The people on those boats are desperate .
This is the thing which none of the tabloid coverage will tell you .
They have escaped some of the most violent , oppressive , poverty-stricken and chaotic states on earth .
They are looking for a place to call home .
They are vulnerable in their homeland , they are targeted when they flee , and they are rejected when they get here .
They are raped , they are murdered , they are abused , they are imprisoned .
This is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ description of what you will find when you read the reports into what asylum seekers face .
It is the moral truth we refuse to look in the face .
At no point in that process did anyone bother to exert the most basic of all ethical principles on their behalf : to treat them as moral ends , to think of them as human beings , in terrible circumstances , who deserve a life of dignity , security and comfort .
The standard nativist response to all this is to ask why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they can apply for asylum there .
There are several answers to that - having family members here , knowing the language , believing they 'll be treated fairly .
But the question itself is not honestly asked .
It is deployed as a means of shutting down discussion .
And what , after all , could it possibly demonstrate ?
Anyone risking their life in a little dinghy in the Channel is clearly desperate .
They are desperate by definition .
No-one in a comfortable life puts themselves in that situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not politics that matters - not really .
It 's morality .
It 's for each individual to answer to their own conscience .
When you see a fellow human being in desperate circumstances , do you want to help ?
Or do you want to pull up the drawbridge , to insist it 's not your problem , to pride yourself on the hardening of your heart , and try to convince others that it is merely realism and not a disintegration of your moral capacity .
Our problem is that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are in Downing Street .
They are in the Home Office .
They are running the show .
The briefings they put out all had some immediate day-to-day role in their internal struggles .
But what they confirmed , more than anything else , was that they lacked the moral stature for power .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website or its owners .

Grim smattering of briefings this week, filling up the news agenda with the most horrible muck. They revealed various government ideas to stop boats carrying asylum seekers to Britain. Officials in several departments were spreading the plans – some of them 'blue skies thinking', some much more thoroughly thought through – in a bid to embarrass different figures.
But the ins-and-outs of the briefing war are much less interesting than the ideas themselves and what they say about the people formulating them. They included deploying boats with pumps to generate waves to force boats back to French waters, or to link-up as some kind of sea barrier – ideas so profoundly, bone-crunchingly stupid even Donald Trump might have balked at them.
Other plans seemed to ape the inhumane Australian system of offshore asylum processing, either through an immigration centre in Ascension Island, or on disused ferries moored off the British coast, or decommissioned oil platforms in the North Sea, or in facilities on the Isle of Wight, or, bafflingly, in Moldova, Morocco or Papua New Guinea.
Some of these ideas were actively pursued. The Home Office launched a secret consultation with the maritime industry into how a Channel border might work.
They reflect a level of stupidity which is nearly always present in this government's thinking, but is rarely quite so blisteringly obvious. The wave-pumping and border formation ideas in particular are those that a child would devise, the most basic and infantile of all possible responses to the situation.
The foolishness is not just practical. It is also financial. Any one of these ideas would be more expensive than simply dealing with the problem sensibly and humanely. That would involve providing safe routes to the UK and then operating an efficient asylum evaluation process once they arrive.
As things stand, many asylum seekers are kept waiting for a decision well past the six month deadline, often for years. This has a demeaning, deadening impact on them, forcing them into a kind of unlife, where they must subsist on meagre dribbles of money and are barred from work. But it also costs the UK more. Everyone loses due to the inadequacy of the system and nothing we heard this week even attempted to grapple with that.
More than stupidity, though, the briefings contained a deeper message. It's not just their brains that are small, but their hearts. This is the quality which is so often missed in political journalism. It doesn't fit with the mannerism of political analysis.
These proposals are unkind. They are morally wrong, regardless of their efficacy or legality. They lack compassion, a basic ethical temperament which it is not fashionable to talk about but forms a fundamental requirement of government decision-making.
The people on those boats are desperate. This is the thing which none of the tabloid coverage will tell you. They have escaped some of the most violent, oppressive, poverty-stricken and chaotic states on earth. They are looking for a place to call home. They are vulnerable in their homeland, they are targeted when they flee, and they are rejected when they get here.
They are raped, they are murdered, they are abused, they are imprisoned. This is not hyperbole. It is simply an accurate description of what you will find when you read the reports into what asylum seekers face. It is the moral truth we refuse to look in the face.
At no point in that process did anyone bother to exert the most basic of all ethical principles on their behalf: to treat them as moral ends, to think of them as human beings, in terrible circumstances, who deserve a life of dignity, security and comfort.
The standard nativist response to all this is to ask why people come to the UK from France if they can apply for asylum there. There are several answers to that – having family members here, knowing the language, believing they'll be treated fairly. But the question itself is not honestly asked. It is deployed as a means of shutting down discussion.
And what, after all, could it possibly demonstrate? Anyone risking their life in a little dinghy in the Channel is clearly desperate. They are desperate by definition. No-one in a comfortable life puts themselves in that situation.
On this issue, it's not politics that matters – not really. It's morality. It's for each individual to answer to their own conscience. When you see a fellow human being in desperate circumstances, do you want to help? Or do you want to pull up the drawbridge, to insist it's not your problem, to pride yourself on the hardening of your heart, and try to convince others that it is merely realism and not a disintegration of your moral capacity.
