Labour's patriotic problem

A little more than one year to the day of Labour ’ s latest general election defeat , and the party continues to wrangle with how to reverse the pattern of failure and engineer electoral success .
One hotly debated area has been the need to embrace patriotism .
Early on in his leadership , Sir Keir Starmer stated that ‘ Labour should not shy away from patriotism ’ .
A YouGov poll in June 2020 showed the majority of UK citizens are proud to be British , making this on paper a sound position to take for any political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ box .
But under Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership , Labour found this a difficult subject to tackle .
Patriotism was a constant issue for Corbyn to grapple with ; indeed he never really did .
Polling by Lord Ashchroft around the last General Election revealed a perceived lack of patriotism was one of the major factors behind Labour ’ s defeat in 2019 .
Corbyn clearly didn ’ t subscribe to the classic flag waving brand of patriotism , instead attempting to reframe the concept to suit socialist ideals by tweeting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , not attacking somebody else .
It ’ s about loving your country enough to make it a place where nobody is homeless or hungry , held back or left behind .
Corbyn ’ s perspective on patriotism is no less valid , but this message simply did not carry to the electorate .
What did carry , however , were narratives that perpetuated the idea that Corbyn was unpatriotic ; the most prominent example being the accusation of him being a terrorist sympathiser , a narrative that damaged his personal image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the least , there were other aspects that fed into the narrative of Corbyn as unpatriotic ; whether it was his position on military action , refusal to sing the national anthem , or his views on the monarchy .
The recent suspension of the Parliamentary Whip from Jeremy Corbyn may go some way to reimagining the party as patriotic , even if this was not the intention behind the decision .
But further steps will need to be taken .
A rather easy change to implement would be to utilise the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started to integrate the flag into Labour messaging .
The combination of the flag and his ‘ A New Leadership ’ tagline is a not-so-subtle way of trying to prove that Labour can be patriots .
This small change could be an important one in redefining the narrative around patriotism .
The Conservatives regularly employ the Union Flag in their imagery , and it is often found surrounding the party ’ s press releases and is present at their conferences .
These small steps matter when cultivating a party image .
A much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to confront is how to deal with some of the more controversial aspects in British history .
Winston Churchill is both a revered and highly controversial figure ; viewed positively by the majority of the country according to a YouGov poll , where only 11 per cent of respondents had a negative opinion of him .
Attacking some of the more controversial aspects of Winston Churchill ’ s beliefs , as valid as they may be , will revive accusations of Labour being the unpatriotic party of the Corbyn era .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more nationalistic approach , they risk alienating the BAME community that Labour relies on .
There is a fine line between falling into either camp , and both come with huge perception problems ; Labour will need to expertly navigate this tightrope .
Most important , however , is the need for Labour to reframe the way in which patriotism is viewed in the UK .
If patriotism continues to be framed around flag-waving and jingoistic language , Labour have already lost .
They can not compete with the Conservatives , or whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the months ahead , on these terms .
Corbyn ’ s approach to the definition of patriotism , support for the most vulnerable which leaves no one behind , is closer to the kind of rhetoric Sir Keir ’ s Labour will need to harness .
Part of this reframing needs to encompass the national institutions held dear by British citizens .
The stand-out example of this is supporting and funding the NHS .
The health service is already a source of enormous national pride and so it should certainly be possible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public .
This already appears to be an area of discussion in Labour , with Baroness Chakrabarti arguing , ‘ Contemporary patriotism should be about loyalty to care and health workers in blue , sent into modern day mines , mills , and trenches without adequate testing or protection.
’ Sir Keir needs to continue to forge the image of Labour as a patriotic party and start to control the narrative around patriotism .
Labour don ’ t need to become the party of hardcore , flag-waving patriots , but they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the value of patriotism and , importantly , understands the necessity of it if they are to win power again .
James Seabridge is a labour activist who writes frequently about the future direction of the party .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in this article 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.
A little more than one year to the day of Labour’s latest general election defeat, and the party continues to wrangle with how to reverse the pattern of failure and engineer electoral success.
One hotly debated area has been the need to embrace patriotism. Early on in his leadership, Sir Keir Starmer stated that ‘Labour should not shy away from patriotism’.
A YouGov poll in June 2020 showed the majority of UK citizens are proud to be British, making this on paper a sound position to take for any political party hoping to win at the ballot box.
But under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour found this a difficult subject to tackle.
Patriotism was a constant issue for Corbyn to grapple with; indeed he never really did. Polling by Lord Ashchroft around the last General Election revealed a perceived lack of patriotism was one of the major factors behind Labour’s defeat in 2019.
Corbyn clearly didn’t subscribe to the classic flag waving brand of patriotism, instead attempting to reframe the concept to suit socialist ideals by tweeting that: ‘Patriotism is about supporting each other, not attacking somebody else. It’s about loving your country enough to make it a place where nobody is homeless or hungry, held back or left behind.
Corbyn’s perspective on patriotism is no less valid, but this message simply did not carry to the electorate.
What did carry, however, were narratives that perpetuated the idea that Corbyn was unpatriotic; the most prominent example being the accusation of him being a terrorist sympathiser, a narrative that damaged his personal image.
While these claims were questionable to say the least, there were other aspects that fed into the narrative of Corbyn as unpatriotic; whether it was his position on military action, refusal to sing the national anthem, or his views on the monarchy.
The recent suspension of the Parliamentary Whip from Jeremy Corbyn may go some way to reimagining the party as patriotic, even if this was not the intention behind the decision.
But further steps will need to be taken.
A rather easy change to implement would be to utilise the Union Flag. Sir Keir has already started to integrate the flag into Labour messaging. The combination of the flag and his ‘A New Leadership’ tagline is a not-so-subtle way of trying to prove that Labour can be patriots.
This small change could be an important one in redefining the narrative around patriotism. The Conservatives regularly employ the Union Flag in their imagery, and it is often found surrounding the party’s press releases and is present at their conferences. These small steps matter when cultivating a party image.
A much more challenging task Sir Keir and Labour will have to confront is how to deal with some of the more controversial aspects in British history.
Winston Churchill is both a revered and highly controversial figure; viewed positively by the majority of the country according to a YouGov poll, where only 11 per cent of respondents had a negative opinion of him.
Attacking some of the more controversial aspects of Winston Churchill’s beliefs, as valid as they may be, will revive accusations of Labour being the unpatriotic party of the Corbyn era.
Conversely, were they to take a more nationalistic approach, they risk alienating the BAME community that Labour relies on. There is a fine line between falling into either camp, and both come with huge perception problems; Labour will need to expertly navigate this tightrope.
Most important, however, is the need for Labour to reframe the way in which patriotism is viewed in the UK. If patriotism continues to be framed around flag-waving and jingoistic language, Labour have already lost.
They cannot compete with the Conservatives, or whatever party Nigel Farage finds himself leading in the months ahead, on these terms. Corbyn’s approach to the definition of patriotism, support for the most vulnerable which leaves no one behind, is closer to the kind of rhetoric Sir Keir’s Labour will need to harness.
Part of this reframing needs to encompass the national institutions held dear by British citizens. The stand-out example of this is supporting and funding the NHS.
The health service is already a source of enormous national pride and so it should certainly be possible to forge this link in the eyes of the public.
This already appears to be an area of discussion in Labour, with Baroness Chakrabarti arguing, ‘Contemporary patriotism should be about loyalty to care and health workers in blue, sent into modern day mines, mills, and trenches without adequate testing or protection.’
Sir Keir needs to continue to forge the image of Labour as a patriotic party and start to control the narrative around patriotism.
Labour don’t need to become the party of hardcore, flag-waving patriots, but they do need to be a party that understands the value of patriotism and, importantly, understands the necessity of it if they are to win power again.


politicscouk--2020-12-17--Assisted suicide ‘is the abandonment of care’

By Scott Benton MP Recent calls for a parliamentary review of assisted suicide prematurely presume that the winds of political and social change are blowing in favour of legalisation .
Through heavy focus on hard cases and hardly any coverage of the life-giving merits of palliative care , some proponents of change in Parliament have grandly overstated the problems with the status quo and grossly overestimated the successes of assisted suicide legislation elsewhere .
As the most recent government response to a parliamentary urgent question on foreign travel for assisted suicide demonstrates , their demands are far from measured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the most recent government reply to a written question on a future review of the law around assisted suicide suggests , those advocating for assisted suicide have far from full support in Westminster and Whitehall .
Addressing the secretary of state for health and social care Matt Hancock , Andrew Mitchell suggested that the ‘ suffering that the blanket ban on assisted dying is causing dying people and their families [ … ] [ and ] the challenges that the current law is creating for healthcare professionals , police officers and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a ‘ very tight reform ’ , effectively resembling the system of assisted suicide available in the American state of Oregon , with the addition of ‘ suicide courts ’ to pass judgement on who should live or die .
Assisted suicide advocates place the Pacific Northwestern state on a pedestal , claiming it has robust regulation and successful safeguards that prove assisted suicide laws work .
Yet they conveniently ignore the ways in which the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has been bent and broken since 1997 .
The rate has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2019 , and while almost half of all patients in that period have cited concern about being or becoming a burden on family , friends , and caregivers among their end-of-life worries , only around a quarter were concerned by inadequate pain control .
As in the handful of other jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide , less than six per cent of countries worldwide , access continues to expand .
In Oregon , it is now possible to have your life ended on the basis of ‘ terminal ’ conditions such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following a fall .
Any proposal that the UK can engineer an Oregon-plus system of assisted suicide with even tighter safeguards ignores that only four per cent of Oregon patients since 1998 have been referred for psychiatric evaluation and almost the same number have suffered complications .
Furthermore , complications are only reported when the physician or alternate health care provider is present at the time of death , which has not been the case for 60.5 % of deaths since 1998 .
Most strikingly , the Oregon Health Authority is concerned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age groups yet unconcerned by the vast increase in assisted suicides over the past two decades .
Indeed , a study of suicide rates across the American states that have legalised assisted suicide illustrates that legalisation is associated with an increase in the total suicide rate .
While advocacy for assisted suicide claims strong public support , as Christine Jardine suggested during the latest debate , the polling of public support for assisted suicide is hindered by simplistic questions .
When more precise issues are presented to the public , the results are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case in a February 2019 survey when 51 % responded that they would be concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide might cause some people to feel pressurised into accepting lethal medication to avoid burdening others .
Other arguments for legalising assisted suicide centre on the present danger of prosecution .
Though these claims summon strong emotions around perceived injustice , they misrepresent the reality .
Only three cases of possible assistance or encouragement of suicide in England and Wales have resulted in prosecutions since 2009 .
Prosecution is rare , and serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in our society .
The merits of palliative care seldom feature in petitions for assisted suicide legislation .
As Danny Kruger highlighted in his contribution during the recent debate , modern medicine can effectively alleviate distressing symptoms associated with the dying process .
Rather than sidelining such services as a separate issue , proponents of assisted suicide should instead demand universal access to high-quality palliative care .
Notably , 90 % of palliative care specialists opposed legalising assisted suicide in the form of the 2015 Marris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medical Association members ’ survey found that 76 % of palliative care specialists - those who have the most expertise and experience in caring for the terminally ill at the end of life - oppose any legalisation of assisted suicide , and the same percentage declared that they would be unwilling to participate in any such activity .
The terminally ill deserve the best palliative care available .
Vulnerable patients who experience suicidal ideation should receive high-quality physical and psychological care that reaffirms their inherent dignity , rather than medical confirmation , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their own life .
Matt Hancock himself stated that ‘ [ t ] he global devastation of the coronavirus pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of high-quality palliative care ’ .
Indeed , as the Department of Health and Social Care continues to battle the Covid-19 crisis , it is my hope that investment in hospice care remains high on the agenda .
Certainly , the government must respond to the recent survey from Hospice UK which shows an overwhelming 93 % of hospice leaders were concerned that their patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs could miss essential treatment because of stretched resources .
As Fiona Bruce powerfully argued in the Chamber , ‘ when the whole country is making huge sacrifices to protect life , at a time of exceptionally high levels of physical and mental stress , and when many people may feel very vulnerable [ ... ] it would be completely inappropriate—indeed , insensitive—of this Parliament to go anywhere near considering making access to any form of suicide easier ’ .
Far too many of our citizens have experienced unprecedented loneliness , uncertainty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and introducing assisted suicide would be far too rash a response .
Thankfully , the government has resisted the latest round of pressure from assisted suicide advocates .
They are not alone in standing firm against an unnecessary and unsafe proposal : Perhaps tellingly , not a single doctors group or major disability rights organisation in the UK supports changing the law , including the British Medical Association , the Royal College of General Practitioners , the Royal College of Physicians , the British Geriatric Society , the Association for Palliative Medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Kingdom ’ s Disabled People ’ s Council , and others .
Laws send social messages .
An assisted dying law , however well intended , would alter society ’ s attitude towards the elderly , seriously ill , and disabled , suggesting that assisted dying is an option they ‘ ought ’ to consider .
Scott Benton is the Conservative member of parliament for Blackpool South .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in this article are those of the author and are no reflection of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
Recent calls for a parliamentary review of assisted suicide prematurely presume that the winds of political and social change are blowing in favour of legalisation.
Through heavy focus on hard cases and hardly any coverage of the life-giving merits of palliative care, some proponents of change in Parliament have grandly overstated the problems with the status quo and grossly overestimated the successes of assisted suicide legislation elsewhere.
As the most recent government response to a parliamentary urgent question on foreign travel for assisted suicide demonstrates, their demands are far from measured in their misleading comparisons and claims.
And as the most recent government reply to a written question on a future review of the law around assisted suicide suggests, those advocating for assisted suicide have far from full support in Westminster and Whitehall.
Addressing the secretary of state for health and social care Matt Hancock, Andrew Mitchell suggested that the ‘suffering that the blanket ban on assisted dying is causing dying people and their families […] [and] the challenges that the current law is creating for healthcare professionals, police officers and other public servants…’ would be alleviated by a ‘very tight reform’, effectively resembling the system of assisted suicide available in the American state of Oregon, with the addition of ‘suicide courts’ to pass judgement on who should live or die.
Assisted suicide advocates place the Pacific Northwestern state on a pedestal, claiming it has robust regulation and successful safeguards that prove assisted suicide laws work.