Our problem is that those in the latter camp are in government. They are in Downing Street. They are in the Home Office. They are running the show. The briefings they put out all had some immediate day-to-day role in their internal struggles. But what they confirmed, more than anything else, was that they lacked the moral stature for power.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-05--The break-up of the UK is coming - but will it be violent or peaceful?

Between 1991 and 1995 two multinational states fell apart .
Yugoslavia broke up in a civil war that killed 150,000 , while Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully following referendums in both of its constituent parts .
Another such state now faces the prospect of doing the same : the United Kingdom .
How might it happen ?
Where does the UK lie on the spectrum where one end is Yugoslavia and the other is Czechoslovakia ?
If you agree with the late Roger Scruton that we are a `` settled people '' and think it matters that few people in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are so clearly at the Czechoslovak end that the question is absurd .
But it 's worth remembering that in April 1992 , with the war over Croatia underway , Bosnian Muslims , Croats and Serbs demonstrated in Sarajevo to tell the world that the same could not happen there .
They were wrong , and for the next three years the worst men in Bosnia did what the worst men everywhere do if a train of events happens under the right structural conditions .
In Bosnia those conditions included two religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Christian and Islamic worlds , the other between the Catholic and the Orthodox Christian worlds .
They were not the 'ancient hatreds ' too many talked about , but they did assert themselves in the way outside states backed one side or the other .
Bohemia used to be on a fault line of its own - the Catholic/Protestant one that plunged central Europe into the Thirty Years War .
But by 1992 the plates had long stopped rubbing against one another and in any case the Czechs - the most secular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in holding on to poorer and more religious Slovakia .
Referendums in each part showed a majority for separation .
The UK has a Catholic/Protestant fault line too .
In Northern Ireland it was active for 30 years and killed 3,500 people - equivalent to 200,000 for the UK as a whole .
Two decades on from the Good Friday Agreement , the people of Northern Ireland do n't want to revisit that nightmare , which means that if there is a no-deal Brexit and Northern Ireland becomes a smuggler 's paradise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decade may well see both parts of Ireland agree , if not exactly as amicably as Czechs and Slovaks agreed to part , to unite as a new and sovereign member of the European Union .
Remarkably , the people of the rest of the UK will have had no say in the matter .
Moreover , many of the leading English Brexiters will accept a vote for Irish unity .
The Northern Ireland Protocol and the internal market bill are meant to keep NI in the UK for now , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will let it go without a fight .
Contrary to the current talk of the British empire and the nostalgia around it , they are not Powellites .
Their overriding concern instead is the restoration of the Westminster system .
For them , our EU membership has been an historical parenthesis .
Westminster is all .
A century ago , ceding part of Ireland was a price worth paying for keeping the Westminster system intact .
So was the loss of India , and the loss of the colonies in the 1950s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whenever , Northern Ireland will follow .
The more troubling question is whether the Brexiters see Scotland in the same way , and whether their view of Scottish independence is the same as that of Unionists south and north of the border .
Scotland is a nation of the United Kingdom , not a province that can be snapped off and tacked on to another state .
It can only become separate by becoming independent and sovereign .
The stakes here are much higher .
The internal market bill recognises this graver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit to give ministers renewed powers to make strategic decisions about the whole of the UK that the current devolution settlement disallows .
Ed Miliband referred to this power grab before anything else in his contribution to debate on the bill in the House of Commons .
The SNP 's Ian Blackford immediately intervened to thank him .
Boris Johnson has n't added 'Hang on to your Scots , it 's going to be a rough ride ' to his list of off-the-cuff rallying cries , but it might well be his motto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For English Unionists , Scotland is everything Northern Ireland never has been - an indispensable and integral part of the Westminster system .
And that makes Edinburgh 's cultivation of a social democratic , grown-up continental European political culture all the more difficult to bear .
The Irish comedian Dara O ’ Brien once referred to Glasgow as `` Belfast lite '' , but the more important Catholic/Protestant divide concerns geopolitics and modes of governance .
The geopolitical divide is centuries old , the tectonic plates large .
Some of the most prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baker , know this and see the EU to which Scotland aspires to belong as a Roman Catholic project .
That project 's mode of governance is not the centralised one the less intellectual Brexiters constantly moan about , but actually about subsidiarity - decisions being made at the most local feasible level .
By contrast , the heart and distinctiveness of the Westminster system is centralisation .
Scottish nationalists believe Scotland would be freer to act autonomously within a federal , decentralised European Union than they are with devolution inside a unitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scottish overtures immediately after the 2016 EU referendum was sympathetic .
To date , though , Boris Johnson has ruled out any further referendums on Scottish independence .
By the same token Edinburgh would be reluctant to declare independence unilaterally , though some would like to push Nicola Sturgeon in that direction .
When the government of Catalonia did this , it was met with an immediate crackdown by Madrid , which the EU backed .
We have not reached that stage , but with the prospect of no-deal still with us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British mainland between England and Scotland , the EU may be less keen , at least officially , to encourage Scottish independence than it was four years ago .