Yet they conveniently ignore the ways in which the Oregon Death with Dignity Act has been bent and broken since 1997. The rate has skyrocketed by over 1000% from 1998 to 2019, and while almost half of all patients in that period have cited concern about being or becoming a burden on family, friends, and caregivers among their end-of-life worries, only around a quarter were concerned by inadequate pain control.
As in the handful of other jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide, less than six per cent of countries worldwide, access continues to expand. In Oregon, it is now possible to have your life ended on the basis of ‘terminal’ conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, and complications following a fall.
Any proposal that the UK can engineer an Oregon-plus system of assisted suicide with even tighter safeguards ignores that only four per cent of Oregon patients since 1998 have been referred for psychiatric evaluation and almost the same number have suffered complications.
Furthermore, complications are only reported when the physician or alternate health care provider is present at the time of death, which has not been the case for 60.5% of deaths since 1998.
Most strikingly, the Oregon Health Authority is concerned by the growing number of suicides across all age groups yet unconcerned by the vast increase in assisted suicides over the past two decades. Indeed, a study of suicide rates across the American states that have legalised assisted suicide illustrates that legalisation is associated with an increase in the total suicide rate.
While advocacy for assisted suicide claims strong public support, as Christine Jardine suggested during the latest debate, the polling of public support for assisted suicide is hindered by simplistic questions.
When more precise issues are presented to the public, the results are more complicated. This was certainly the case in a February 2019 survey when 51% responded that they would be concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide might cause some people to feel pressurised into accepting lethal medication to avoid burdening others.
Other arguments for legalising assisted suicide centre on the present danger of prosecution. Though these claims summon strong emotions around perceived injustice, they misrepresent the reality.
Only three cases of possible assistance or encouragement of suicide in England and Wales have resulted in prosecutions since 2009. Prosecution is rare, and serves as an essential safeguard against abuse and exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in our society.
The merits of palliative care seldom feature in petitions for assisted suicide legislation. As Danny Kruger highlighted in his contribution during the recent debate, modern medicine can effectively alleviate distressing symptoms associated with the dying process.
Rather than sidelining such services as a separate issue, proponents of assisted suicide should instead demand universal access to high-quality palliative care. Notably, 90% of palliative care specialists opposed legalising assisted suicide in the form of the 2015 Marris assisted suicide bill.
A recent British Medical Association members’ survey found that 76% of palliative care specialists – those who have the most expertise and experience in caring for the terminally ill at the end of life – oppose any legalisation of assisted suicide, and the same percentage declared that they would be unwilling to participate in any such activity.
The terminally ill deserve the best palliative care available. Vulnerable patients who experience suicidal ideation should receive high-quality physical and psychological care that reaffirms their inherent dignity, rather than medical confirmation, here or abroad, of their diminished view of their own life.
Matt Hancock himself stated that ‘[t]he global devastation of the coronavirus pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of high-quality palliative care’. Indeed, as the Department of Health and Social Care continues to battle the Covid-19 crisis, it is my hope that investment in hospice care remains high on the agenda.
Certainly, the government must respond to the recent survey from Hospice UK which shows an overwhelming 93% of hospice leaders were concerned that their patients with end of life and palliative care needs could miss essential treatment because of stretched resources.
As Fiona Bruce powerfully argued in the Chamber, ‘when the whole country is making huge sacrifices to protect life, at a time of exceptionally high levels of physical and mental stress, and when many people may feel very vulnerable […] it would be completely inappropriate—indeed, insensitive—of this Parliament to go anywhere near considering making access to any form of suicide easier’.
Far too many of our citizens have experienced unprecedented loneliness, uncertainty, and change during this often paralysing pandemic, and introducing assisted suicide would be far too rash a response.
Thankfully, the government has resisted the latest round of pressure from assisted suicide advocates. They are not alone in standing firm against an unnecessary and unsafe proposal: Perhaps tellingly, not a single doctors group or major disability rights organisation in the UK supports changing the law, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Geriatric Society, the Association for Palliative Medicine, Disability Rights UK, SCOPE, United Kingdom’s Disabled People’s Council, and others.
Laws send social messages. An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards the elderly, seriously ill, and disabled, suggesting that assisted dying is an option they ‘ought’ to consider.
Scott Benton is the Conservative member of parliament for Blackpool South.


politicscouk--2020-12-18--Liberal values 'provide hope' in the time of Covid

As we stand on the brink of 2021 , we all wish that flipping over the calendar would somehow banish Covid and bring a fresh start .
The coronavirus should stay trapped in 2020 forever .
But we know this will not happen .
Cases have been rising again , and the rest of the winter is frankly looking pretty grim .
Businesses , especially in the hospitality sector , are struggling to survive repeated closures ; jobs and livelihoods are being lost ; everyone is weary and demoralised .
And then we have the challenges that the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not generally known as bringers of joy , but we do need to offer some kind of hope , to encourage people to hang on for the rollout of the vaccine and the arrival of spring : a renewed call to pull together and a vision of freedoms regained .
Such hope may enable us all to wait well , and to emerge more united than divided .
I think we can seek hope in the values of liberalism that underpin our society .
We Brits pride ourselves on our civil liberties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedoms during the past year have presented a massive challenge .
In October the Lib Dems voted against the extension of the Coronavirus Act .
We were concerned that the government was n't doing enough to protect carers or those for whom they care .
I found myself in the same lobby as a number of Tory MPs who were also voting against the changes , on the grounds of protecting our freedoms .
One of them commented : “ oh , you Liberals are actually being liberals for once are you ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the divide between libertarianism and liberalism has been highlighted this year .
Libertarians want the very minimum of state intervention in people ’ s lives , so that individuals can make their own choices .
If I can not go to the pub then my freedom is diminished , and for a libertarian , the government should have no right to curb this .
It ’ s the same with paying taxes .
A libertarian would say that I should be able to choose how to spend my hard-earned money , without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from me .
But this is a rather shallow and self-centred way of looking at liberty .
A truly liberal perspective views freedom more holistically .
We are not all isolated individuals , despite the virus ’ s best efforts to separate us .
We are part of a wider community , but this means our freedoms often compete .
Rather than viewing restrictions as primarily an assault on our liberty , liberals recognise that we must make judgements about which freedoms have primacy over others .
This means we support taxation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their money as they choose , because there is a greater liberty that comes from a greater number of people having equal access to high quality education and healthcare .
Liberalism acknowledges that if we only possess freedoms in theory but not in practice , these are not really freedoms at all .
How can you be free to get a good job , live in a decent home and to receive medical care when you are sick , if you can ’ t actually access any of these things due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same applies with the restrictions to control the virus .
Healthworkers ’ freedoms are curtailed if they can not keep people well and treat them for diseases such as cancer because they are overwhelmed by a tyranny of uncontrolled Covid infections .
Likewise , my freedom to go to the football , or not to wear a mask , must compete with the freedom of older and more vulnerable people not to catch the virus and die .
At the start of the first lockdown , there was a real sense of community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS , painting rainbows in our windows , and a new recognition of the vital work of keyworkers , from stacking supermarket shelves to teaching our children .
But as time dragged on , people became worn down , and concerns arose about how our freedoms were being affected by the constant restrictions on our lives .
Now , after a miserable year , when we face a shrunken , shortened Christmas period , and many of us do not feel jolly in the slightest , perhaps we need to look at our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than standing on our own liberties , let us recall to our minds the many people who have sacrificed so much defending the freedom of others .
Those who work on the front line in the NHS , care homes and schools ; in the jobcentres , supermarkets and foodbanks ; and the scientists who have worked so tirelessly to produce vaccines for the virus .
We need to draw on the hope that we see in the coming together of communities , which is surely greater than what divides us .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives will soon lift , and this should help us to stay vigilant for now .
My dad reminded me the other day of the tragedy of the soldiers who fell in the last hours before the guns were silenced , at the end of the First World War in 1918 .
We don ’ t want to be in the same position with our loved ones when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel .
Let ’ s continue to dig deep , support one another and seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of others as we wait for the arrival of better days .
Tim Farron is the Liberal Democrat member of parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in this article are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

As we stand on the brink of 2021, we all wish that flipping over the calendar would somehow banish Covid and bring a fresh start. The coronavirus should stay trapped in 2020 forever.
But we know this will not happen. Cases have been rising again, and the rest of the winter is frankly looking pretty grim. Businesses, especially in the hospitality sector, are struggling to survive repeated closures; jobs and livelihoods are being lost; everyone is weary and demoralised. And then we have the challenges that the end of the Brexit transition will bring.
Politicians are not generally known as bringers of joy, but we do need to offer some kind of hope, to encourage people to hang on for the rollout of the vaccine and the arrival of spring: a renewed call to pull together and a vision of freedoms regained. Such hope may enable us all to wait well, and to emerge more united than divided.
I think we can seek hope in the values of liberalism that underpin our society. We Brits pride ourselves on our civil liberties, but the restrictions placed on our freedoms during the past year have presented a massive challenge.
In October the Lib Dems voted against the extension of the Coronavirus Act. We were concerned that the government wasn’t doing enough to protect carers or those for whom they care. I found myself in the same lobby as a number of Tory MPs who were also voting against the changes, on the grounds of protecting our freedoms. One of them commented: “oh, you Liberals are actually being liberals for once are you?”
This set me thinking about how the divide between libertarianism and liberalism has been highlighted this year. Libertarians want the very minimum of state intervention in people’s lives, so that individuals can make their own choices. If I cannot go to the pub then my freedom is diminished, and for a libertarian, the government should have no right to curb this. It’s the same with paying taxes. A libertarian would say that I should be able to choose how to spend my hard-earned money, without the state taking a chunk of it away from me. But this is a rather shallow and self-centred way of looking at liberty.
A truly liberal perspective views freedom more holistically. We are not all isolated individuals, despite the virus’s best efforts to separate us. We are part of a wider community, but this means our freedoms often compete. Rather than viewing restrictions as primarily an assault on our liberty, liberals recognise that we must make judgements about which freedoms have primacy over others.
This means we support taxation that removes the liberty of people to spend all their money as they choose, because there is a greater liberty that comes from a greater number of people having equal access to high quality education and healthcare. Liberalism acknowledges that if we only possess freedoms in theory but not in practice, these are not really freedoms at all. How can you be free to get a good job, live in a decent home and to receive medical care when you are sick, if you can’t actually access any of these things due to poverty or lack of opportunity?
The same applies with the restrictions to control the virus. Healthworkers’ freedoms are curtailed if they cannot keep people well and treat them for diseases such as cancer because they are overwhelmed by a tyranny of uncontrolled Covid infections. Likewise, my freedom to go to the football, or not to wear a mask, must compete with the freedom of older and more vulnerable people not to catch the virus and die.
At the start of the first lockdown, there was a real sense of community and sacrifice, of clapping for the NHS, painting rainbows in our windows, and a new recognition of the vital work of keyworkers, from stacking supermarket shelves to teaching our children. But as time dragged on, people became worn down, and concerns arose about how our freedoms were being affected by the constant restrictions on our lives.
Now, after a miserable year, when we face a shrunken, shortened Christmas period, and many of us do not feel jolly in the slightest, perhaps we need to look at our freedoms in a different way. Rather than standing on our own liberties, let us recall to our minds the many people who have sacrificed so much defending the freedom of others.
Those who work on the front line in the NHS, care homes and schools; in the jobcentres, supermarkets and foodbanks; and the scientists who have worked so tirelessly to produce vaccines for the virus. We need to draw on the hope that we see in the coming together of communities, which is surely greater than what divides us.
We know that these current restrictions on our lives will soon lift, and this should help us to stay vigilant for now. My dad reminded me the other day of the tragedy of the soldiers who fell in the last hours before the guns were silenced, at the end of the First World War in 1918. We don’t want to be in the same position with our loved ones when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Let’s continue to dig deep, support one another and seek to balance our freedoms against the needs of others as we wait for the arrival of better days.


politicscouk--2020-12-22--Migration: The missing media voice

Migration: The missing media voice

In a society where two-thirds of migrants say that media and political discourse has an impact on their sense of belonging , it ’ s important that the media landscape is constantly scrutinised , including the question of who gets to speak .
This becomes even more important during unprecedented situations such as the Covid-19 pandemic , when social inequalities – many of which disproportionately impact migrants – are exacerbated .
Back in March 2020 , as the first lockdown kicked in and we all sat glued to the news on our phones , we at Migrant Voice decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We analysed nearly 900 articles about migration published across nine of the UK ’ s most popular online news outlets between 1 March and 31 May 2020 – covering most of the first lockdown , including the first peak in Covid-19 infections and deaths .
We found that the UK media still has a long way to go before reporting on migration embodies the accuracy , diversity and nuance that it should .
While 21 % of the stories we scrutinised did include the voice of someone impacted by the issue being reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 % found in our 2014 study – there were large and worrying differences between news outlets .
Around a third of stories in The Guardian included a migrant voice , but in The Express it was just one in 25 .
Our research also revealed a tendency across media outlets to box migrants into very specific categories and sub-categories ( such as ‘ Channel crossers ’ , ‘ frontline NHS workers ’ , ‘ asylum seekers ’ ) and to present these groups in simplistic ways , as heroes or threats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framing reflects and entrenches stereotyped views about migrants and a troubling narrative that suggests some migrants are more deserving of rights and respect than others .
By reinforcing the idea that one must have a certain job or look and behave a certain way to be deemed worthy of a place and fair treatment in the UK , the concept of common humanity that was touted so frequently during that first lockdown is undermined .
We saw the consequences of this play out in the two major migration-related policy changes that took place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported on - the International Health Surcharge exemption and visa extensions for some NHS workers .
We welcome these changes , but we ’ re troubled that only one narrow subsection of migrants – those identified and hailed as heroes - benefited from significant policy change and , in the case of the visa extensions , only on a temporary basis .
Policy change should happen because it ’ s the right thing to do , not because of front-page headlines , not because those who will benefit are themselves of benefit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the food that feeds the country ) , and not because it 's in the interest of the government .
Yet there were positives in our findings too .
Firstly , it ’ s heartening to see that extensive media coverage of an issue can contribute to shifting the government ’ s position ( even if that shift is also self-serving ) .
Secondly , as a result of this year ’ s unprecedented situation , journalists , policymakers and the public are now much more educated about issues such as the No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many migrants accessing state support , asylum support and immigration detention , and we hope this can form the groundwork for more significant policy changes in the future .
And finally , we ’ ve seen how major events can create opportunities for conversations and for change that are impossible at any other time .