None of that is an argument against Scottish independence .
The point is this : Croats and Serbs , Russians and Ukrainians , Russians and Georgians , Armenians and Azeris - the have no more desire to harm each other than the various nations of the UK do .
They did so because the institutional structures and modes of governance that prevent conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the politicians who ruled them were unable or unwilling to understand and manage geopolitical forces greater than themselves .
Thinking seriously about the future of the UK involves thinking about that Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia spectrum , and at what point along it our current modes of governance and crop of politicians are going to place us .
Charles Turner is associate professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick .
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 @ @ @

By Charles Turner
Between 1991 and 1995 two multinational states fell apart. Yugoslavia broke up in a civil war that killed 150,000, while Czechoslovakia broke up peacefully following referendums in both of its constituent parts. Another such state now faces the prospect of doing the same: the United Kingdom. How might it happen? Where does the UK lie on the spectrum where one end is Yugoslavia and the other is Czechoslovakia?
If you agree with the late Roger Scruton that we are a "settled people" and think it matters that few people in the UK are into gun ownership, then we are so clearly at the Czechoslovak end that the question is absurd. But it's worth remembering that in April 1992, with the war over Croatia underway, Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs demonstrated in Sarajevo to tell the world that the same could not happen there. They were wrong, and for the next three years the worst men in Bosnia did what the worst men everywhere do if a train of events happens under the right structural conditions.
In Bosnia those conditions included two religious and geopolitical fault lines, one between the Christian and Islamic worlds, the other between the Catholic and the Orthodox Christian worlds. They were not the 'ancient hatreds' too many talked about, but they did assert themselves in the way outside states backed one side or the other.
Bohemia used to be on a fault line of its own – the Catholic/Protestant one that plunged central Europe into the Thirty Years War. But by 1992 the plates had long stopped rubbing against one another and in any case the Czechs – the most secular people in Europe – had no interest in holding on to poorer and more religious Slovakia. Parliamentary votes in each part showed a majority for separation.
The UK has a Catholic/Protestant fault line too. In Northern Ireland it was active for 30 years and killed 3,500 people – equivalent to 200,000 for the UK as a whole. Two decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, the people of Northern Ireland don't want to revisit that nightmare, which means that if there is a no-deal Brexit and Northern Ireland becomes a smuggler's paradise in January, a border poll later in the decade may well see both parts of Ireland agree, if not exactly as amicably as Czechs and Slovaks agreed to part, to unite as a new and sovereign member of the European Union.
Remarkably, the people of the rest of the UK will have had no say in the matter. Moreover, many of the leading English Brexiters will accept a vote for Irish unity. The Northern Ireland Protocol and the internal market bill are meant to keep NI in the UK for now, but if push comes to shove, they will let it go without a fight.
Contrary to the current talk of the British empire and the nostalgia around it, they are not Powellites. Their overriding concern instead is the restoration of the Westminster system. For them, our EU membership has been an historical parenthesis. Westminster is all. A century ago, ceding part of Ireland was a price worth paying for keeping the Westminster system intact. So was the loss of India, and the loss of the colonies in the 1950s and early 1960s. Today, next year, whenever, Northern Ireland will follow.
The more troubling question is whether the Brexiters see Scotland in the same way, and whether their view of Scottish independence is the same as that of Unionists south and north of the border. Scotland is a nation of the United Kingdom, not a province that can be snapped off and tacked on to another state. It can only become separate by becoming independent and sovereign.
The stakes here are much higher. The internal market bill recognises this graver prospect and has used the uncertainties around Brexit to give ministers renewed powers to make strategic decisions about the whole of the UK that the current devolution settlement disallows. Ed Miliband referred to this power grab before anything else in his contribution to debate on the bill in the House of Commons. The SNP's Ian Blackford immediately intervened to thank him.
Boris Johnson hasn't added 'Hang on to your Scots, it's going to be a rough ride' to his list of off-the-cuff rallying cries, but it might well be his motto for the remainder of his premiership. For English Unionists, Scotland is everything Northern Ireland never has been – an indispensable and integral part of the Westminster system. And that makes Edinburgh's cultivation of a social democratic, grown-up continental European political culture all the more difficult to bear.
The Irish comedian Dara O’Brien once referred to Glasgow as "Belfast lite", but the more important Catholic/Protestant divide concerns geopolitics and modes of governance. The geopolitical divide is centuries old, the tectonic plates large. Some of the most prominent Brexiters, like the hardcore Anglican Steve Baker, know this and see the EU to which Scotland aspires to belong as a Roman Catholic project.
That project's mode of governance is not the centralised one the less intellectual Brexiters constantly moan about, but actually about subsidiarity – decisions being made at the most local feasible level. By contrast, the heart and distinctiveness of the Westminster system is centralisation. Scottish nationalists believe Scotland would be freer to act autonomously within a federal, decentralised European Union than they are with devolution inside a unitary state.
The EU's response to Scottish overtures immediately after the 2016 EU referendum was sympathetic. To date, though, Boris Johnson has ruled out any further referendums on Scottish independence. By the same token Edinburgh would be reluctant to declare independence unilaterally, though some would like to push Nicola Sturgeon in that direction. When the government of Catalonia did this, it was met with an immediate crackdown by Madrid, which the EU backed. We have not reached that stage, but with the prospect of no-deal still with us, and thus of a hard border on the British mainland between England and Scotland, the EU may be less keen, at least officially, to encourage Scottish independence than it was four years ago.
None of that is an argument against Scottish independence. The point is this: Croats and Serbs, Russians and Ukrainians, Russians and Georgians, Armenians and Azeris – the have no more desire to harm each other than the various nations of the UK do. They did so because the institutional structures and modes of governance that prevent conflict were not in place, or because the politicians who ruled them were unable or unwilling to understand and manage geopolitical forces greater than themselves.
Thinking seriously about the future of the UK involves thinking about that Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia spectrum, and at what point along it our current modes of governance and crop of politicians are going to place us.
Charles Turner is associate professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-06--Johnson conference speech: Guff and fantasy in place of a plan

Historic times call for historic figures .
And we , unfortunately , are living in historic times .
In just a few weeks , Britain will leave the EU .
It is not ready , even if it gets a deal .
The systems are not place for what is going to hit us .
The fundamental change it will demand in our trading status needs a firm plan to counter it .
The political tensions it has created in Northern Ireland and Scotland threaten to tear the UK apart .
We are seeing the start of the second covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is devastating our health , our economy and people 's social well-being .
We need , more than at any time in the post-war era , a prime minister who has a plan , the diligence to deliver it , and the ability to communicate it .
But that is not what we have .
Boris Johnson the prime minister is the same as Boris Johnson the party leadership contender , who is the same as Boris Johnson the columnist .
He is a ball of blather , spinning in the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jokes .
That is what he was before and it is what he is now .
Millions of voters really rather like that ball of blather .
There 's no point denying that - it is demonstrably true .
The ball is much more memorable than what we get from most politicians , which is a grey simulation of personality , a robot script of policy evasions .
You can see why he stands out .
But what the ball does not provide is competent government .
During the good times , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not good times .
They are historic times .
And the character and capacity of the man in charge during them is manifestly not up to the task .
As usual , Johnson painted a broad-strokes watercolour image of the future utopia he was going to create , a combination of nationalist politics with tech-heavy clean energy aspirations - like Brave New World if it was written by an automated supermarket check-out counter .
You 'd use your blue Brexit passport after jetting in on a low carbon jet .
Everyone would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-on-one school tuition .
Covid would be vanquished by the derring-do of an island people .
The Union would be strengthened .
But there was no signal as to how any of this would be achieved .
Mostly the speech was without details , but where they did suddenly emerge , the proposals seemed utterly inadequate for the task they were intended to achieve .
That great 2030 's utopia he painted will remain a dream well after the date is reached .
It is convenient for him to try to define himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covid - to refute the criticism that his government has no purpose or direction .
But that is all these ideas are : dreams .
They 're self-serving fantasies , with none of the purpose or planning behind them which might allow them to become real .
On the big issues of the day - covid and Brexit - he had nothing to say .
There was nothing here about how we would get through the pandemic , what the government would do to help , what would happen to halt the endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British response , why Scotland would stay in the UK given the disrespect with which it has been treated over Brexit , how Britain will succeed while cutting itself off from its largest trading partner , what the preparations were for the customs chaos that rises ahead of us on January 1st .
There 's just that spinning ball of blather , like someone trying to placate you with a knock-knock gag while they saw off your arm .
It goes without saying that the speech will do nothing to convince his critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the chief criticism there is to make of him - that he was good on Have I Got News For You and would be better placed on that programme than he ever would be in the corridors of power .
But it will also do nothing to convince his supporters in the Conservative parliamentary party and the right-wing press , who are slowly coming to realise that there was never any reason for him to want power except for the holding of it , that he is all ambition and no values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are now beginning to recognise what has , to everyone else , been patently obvious for years : this man is not suitable to be prime minister .
And he is least suited to be prime minister now .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Historic times call for historic figures. And we, unfortunately, are living in historic times.
In just a few weeks, Britain will leave the EU. It is not ready, even if it gets a deal. The systems are not place for what is going to hit us. The fundamental change it will demand in our trading status needs a firm plan to counter it. The political tensions it has created in Northern Ireland and Scotland threaten to tear the UK apart. We are seeing the start of the second covid wave, amid an unprecedented global pandemic which is devastating our health, our economy and people's social well-being.
We need, more than at any time in the post-war era, a prime minister who has a plan, the diligence to deliver it, and the ability to communicate it.
But that is not what we have. Boris Johnson the prime minister is the same as Boris Johnson the party leadership contender, who is the same as Boris Johnson the columnist. He is a ball of blather, spinning in the air, generating half-formed emotional appeals and after-dinner jokes. That is what he was before and it is what he is now.
Millions of voters really rather like that ball of blather. There's no point denying that – it is demonstrably true. The ball is much more memorable than what we get from most politicians, which is a grey simulation of personality, a robot script of policy evasions. You can see why he stands out.