It ’ s vital that monitoring of UK media coverage of migration doesn ’ t stop here .
Since May 2020 , we ’ ve seen the global resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement , reaching communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; we 've seen report after report laying bare the inequalities faced by many migrant and BAME communities and exposed by Covid-19 ; and we 've seen an uptick in hostility towards asylum seekers in the UK , with vigilantes patrolling south coast beaches and far-right groups targeting asylum seeker accommodation .
And of course , we 've seen a severe second wave of Covid-19 , with further lockdowns and restrictions .
Perhaps like no other year , 2020 has shown just how powerful the media can be in influencing and educating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important than ever that the media is scrutinised and held to account .
And as we continue to live through this pandemic and look ahead to more normal times , we encourage all journalists to look beyond the stereotypes to the human beings behind their stories , and to seek to include the voices of those impacted by the issues they ’ re writing about .
The result will be fairer , more accurate , more engaging reporting – something all of us want to see .
Nazek Ramadan is the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full report here and follow Migrant Voice on Twitter .
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.
In a society where two-thirds of migrants say that media and political discourse has an impact on their sense of belonging, it’s important that the media landscape is constantly scrutinised, including the question of who gets to speak.
This becomes even more important during unprecedented situations such as the Covid-19 pandemic, when social inequalities – many of which disproportionately impact migrants – are exacerbated.
Back in March 2020, as the first lockdown kicked in and we all sat glued to the news on our phones, we at Migrant Voice decided to start monitoring media coverage of migration.
We analysed nearly 900 articles about migration published across nine of the UK’s most popular online news outlets between 1 March and 31 May 2020 – covering most of the first lockdown, including the first peak in Covid-19 infections and deaths.
We found that the UK media still has a long way to go before reporting on migration embodies the accuracy, diversity and nuance that it should.
While 21% of the stories we scrutinised did include the voice of someone impacted by the issue being reported on – a significant improvement from the 12% found in our 2014 study – there were large and worrying differences between news outlets. Around a third of stories in The Guardian included a migrant voice, but in The Express it was just one in 25.
Our research also revealed a tendency across media outlets to box migrants into very specific categories and sub-categories (such as ‘Channel crossers’, ‘frontline NHS workers’, ‘asylum seekers’) and to present these groups in simplistic ways, as heroes or threats, for example.
This widespread use of framing reflects and entrenches stereotyped views about migrants and a troubling narrative that suggests some migrants are more deserving of rights and respect than others. By reinforcing the idea that one must have a certain job or look and behave a certain way to be deemed worthy of a place and fair treatment in the UK, the concept of common humanity that was touted so frequently during that first lockdown is undermined.
We saw the consequences of this play out in the two major migration-related policy changes that took place during the first lockdown and were widely reported on – the International Health Surcharge exemption and visa extensions for some NHS workers. We welcome these changes, but we’re troubled that only one narrow subsection of migrants – those identified and hailed as heroes – benefited from significant policy change and, in the case of the visa extensions, only on a temporary basis.
Policy change should happen because it’s the right thing to do, not because of front-page headlines, not because those who will benefit are themselves of benefit to the UK (saving lives or picking the food that feeds the country), and not because it’s in the interest of the government.
Yet there were positives in our findings too. Firstly, it’s heartening to see that extensive media coverage of an issue can contribute to shifting the government’s position (even if that shift is also self-serving).
Secondly, as a result of this year’s unprecedented situation, journalists, policymakers and the public are now much more educated about issues such as the No Recourse to Public Funds condition that prevents many migrants accessing state support, asylum support and immigration detention, and we hope this can form the groundwork for more significant policy changes in the future.
And finally, we’ve seen how major events can create opportunities for conversations and for change that are impossible at any other time.
It’s vital that monitoring of UK media coverage of migration doesn’t stop here.
Since May 2020, we’ve seen the global resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, reaching communities all across the UK as never before; we’ve seen report after report laying bare the inequalities faced by many migrant and BAME communities and exposed by Covid-19; and we’ve seen an uptick in hostility towards asylum seekers in the UK, with vigilantes patrolling south coast beaches and far-right groups targeting asylum seeker accommodation.
And of course, we’ve seen a severe second wave of Covid-19, with further lockdowns and restrictions.
Perhaps like no other year, 2020 has shown just how powerful the media can be in influencing and educating the public. It’s therefore more important than ever that the media is scrutinised and held to account.
And as we continue to live through this pandemic and look ahead to more normal times, we encourage all journalists to look beyond the stereotypes to the human beings behind their stories, and to seek to include the voices of those impacted by the issues they’re writing about.
The result will be fairer, more accurate, more engaging reporting – something all of us want to see.


politicscouk--2020-12-24--Marcus Rashford and the rise of the political influencers

Politicians are not known for their humility .
However , as the second wave of the coronavirus swept through Britain , Conservative MP Steve Baker wasn ’ t afraid to show some on social media .
Baker had been asked by Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford to allow him to reply to the MP ’ s Tweet about extending the school meals vouchers given to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to a later date ( Baker had turned off the ‘ reply ’ function ) .
Baker replied , arguing that these measures would cause severe economic harm .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response wasn ’ t the economic claim .
His response stated : “ You have 3.4 million followers Marcus , to my 96k .
The power is yours here ” .
The white flag of surrender had been raised ; Baker ’ s relatively smaller following meant that he had lost the online argument .
The government later pledged £400 million to tackle living costs over the next 12 months for the most disadvantaged families .
Despite being one of the most influential backbenchers in the country , somebody who has one-to-one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; how did Steve Baker succumb to feelings of powerlessness in the face of a footballer ?
At what point did a combination of an inspirational backstory and enormous online presence become more pivotal to shaping public policy than being an elected official ?
The answer to this question can not be realised without understanding ‘ influencers ’ .
Defining an ‘ influencer ’ is actually surprisingly hard to do , but they can essentially be described as individuals or small groups that exert a topical influence over a certain group of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the form of vloggers via their YouTube channel , or celebrities who are highly active on social media .
Whilst Rashford ’ s initial celebrity came from a more traditional background ( as a sports star ) , his consistent online activities mean he likely falls into such a bucket .
Vlogging to a camera and casual tweeting evoke a sense of ‘ relatability ’ that distinguishes influencers from regular celebrities .
Internet sensations of this kind are highly sought after by brands , who pay them handsomely to promote various kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bang for their buck is not the influencer ’ s industry knowledge , but the charismatic authority they exercise .
Despite this , many may dismiss influencers as irrelevant to social affairs .
Critics lambast them as superficial figures that care more about views than values .
They are often seen as symbolic of a generation glued to their screens on platforms that are eviscerating adolescent mental health .
But what these attacks on influencers appear to miss isn ’ t to do with their values .
It is that their power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why the British government made such a hash of the Rashford-school meals saga was that they failed to predict the cut-through that a young , black footballer would have with the wider public .
Not every influencer has the sort of power Marcus Rashford has .
But the political domain has evolved to a point where there are more than a handful of Rashford-like individuals out there .
Governments and political parties need to recognise this , as influencers will increasingly start to engage in political activity .
At the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to whom we trust and ascribe authority of knowledge production .
Now , this did not happen overnight of course , but it is part of an ever changing historical process .
In the beginning there was God .
For centuries the church and its representatives were seen as the sole and only fountain truth .
Then came science .
In a large part of the West , science replaced religious belief as the main source of truth .
The scientific method offered an alternative to the dogmatic teachings of the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously-held beliefs as our methods and accuracy of inquiry evolved .
Such progress produced the internet .
This provided everyone with a voice and ability to both obtain as well as disseminate information .
But online , often authority can be associated with whoever shouts the loudest .
Academic and intellectual institutions , seen as the bastion of scientific progress , now come under fire .
Facing charges of group think and reductive analysis , they no longer possess the same authority as previous decades .
Simple analysis , and social media platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shares and followers are what makes the age of influencers so prevalent .
It is under these environments that influencers are emerging as a new voice of trustworthiness providing an alternative source of truth and knowledge .
The follower count , amount of engagement and interaction have become a direct source validating their credibility akin to academic citations .
The internet and digital technologies created a vacuum as to who should be wearing the crown of trust .
With traditional sources of authority becoming ever less relevant , influencers have become credible actors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a mistake to ascribe influencer ’ s success merely to some shallow numbers though .
There is a much deeper connection , a unique relationship that they build with their followers , which makes them crave for new content like the new season of a real life character from their favorite Netflix series .
The intimate nature of this informational distribution ; where a creator is speaking down the lens of their camera , makes viewers feel as if they have a special relationship with the influencer - which is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are perceived as being polished , even from another planet .
Kenneth Burke described this phenomenon in his 1969 piece “ A Rhetoric of Motives ” .
Burke explained that humans have an urge to identify with other groups and people .
As biologically separate beings , humans seek to overcome this state of separateness through communication , music , red MAGA caps , you name it .
In times of identity politics where voters formulate their political priorities based on the identity they espouse , influencers are set to accumulate increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak like you and I , fire updates in a continuous loop , broadcasting a shared sense of identity unifying a critical mass of people under a common purpose .
It is this cocktail of omnipresence and relatability that creates a weird attachment and ultimately loyalty - the most valuable currency in the political casino .
The UK government thought they had seen the last of Rashford over summer , once they had awarded him an MBE .
Many viewed this honour as a cynical but deserved ploy to keep the Manchester striker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as driven by the issue as Rashford ploughed on , forcing the prime minister to call the 23 year-old in order to assure him that the government was on the right track .
This should serve as a case study for governments worldwide trying to work out how to engage with powerful influencers on matters of public policy .
Should they bring them on side , early doors , in order to keep them within touching distance ?
People are less likely to decry governments if they have a seat at the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several factors .
One is , of course , the issue at hand .
A less controversial issue may warrant greater collaboration .
For example , the Sidemen , a group of British YouTubers with over 100mn subscribers , made a widely shared ‘ Stay at Home ’ video during the first wave of COVID-19 .
However , anti-establishment parties in turn , could use influencers to destabilise the status quo from the outside .
Eventually , there may well be a point where such influencers decide to become politicians themselves .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry millions with you on issues that one cares about is a highly valuable currency .
If it is possible to have the adoration that many have for the likes of Trump , Farage and Johnson , without the detractors , then this makes for unbelievably powerful leadership qualities .
Objections to this belief are reasonable .
Currently , influencers carry favour with a young audience that is widely geographically dispersed .
In many voting systems , this will mean that building a significant coalition of support would be tough .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youth-facing platforms into the ‘ mainstream media ’ .
KSI , a British YouTuber who came to fame playing FIFA in his bedroom , is now a chart-topping rapper .
He twice-sold out huge arenas to have a boxing bout against American vlogger Logan Paul ( whose own charisma helped him recover from major controversies ) .
These stars are by no-means ‘ staying in their lane ’ , meaning they will capture both traditional and new forms of public life .
When will we have our first YouTuber politician ?
Finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marcus Rashford is stopping .
Not only has he released a BBC documentary on food poverty , he has partnered with publisher Macmillan to promote reading for economically disadvantaged children .
Maybe he will stand for parliament one day , maybe he won ’ t .
What is clear though , is that influencers have the potential to become serious political players in the issues of tomorrow .
But perhaps this time , the politicians in question don ’ t come of age playing at Eton , but playing Esports .
Tom Westgarth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oxford Insights .
They specialise in understanding trends in emerging technologies and AI .

Politicians are not known for their humility. However, as the second wave of the coronavirus swept through Britain, Conservative MP Steve Baker wasn’t afraid to show some on social media.
Baker had been asked by Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford to allow him to reply to the MP’s Tweet about extending the school meals vouchers given to children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to a later date (Baker had turned off the ‘reply’ function). Baker replied, arguing that these measures would cause severe economic harm.
But the most interesting part of Baker’s response wasn’t the economic claim. His response stated: “You have 3.4 million followers Marcus, to my 96k. The power is yours here”. The white flag of surrender had been raised; Baker’s relatively smaller following meant that he had lost the online argument. The government later pledged £400 million to tackle living costs over the next 12 months for the most disadvantaged families.
Despite being one of the most influential backbenchers in the country, somebody who has one-to-one’s with prime minister Boris Johnson; how did Steve Baker succumb to feelings of powerlessness in the face of a footballer? At what point did a combination of an inspirational backstory and enormous online presence become more pivotal to shaping public policy than being an elected official?
The answer to this question cannot be realised without understanding ‘influencers’. Defining an ‘influencer’ is actually surprisingly hard to do, but they can essentially be described as individuals or small groups that exert a topical influence over a certain group of people through their online presence.
This could take the form of vloggers via their YouTube channel, or celebrities who are highly active on social media. Whilst Rashford’s initial celebrity came from a more traditional background (as a sports star), his consistent online activities mean he likely falls into such a bucket. Vlogging to a camera and casual tweeting evoke a sense of ‘relatability’ that distinguishes influencers from regular celebrities.
Internet sensations of this kind are highly sought after by brands, who pay them handsomely to promote various kinds of products. What gives these brands the bang for their buck is not the influencer’s industry knowledge, but the charismatic authority they exercise.
Despite this, many may dismiss influencers as irrelevant to social affairs. Critics lambast them as superficial figures that care more about views than values. They are often seen as symbolic of a generation glued to their screens on platforms that are eviscerating adolescent mental health.
But what these attacks on influencers appear to miss isn’t to do with their values. It is that their power is significantly underestimated. Part of the reason why the British government made such a hash of the Rashford-school meals saga was that they failed to predict the cut-through that a young, black footballer would have with the wider public.
Not every influencer has the sort of power Marcus Rashford has. But the political domain has evolved to a point where there are more than a handful of Rashford-like individuals out there. Governments and political parties need to recognise this, as influencers will increasingly start to engage in political activity.
***
At the heart of this trend is an ongoing seismic shift as to whom we trust and ascribe authority of knowledge production. Now, this did not happen overnight of course, but it is part of an ever changing historical process.
In the beginning there was God. For centuries the church and its representatives were seen as the sole and only fountain of truth.
Then came science. In a large part of the West, science replaced religious belief as the main source of truth. The scientific method offered an alternative to the dogmatic teachings of the church, allowing flexibility to approve and reject previously-held beliefs as our methods and accuracy of inquiry evolved.
Such progress produced the internet. This provided everyone with a voice and ability to both obtain as well as disseminate information. But online, often authority can be associated with whoever shouts the loudest.