But what the ball does not provide is competent government. During the good times, that might have been survivable. But these are not good times. They are historic times. And the character and capacity of the man in charge during them is manifestly not up to the task.
As usual, Johnson painted a broad-strokes watercolour image of the future utopia he was going to create, a combination of nationalist politics with tech-heavy clean energy aspirations – like Brave New World if it was written by an automated supermarket check-out counter. You'd use your blue Brexit passport after jetting in on a low carbon jet. Everyone would own a house and there'd be one-on-one school tuition. Covid would be vanquished by the derring-do of an island people. The Union would be strengthened.
But there was no signal as to how any of this would be achieved. Mostly the speech was without details, but where they did suddenly emerge, the proposals seemed utterly inadequate for the task they were intended to achieve. That great 2030's utopia he painted will remain a dream well after the date is reached.
It is convenient for him to try to define himself through something which isn't Brexit or covid – to refute the criticism that his government has no purpose or direction. But that is all these ideas are: dreams. They're self-serving fantasies, with none of the purpose or planning behind them which might allow them to become real.
On the big issues of the day – covid and Brexit – he had nothing to say. There was nothing here about how we would get through the pandemic, what the government would do to help, what would happen to halt the endless stream of errors which have knee-capped the British response, why Scotland would stay in the UK given the disrespect with which it has been treated over Brexit, how Britain will succeed while cutting itself off from its largest trading partner, what the preparations were for the customs chaos that rises ahead of us on January 1st. There's just that spinning ball of blather, like someone trying to placate you with a knock-knock gag while they saw off your arm.
It goes without saying that the speech will do nothing to convince his critics. If anything it is a confirmation of the chief criticism there is to make of him – that he was good on Have I Got News For You and would be better placed on that programme than he ever would be in the corridors of power.
But it will also do nothing to convince his supporters in the Conservative parliamentary party and the right-wing press, who are slowly coming to realise that there was never any reason for him to want power except for the holding of it, that he is all ambition and no values, a railway track which leads nowhere. They are now beginning to recognise what has, to everyone else, been patently obvious for years: this man is not suitable to be prime minister. And he is least suited to be prime minister now.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-06--Australia dishonoured itself by offshoring asylum - now Britain looks set to do the same

Australia 's offshore asylum processing system is a moral abomination .
It is astronomically expensive and grotesquely inhumane .
It has caused deaths , child abuse scandals and a mental health catastrophe for torture survivors and other asylum seekers warehoused on Nauru and Manus Island .
Earlier this year , the International Criminal Court prosecutor described detention conditions on the islands as constituting `` cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment '' in violation of international law .
The harm to these men , women and children – the vast majority of whom Australia recognises are refugees - is matched only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international standing .
The UN high commissioner for refugees has lambasted the offshore system as an affront to `` fundamental principles of family unity and refugee protection , and to common decency '' and called for it to end .
It was not so long ago when Britain was among the 100 or so states to have condemned Australia 's asylum practices at the United Nations .
It is disturbing , therefore , to see the government of Boris Johnson flirting with similar plans to ship asylum seekers to the islands of Ascension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ocean .
This news was quickly followed by leaks of even more preposterous proposals to deter asylum seekers from crossing the Channel with wave machines and water cannons .
Whitehall sources are understandably clambering to disassociate their departments from these risible ideas .
But it is not only Australia ’ s draconian asylum policies that Downing Street covets , it is also its anti-asylum politics .
Scapegoating of asylum seekers for political advantage is a shameful Australian political sport .
John Howard won a federal election in 2001 by claiming that asylum seekers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rescue at sea .
It was a complete lie , promoted by Lynton Crosby , who later became Boris Johnson 's electoral strategist .
Donald Trump took the idea and ran with it , manufacturing a crisis about “ caravans ” of central American asylum seekers to sway the US mid-term elections last year .
This toxic strategy was created in Canberra , copycatted in Washington and is now being entertained in Britain .
Johnson 's team spent most of the summer curating a political storm about the Channel crossers on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Daily Mail and Express before moving to the Times .
It was clearly a strategy to distract us all from the government 's woeful handling of the covid crisis and Brexit negotiations and foment fears about border control to shore up the fragile 'blue wall ' on which its parliamentary majority rests .
And just as Trump 's xenophobic posturing has bolstered white supremacists in America , so too the far right in Britain has been emboldened by hostile government rhetoric on asylum seekers .
Neo-fascists are actively targeting asylum seekers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accommodation .
The response of ministers has been , effectively , to stand back and stand by .
The truth is that the number of asylum applications in Britain is dropping , not rising .
Britain is still one of the richest countries on Earth and yet we give safety to less than one per cent of the world 's refugees .
A 'Global Britain ' that wishes to continue playing `` a leading role in responding to global challenges '' should and can do more to help .
As the leader of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom have made perilous journeys to reach safety in the UK , I feel enormous anxiety about the dangers run by those crossing the Channel in dinghies .
But I also have a perspective rooted in our clinical work about why people on the run from tyranny are prepared to risk it all to reach the shelter and care that we have a long tradition of offering in this country .