Academic and intellectual institutions, seen as the bastion of scientific progress, now come under fire. Facing charges of group think and reductive analysis, they no longer possess the same authority as they did in previous decades.
Simple analysis, and social media platforms that prefer disseminating information through retweets, shares and followers, are what makes the age of influencers so prevalent. It is under these environments that influencers are emerging as a new voice of trustworthiness, providing an alternative source of truth and knowledge. The follower count, amount of engagement and interaction have become a direct source validating their credibility akin to academic citations.
The internet and digital technologies created a vacuum as to who should be wearing the crown of trust. With traditional sources of authority becoming ever-less relevant, influencers have become credible actors for filling this gap.
***
It would be a mistake to ascribe influencers’ success merely to some shallow numbers though. There is a much deeper connection, a unique relationship that they build with their followers, which makes them crave for new content like the new season of a real-life character from their favorite Netflix series. The intimate nature of this informational distribution, where a creator is speaking down the lens of their camera, makes viewers feel as if they have a special relationship with the influencer – which is a trait that fundamentally distinguishes them from celebrities who are perceived as being polished, even from another planet.
Kenneth Burke described this phenomenon in his 1969 piece “A Rhetoric of Motives”. Burke explained that humans have an urge to identify with other groups and people. As biologically separate beings, humans seek to overcome this state of separateness through communication, music, red MAGA caps, you name it.
In times of identity politics, when voters formulate their political priorities based on the identity they espouse, influencers are set to accumulate increasing power over setting the tone. Influencers speak like you and I, fire updates in a continuous loop, broadcasting a shared sense of identity unifying a critical mass of people under a common purpose.
It is this cocktail of omnipresence and relatability that creates a weird attachment and ultimately loyalty – the most valuable currency in the political casino.
***
The UK government thought they had seen the last of Rashford over summer, once they had awarded him an MBE. Many viewed this honour as a cynical but deserved ploy to keep the Manchester striker on side. Of course, somebody as driven by the issue as Rashford ploughed on, forcing the prime minister to call the 23 year-old in order to assure him that the government was on the right track. This should serve as a case study for governments worldwide trying to work out how to engage with powerful influencers on matters of public policy.
Should they bring them on side, early doors, in order to keep them within touching distance? People are less likely to decry governments if they have a seat at the table.
The answer to this depends on several factors. One is, of course, the issue at hand. A less controversial issue may warrant greater collaboration. For example, the Sidemen, a group of British YouTubers with over 10 million subscribers, made a widely shared ‘Stay at Home’ video during the first wave of COVID-19. However, anti-establishment parties, in turn, could use influencers to destabilise the status quo from the outside.
Eventually, there may well be a point where such influencers decide to become politicians themselves. In the game of politics, the ability to carry millions with you on issues that one cares about is a highly valuable currency. If it is possible to have the adoration that many have for the likes of Trump, Farage and Johnson, without the detractors, then this makes for unbelievably powerful leadership qualities.
Objections to this belief are reasonable. Currently, influencers curry favour with a young audience that is widely geographically dispersed. In many voting systems, this will mean that building a significant coalition of support would be tough.
However, many influencers are moving away from youth-facing platforms into the ‘mainstream media’. KSI, a British YouTuber who came to fame playing FIFA in his bedroom, is now a chart-topping rapper. He twice sold out huge arenas to have a boxing bout against American vlogger Logan Paul (whose own charisma helped him recover from major controversies). These stars are by no-means ‘staying in their lane’, meaning they will capture both traditional and new forms of public life. When will we have our first YouTuber politician?
Finally, there seems to be little sign that Marcus Rashford is stopping. Not only has he released a BBC documentary on food poverty, he has partnered with publisher Macmillan to promote reading for economically disadvantaged children. Maybe he will stand for parliament one day, maybe he won’t. What is clear, though, is that influencers have the potential to become serious political players in the issues of tomorrow. But perhaps this time the politicians in question won’t come of age playing at Eton, but playing Esports.


politicscouk--2020-01-31--The end of the dream. The start of the resistance.

Terrible day .
The worst .
There 's no other way to put it .
You deal with it as best you can .
Maybe you watch the news .
Maybe you make sure it 's off .
Maybe you go party to forget it all .
Maybe you settle into quiet contemplation .
Be with friends .
Be alone .
Mark it .
Ignore it .
Whatever .
Deal with it however you think best .
There 's no political meaning to how you take it , nothing to be achieved .
So just be kind to yourself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are good things that can come from this .
As of tomorrow , the Brexit mandate is discharged .
Remainers , in total defeat , can fight now without their main weakness - the democratic argument for fulfilling the referendum result .
And Brexiters will have to argue without the only positive proposition they have been able to make over the last few years .
It will be easier to convince people that the government is doing Brexit wrong that it was to suggest that it should not do it at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on vague talk and unfounded aspirations , is about to come head-to-head with reality .
It 'll be up to Remainers to fix on that reality .
It must be done .
It is a duty , not a goal .
The damage that is about to be inflicted on us must be shown to be the consequence of the decision to Brexit and the manner it is conducted , or else we allow the government and the right-wing press to blame someone else for it .
And they will .
Brussels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's what they do when faced with their own failures .
The chief defence against that attack is to make damn sure people understand Brexit 's responsibility for what happens next .
It is also a duty for a larger and more substantial reason than that .
We are living in a world in which truth is a devastated property .
That 's often the result of hermetically-sealed tribal identity groups online and the malicious impact of hostile actors , like Putin 's Russia .
But it is also because the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dominic Cummings , the power behind the throne , won a referendum on the basis of conscious deception .
He conducts his relations with the press through the manipulation of reality .
The prime minister is an inveterate liar .
He lies as easily as he breathes .
If we do not keep a firm grip on objective fact , they will prise it from our grasp completely .
And then it will become impossible to scrutinise the government at all .
But there 's no point pretending that you can only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's not possible .
What is happening is a tragedy .
A betrayal of Britain 's role in the world .
A betrayal of the Europeans who came and made this their home .
A betrayal of the idea that this is a calm , sensible country , that thinks in practical and pragmatic terms about what it is doing , that deals in small ideas instead of grand ideologies .
After the Second World War , the leading countries of the world came together to make sure it could never happen again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America 's Harry Dexter White cobbled together the Bretton Woods system to control banking crises .
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established to regularise trade .
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was enshrined to protect individuals and minorities .
In Europe , that project had a more severe imperative .
The continent had destroyed itself twice .
If it tried a third time , it would probably end the world .
So it did something which had never been done before .
It began to meld its economies together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That started with coal and steel , the two industries which powered conflict .
And it blossomed into the most advanced example of international cooperation in the history of humankind .
Britain joined late , but when it did it brought something unique : a caution which is needed in any grand project .
That detachment is now portrayed as a sign that Britain never fitted in .
It 's nonsense .
Any number of European states , except for perhaps Germany , could have succumbed to jingoistic populism .
We were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold a referendum on it .
Britain 's careful approach to Europe suited it and provided something valuable to the manner in which the project evolved .
The European system was carefully and painstakingly put together .
It works for everyone , but requires sacrifices from everyone too .
It creates its own problems , but also provides unexpected advantages .
The EU is perhaps the greatest example of what was achieved in those post-war years .