The tragedy of the ludicrous 'blue sky ' thinking revealed last week is that sensible and humane policy options to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ministers this whole time .
Restarting the UK 's successful refugee resettlement programme , suspended in March , and the scheme devised by our patron , Lord Dubs , to bring lone child refugees to Britain would make a good start .
The smugglers in Calais would be put out of business tomorrow if the UK opened up an asylum processing centre in Calais , as French politicians have long suggested .
I have witnessed the politics of hate against asylum seekers in my home country of Australia and I regard its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Offshore processing and pushback operations have left a deep stain on Australia 's honour and dented the values of fairness and equality that we Australians hold dear .
Britons should look on these mistakes and sail the other way .
British values that we all cherish depend on it .
Sonya Sceats is chief executive of Freedom from Torture .
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 @ @ @ @

By Sonya Sceats
Australia's offshore asylum processing system is a moral abomination. It is astronomically expensive and grotesquely inhumane. It has caused deaths, child abuse scandals and a mental health catastrophe for torture survivors and other asylum seekers warehoused on Nauru and Manus Island. Earlier this year, the International Criminal Court prosecutor described detention conditions on the islands as constituting "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" in violation of international law.
The harm to these men, women and children – the vast majority of whom Australia recognises are refugees – is matched only by the incalculable damage to Australia's international standing. The UN high commissioner for refugees has lambasted the offshore system as an affront to "fundamental principles of family unity and refugee protection, and to common decency" and called for it to end.
It was not so long ago when Britain was among the 100 or so states to have condemned Australia's asylum practices at the United Nations. It is disturbing, therefore, to see the government of Boris Johnson flirting with similar plans to ship asylum seekers to the islands of Ascension and St Helena in the south Atlantic ocean. This news was quickly followed by leaks of even more preposterous proposals to deter asylum seekers from crossing the Channel with wave machines and water cannons. Whitehall sources are understandably clambering to disassociate their departments from these risible ideas.
But it is not only Australia’s draconian asylum policies that Downing Street covets, it is also its anti-asylum politics.
Scapegoating of asylum seekers for political advantage is a shameful Australian political sport. John Howard won a federal election in 2001 by claiming that asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard to compel their rescue at sea. It was a complete lie, promoted by Lynton Crosby, who later became Boris Johnson's electoral strategist. Donald Trump took the idea and ran with it, manufacturing a crisis about “caravans” of central American asylum seekers to sway the US mid-term elections last year.
This toxic strategy was created in Canberra, copycatted in Washington and is now being entertained in Britain.
Johnson's team spent most of the summer curating a political storm about the Channel crossers on the pages of the right-wing press, starting in the Daily Mail and Express before moving to the Times. It was clearly a strategy to distract us all from the government's woeful handling of the covid crisis and Brexit negotiations and foment fears about border control to shore up the fragile 'blue wall' on which its parliamentary majority rests.
And just as Trump's xenophobic posturing has bolstered white supremacists in America, so too the far right in Britain has been emboldened by hostile government rhetoric on asylum seekers. Neo-fascists are actively targeting asylum seekers in Dover and in hotels and other accommodation. The response of ministers has been, effectively, to stand back and stand by.
The truth is that the number of asylum applications in Britain is dropping, not rising. Britain is still one of the richest countries on Earth and yet we give safety to less than one per cent of the world's refugees. A 'Global Britain' that wishes to continue playing "a leading role in responding to global challenges" should and can do more to help.
As the leader of a charity helping torture survivors, many of whom have made perilous journeys to reach safety in the UK, I feel enormous anxiety about the dangers run by those crossing the Channel in dinghies. But I also have a perspective rooted in our clinical work about why people on the run from tyranny are prepared to risk it all to reach the shelter and care that we have a long tradition of offering in this country.
The tragedy of the ludicrous 'blue sky' thinking revealed last week is that sensible and humane policy options to stop the boats have been sitting in front of ministers this whole time. Restarting the UK's successful refugee resettlement programme, suspended in March, and the scheme devised by our patron, Lord Dubs, to bring lone child refugees to Britain would make a good start. The smugglers in Calais would be put out of business tomorrow if the UK opened up an asylum processing centre in Calais, as French politicians have long suggested.
I have witnessed the politics of hate against asylum seekers in my home country of Australia and I regard its imitation here in Britain with utter horror. Offshore processing and pushback operations have left a deep stain on Australia's honour and dented the values of fairness and equality that we Australians hold dear. Britons should look on these mistakes and sail the other way. British values that we all cherish depend on it.
Sonya Sceats is chief executive of Freedom from Torture. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-07--Without more government funding, children will keep going to school hungry

`` I feel tired and stressed , like I ca n't concentrate on lessons . ''
These are the words of a child describing what it 's like to sit in the classroom with an empty tummy – a painful reality for 1.8 million school age children in the UK .
Pre-pandemic , six children in every class of 30 were living in a family experiencing food insecurity .
This means they were forced to cut back on the amount and types of food they ate , and many were skipping meals altogether .
As families have been hit by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number will have risen .
Classroom hunger drives an educational attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers .
It 's one of the reasons why children from disadvantaged backgrounds leave secondary school over 18 months behind their better off peers and are less likely to go on to further or higher education or find highly paid , secure work .
Disadvantaged children have also been worst affected by covid school closures , with less access to online learning , a computer or a stable internet connection .
Our charity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackling classroom hunger for 20 years .
We provide healthy breakfast food and expert support to schools with high levels of disadvantage , often for children who arrive at school without having had anything substantial to eat since their lunch the day before .
After introducing school breakfast at their school , teachers tell us that they notice that children 's energy , concentration and behaviour in the classroom improve .
A more formal , independent , evaluation of our work found that Key Stage 1 pupils in schools with a universal free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months progress in reading , writing and maths over the course of an academic year , compared to children in schools with no such breakfast provision .
But charities can not solve the problem of classroom hunger alone .
We need government action to ensure no child starts the day too hungry to learn .
They have already done some great work through the National School Breakfast Programme – which currently supports over 1,800 schools and is implemented by Magic Breakfast with Family Action .
But the programme reaches fewer than 30 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this funding will run out in March 2021 .
We need a permanent solution to help all children at risk of hunger in the morning .
That is why Magic Breakfast is working with Feeding Britain and Labour MP Emma Lewell-Buck on a school breakfast bill .
This builds on , and scales-up , current government funding for school breakfasts .
It would guarantee all schools with high levels of disadvantage the support they need to provide a free school breakfast to children .
Schools would receive extra funding to cover the costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If successful , the bill would ensure that all children in England start the day settled and ready to learn , allowing every child in the country to reach their full potential .
It would boost educational attainment and contribute to greater economic productivity and growth .
We ’ ve been inspired by the recent groundswell in public support for tackling child hunger , which is in no small part down to Marcus Rashford 's amazing activism on the issue .
Now we need to translate that support into action .
The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to parliament next week , is supported by over 50 MPs from all parties .
We urgently need to continue to grow this number for the Bill to have a chance of passing .
Alysa Remtulla is head of Policy and Campaigns at Magic Breakfast , the UK 's leading charity providing healthy breakfasts to schoolchildren .
The charity is asking people to write to their local MP to support the school breakfast bill .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its owners .

By Alysa Remtulla
"I feel tired and stressed, like I can't concentrate on lessons." These are the words of a child describing what it's like to sit in the classroom with an empty tummy – a painful reality for 1.8 million school age children in the UK.
Pre-pandemic, six children in every class of 30 were living in a family experiencing food insecurity. This means they were forced to cut back on the amount and types of food they ate, and many were skipping meals altogether. As families have been hit by the economic impact of covid, this number will have risen.
Classroom hunger drives an educational attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. It's one of the reasons why children from disadvantaged backgrounds leave secondary school over 18 months behind their better off peers and are less likely to go on to further or higher education or find highly paid, secure work. Disadvantaged children have also been worst affected by covid school closures, with less access to online learning, a computer or a stable internet connection.
Our charity, Magic Breakfast, has been focused on tackling classroom hunger for 20 years. We provide healthy breakfast food and expert support to schools with high levels of disadvantage, often for children who arrive at school without having had anything substantial to eat since their lunch the day before.
After introducing school breakfast at their school, teachers tell us that they notice that children's energy, concentration and behaviour in the classroom improve. A more formal, independent evaluation of our work found that Key Stage 1 pupils in schools with a universal free school breakfast provision made an additional two months progress in reading, writing and maths over the course of an academic year, compared to children in schools with no such breakfast provision.
But charities cannot solve the problem of classroom hunger alone. We need government action to ensure no child starts the day too hungry to learn. They have already done some great work through the National School Breakfast Programme – which currently supports over 1,800 schools and is implemented by Magic Breakfast with Family Action. But the programme reaches fewer than 30% of the schools who need it and this funding will run out in March 2021. We need a permanent solution to help all children at risk of hunger in the morning.
That is why Magic Breakfast is working with Feeding Britain and Labour MP Emma Lewell-Buck on a school breakfast bill. This builds on, and scales-up, current government funding for school breakfasts. It would guarantee all schools with high levels of disadvantage the support they need to provide a free school breakfast to children. Schools would receive extra funding to cover the costs of food, deliveries and staffing.
If successful, the bill would ensure that all children in England start the day settled and ready to learn, allowing every child in the country to reach their full potential. It would boost educational attainment and contribute to greater economic productivity and growth.
We’ve been inspired by the recent groundswell in public support for tackling child hunger, which is in no small part down to Marcus Rashford's amazing activism on the issue. Now we need to translate that support into action. The bill, which is due to be presented to parliament next week, is supported by over 50 MPs from all parties. We urgently need to continue to grow this number for the Bill to have a chance of passing.
Alysa Remtulla is head of Policy and Campaigns at Magic Breakfast, the UK's leading charity providing healthy breakfasts to schoolchildren. The charity is asking people to write to their local MP to support the school breakfast bill.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-08--Using Excel to process covid infections shows a total collapse in competence

Ever since the government announced their `` world beating '' test and trace system , concerns have been raised over its ability to properly handle the masses of sensitive medical and location data involved .
Now we 've reached the point of the inevitable blunder - caused not by a glitch in the system but the complete mishandling of data .
It has brought the entire arrangement into question , casting serious doubts over the privacy and security of personal information harvested from thousands of Brits each day .
The incident , which we now know left around 16,000 covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of a thirteen-year-old version of Excel .
Yes , that Excel , the Microsoft Office default spreadsheet application used by mums and dads up and down the country to track the household budget .
Microsoft Excel is basic spreadsheet software that is only able to handle 1,048,576 rows of data and that 's if you 're using a version released after 2007 .
Public Health England ( PHE ) did not .
Their version could only manage 65,536 rows of data .
So with more than 22,000 covid cases being reported each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student could see there was always going to be a big problem .
Excel is completely unsuitable for handling such a vast and critical data project .
This is because it 's spreadsheet software and not a database .
Test and trace is inevitably processing vast amounts of population data , including sensitive health and location information .
PHE simply picked the wrong tool for the job , and whether it was cutting corners or simple ineptitude , I doubt we 'll ever know .
So why did n't the government intervene ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ IT professional could have created a simple relational database that would have been more appropriate than Excel .
Alternatively , almost any off-the-shelf business intelligence platform could have been used .
These platforms are designed to handle big data and can scale to meet the needs of almost any project .
Indeed , if PHE and central government 's core systems and dashboards were up to date and fit-for-purpose , it would have been quite easy to integrate the data capture process into them from the outset .
No .csv files or .xls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is 2020 , after all .
The decision to rely on spreadsheets suggests technical incompetence of the highest order .
It casts doubt over the entire system – and the vast sums of taxpayer money invested in it .
Health secretary Matt Hancock admitted that , so far , only 51 % of people affected by error have actually been approached by contact tracers .
As a result , there are people walking about today that may have been exposed to the virus and have absolutely no idea .
Those people could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable in society – all thanks to the government and PHE 's collective incompetence .
The government claims that everything is now under control .
Apparently , we can all rest easy because the spreadsheet has been broken down into multiple spreadsheets .
This is hardly reassuring .
It reveals a complete failure to understand the problem .
Breaking down the single spreadsheet simply results in the creation of multiple ongoing issues rather than a solution to the first one .
If the government and PHE choose to continue using Excel , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wo n't end up in the same situation further down the line .
Instead , PHE needs to ensure they are choosing the right tools for the job - or admit that they just are n't up to the job .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Ray Walsh
Ever since the government announced their "world beating" test and trace system, concerns have been raised over its ability to properly handle the masses of sensitive medical and location data involved.
Now we've reached the point of the inevitable blunder – caused not by a glitch in the system but the complete mishandling of data. It has brought the entire arrangement into question, casting serious doubts over the privacy and security of personal information harvested from thousands of Brits each day.
The incident, which we now know left around 16,000 covid cases unreported, was caused by the use of a thirteen-year-old version of Excel. Yes, that Excel, the Microsoft Office default spreadsheet application used by mums and dads up and down the country to track the household budget.
Microsoft Excel is basic spreadsheet software that is only able to handle 1,048,576 rows of data and that's if you're using a version released after 2007. Public Health England (PHE) did not. Their version could only manage 65,536 rows of data. So with more than 22,000 covid cases being reported each day, your average GCSE math's student could see there was always going to be a big problem.
Excel is completely unsuitable for handling such a vast and critical data project. This is because it's spreadsheet software and not a database.
Test and trace is inevitably processing vast amounts of population data, including sensitive health and location information. PHE simply picked the wrong tool for the job, and whether it was cutting corners or simple ineptitude, I doubt we'll ever know.
So why didn't the government intervene? A decent graduate-level data scientist or mid-level IT professional could have created a simple relational database that would have been more appropriate than Excel.
Alternatively, almost any off-the-shelf business intelligence platform could have been used. These platforms are designed to handle big data and can scale to meet the needs of almost any project.
Indeed, if PHE and central government's core systems and dashboards were up to date and fit-for-purpose, it would have been quite easy to integrate the data capture process into them from the outset. No .csv files or .xls files – just a web portal. This is 2020, after all.
The decision to rely on spreadsheets suggests technical incompetence of the highest order. It casts doubt over the entire system – and the vast sums of taxpayer money invested in it.
Health secretary Matt Hancock admitted that, so far, only 51% of people affected by error have actually been approached by contact tracers. As a result, there are people walking about today that may have been exposed to the virus and have absolutely no idea. Those people could be passing covid on to the most vulnerable in society – all thanks to the government and PHE's collective incompetence.
The government claims that everything is now under control. Apparently, we can all rest easy because the spreadsheet has been broken down into multiple spreadsheets.
This is hardly reassuring. It reveals a complete failure to understand the problem. Breaking down the single spreadsheet simply results in the creation of multiple ongoing issues rather than a solution to the first one.
If the government and PHE choose to continue using Excel, there is no way to guarantee that we won't end up in the same situation further down the line. Instead, PHE needs to ensure they are choosing the right tools for the job – or admit that they just aren't up to the job.
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy.
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.