Over the Brexit period , Leavers have portrayed the Europeans as sticklers for the rules , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think outside the box .
Sometimes people look at something beautiful and can only see the flaws .
The EU is the pinnacle of the rules-based international system .
It is part of an architecture which is designed , from the ground up , so that countries work together instead of fighting one another .
So yes , it is based on rules .
Rules are at the heart of what it is .
Because rules are better than the alternative .
It is so much easier to destroy than to create .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to pretend the world is simple , to make people blame outsiders for problems which have complex origins .
It is so much easier to burn stuff down than it is to build it up .
And that is what they have done .
They have destroyed something beautiful .
One moment this week provided a stark visual representation of that .
Nigel Farage and his little gang of cronies sneered and waved tiny plastic flags in the European parliament , on a night in which European MEPs from across the continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It typified what is happening to us .
On the one hand , international solidarity and common decency .
On the other , bitterness , delusion , imagined victimhood , small-mindedness and spite .
Britain reduced to a stump of itself , stripped of its better qualities .
The replacement of patriotism with nationalism .
That is what we are now .
Farage and his little flag .
But underneath it all , the seeds of a better Britain are already in place .
Over the last four years , millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to fighting for them .
Openness .
Internationalism .
Liberalism .
Reason .
That movement is online and offline , national and local .
It exists in million-strong marches and small regional meetings .
It is something new : a 21st Century variant of principles which go back through our history , a new generation carrying the flag for a proud intellectual tradition - one which embraces diversity , accepts complexity , believes in cooperation , and aspires to the confidence of a nation which can create instead of merely destroying .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were wrong to ever assume that the pathway is always towards greater freedom .
Progress goes backwards as well as forwards .
There is no guaranteed victory .
But this movement has much on its side .
It has commitment .
It has identity .
And , more than anything , it has the young .
It has the future .
There is no law that says that it must win .
But it can win .
Today is a day of despair .
There 's no point denying that .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happens in it is up to us .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Terrible day. The worst. There's no other way to put it.
You deal with it as best you can. Maybe you watch the news. Maybe you make sure it's off. Maybe you go party to forget it all. Maybe you settle into quiet contemplation. Be with friends. Be alone. Mark it. Ignore it. Whatever. Deal with it however you think best. There's no political meaning to how you take it, nothing to be achieved. So just be kind to yourself. That's the main thing.
There are good things that can come from this. As of tomorrow, the Brexit mandate is discharged. Remainers, in total defeat, can fight now without their main weakness – the democratic argument for fulfilling the referendum result. And Brexiters will have to argue without the only positive proposition they have been able to make over the last few years.
It will be easier to convince people that the government is doing Brexit wrong that it was to suggest that it should not do it at all. A project that was based on dreams, on vague talk and unfounded aspirations, is about to come head-to-head with reality. It'll be up to Remainers to fix on that reality.
It must be done. It is a duty, not a goal. The damage that is about to be inflicted on us must be shown to be the consequence of the decision to Brexit and the manner it is conducted, or else we allow the government and the right-wing press to blame someone else for it. And they will. Brussels, traitors at home, immigrants. It's what they do when faced with their own failures. The chief defence against that attack is to make damn sure people understand Brexit's responsibility for what happens next.
It is also a duty for a larger and more substantial reason than that. We are living in a world in which truth is a devastated property. That's often the result of hermetically-sealed tribal identity groups online and the malicious impact of hostile actors, like Putin's Russia. But it is also because the government we live under is defined by falsehood.
Dominic Cummings, the power behind the throne, won a referendum on the basis of conscious deception. He conducts his relations with the press through the manipulation of reality. The prime minister is an inveterate liar. He lies as easily as he breathes. If we do not keep a firm grip on objective fact, they will prise it from our grasp completely. And then it will become impossible to scrutinise the government at all.
But there's no point pretending that you can only see the bright side today. It's not possible. What is happening is a tragedy. A betrayal of Britain's role in the world. A betrayal of the Europeans who came and made this their home. A betrayal of the idea that this is a calm, sensible country, that thinks in practical and pragmatic terms about what it is doing, that deals in small ideas instead of grand ideologies.
After the Second World War, the leading countries of the world came together to make sure it could never happen again. Britain's John Maynard Keynes and America's Harry Dexter White cobbled together the Bretton Woods system to control banking crises. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was established to regularise trade. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was enshrined to protect individuals and minorities.
In Europe, that project had a more severe imperative. The continent had destroyed itself twice. If it tried a third time, it would probably end the world. So it did something which had never been done before. It began to meld its economies together, so that war would become unthinkable. That started with coal and steel, the two industries which powered conflict. And it blossomed into the most advanced example of international cooperation in the history of humankind.
Britain joined late, but when it did it brought something unique: a caution which is needed in any grand project. That detachment is now portrayed as a sign that Britain never fitted in. It's nonsense. Any number of European states, except for perhaps Germany, could have succumbed to jingoistic populism. We were just the only ones stupid enough to hold a referendum on it. Britain's careful approach to Europe suited it and provided something valuable to the manner in which the project evolved.
The European system was carefully and painstakingly put together. It works for everyone, but requires sacrifices from everyone too. It creates its own problems, but also provides unexpected advantages.
The EU is perhaps the greatest example of what was achieved in those post-war years. Over the Brexit period, Leavers have portrayed the Europeans as sticklers for the rules, dull and unimaginative bureaucrats who can't think outside the box.
Sometimes people look at something beautiful and can only see the flaws. The EU is the pinnacle of the rules-based international system. It is part of an architecture which is designed, from the ground up, so that countries work together instead of fighting one another. So yes, it is based on rules. Rules are at the heart of what it is. Because rules are better than the alternative.
It is so much easier to destroy than to create. It is so much easier to lie, to pretend the world is simple, to make people blame outsiders for problems which have complex origins. It is so much easier to burn stuff down than it is to build it up. And that is what they have done. They have destroyed something beautiful.
One moment this week provided a stark visual representation of that. Nigel Farage and his little gang of cronies sneered and waved tiny plastic flags in the European parliament, on a night in which European MEPs from across the continent joined hands and sang Auld Lang Syne. It typified what is happening to us. On the one hand, international solidarity and common decency. On the other, bitterness, delusion, imagined victimhood, small-mindedness and spite. Britain reduced to a stump of itself, stripped of its better qualities. The replacement of patriotism with nationalism.
That is what we are now. Farage and his little flag.
But underneath it all, the seeds of a better Britain are already in place. Over the last four years, millions of people have discovered their values and their commitment to fighting for them. Openness. Internationalism. Liberalism. Reason.
That movement is online and offline, national and local. It exists in million-strong marches and small regional meetings. It is something new: a 21st Century variant of principles which go back through our history, a new generation carrying the flag for a proud intellectual tradition – one which embraces diversity, accepts complexity, believes in cooperation, and aspires to the confidence of a nation which can create instead of merely destroying.
History doesn't have a direction. We were wrong to ever assume that the pathway is always towards greater freedom. Progress goes backwards as well as forwards. There is no guaranteed victory. But this movement has much on its side. It has commitment. It has identity. And, more than anything, it has the young. It has the future. There is no law that says that it must win. But it can win.
Today is a day of despair. There's no point denying that. But tomorrow is a new day. And what happens in it is up to us.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.