politicscouk--2020-10-26--Is the government pursuing herd immunity by the back door?

In early March , it seemed that the government 's covid strategy was to pursue deliberate , possibly controlled , herd immunity .
As Johnson put it in his Greenwich speech in February , ministers would `` take off our Clark Kent glasses '' and be a `` champion freedom of exchange '' .
This reckless policy led to a U-turn and a prolonged lockdown .
It was the worst of all worlds , economically and for the virus .
Other countries emerged into a controlled environment with vanishingly low case numbers and many returned to near normal by late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer , dealing with the huge build up of cases we already had , and still came out too early .
We all understand the R number by now - the number of people an infected person will go on to infect .
The time between the first person being infected and the next is the generation time .
In covid 's case , it is around six days .
This gives you a speed of infection .
Any R over 1 means cases will continue to grow , while any R under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a car parked on the edge of the cliff , speed is n't really the important factor .
It 's the direction of travel that is utterly vital .
We are now in this confusing state , with every region in the UK reporting an R above 1 .
Many regions in economically damaging Tier 3 restrictions are still posting case numbers increasing .
We are parked on the edge of that cliff and - albeit slower than in the spring - driving forwards .
The government seems to take reductions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any R above 1 is still failure .
We are still in forward drive .
Cases and deaths continue to mount up .
Regions in Tier 3 where the R is above 1 will continue to have drawn-out economic damage , like an engine spluttering and straining against a handbrake but edging forward anyway .
This is self-harm without material benefit .
There are significant important advantages to a slower spread of the virus .
It means the NHS does n't get overwhelmed instantly .
But eventually , unless we get a handle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless .
We 'll still end up off that cliff .
There are only two conceivable strategies the government can be pursuing .
The first is to drive cases into remission - in other words , to put the car into reverse .
This means going further than just getting R below 1 .
Even at 0.9 , the infection rate could remain static at a high level and we 'd be overwhelmed anyway .
It means getting it far below 1 .
This would mean meaningful reductions in case numbers again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system can actually keep up with .
Unfortunately we do n't know what that level is , because track and trace is such a shambles .
Is it 1,000 cases a day ?
10,000 ?
Every day we make it harder - nearer to 100,000 than 10,000 .
If we are n't trying to reduce case numbers anymore , if we are n't trying to get into reverse , then what are we doing ?
If the R remains above 1 , cases continue to double .
And then we will be overwhelmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This slow drive forward will require mass restrictions and economic hurt anyway .
The government must know this .
So what does that leave us with ?
This can only be herd immunity once more , by the backdoor .
A conscious choice to allow increasing infection , to build up again to March levels , and to allow the deaths of tens , if not hundreds of thousands of people .
The fog of arguments over the summer - about pre-existing immunity , false positives , dead fragments of virus - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ferocious pathogen once more .
We are left with steady growth of the virus , now over 200 deaths a day , and a government that 's either actively encouraging the virus to spread or incompetently failing to control it .
Either way , we need drastic change now .
We have edged perilously close to the precipice .
Dr Dominic Pimenta is a London-based doctor and writer .
His book Duty of Care , is available now .
All royalties from book sales go to Heroes , a charity supporting healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Dominic Pimenta
In early March, it seemed that the government's covid strategy was to pursue deliberate, possibly controlled, herd immunity. As Johnson put it in his Greenwich speech in February, ministers would "take off our Clark Kent glasses" and be a "champion freedom of exchange".
This reckless policy led to a U-turn and a prolonged lockdown. It was the worst of all worlds, economically and for the virus. Other countries emerged into a controlled environment with vanishingly low case numbers and many returned to near normal by late April. We had to continue far longer, dealing with the huge build up of cases we already had, and still came out too early.
We all understand the R number by now – the number of people an infected person will go on to infect. The time between the first person being infected and the next is the generation time. In covid's case, it is around six days. This gives you a speed of infection. Any R over 1 means cases will continue to grow, while any R under 1 means cases are shrinking. Like a car parked on the edge of the cliff, speed isn't really the important factor. It's the direction of travel that is utterly vital.
We are now in this confusing state, with every region in the UK reporting an R above 1. Many regions in economically damaging Tier 3 restrictions are still posting case numbers increasing. We are parked on the edge of that cliff and – albeit slower than in the spring – driving forwards.
The government seems to take reductions in the R as de facto success, but any R above 1 is still failure. We are still in forward drive. Cases and deaths continue to mount up. Regions in Tier 3 where the R is above 1 will continue to have drawn-out economic damage, like an engine spluttering and straining against a handbrake but edging forward anyway. This is self-harm without material benefit.
There are significant important advantages to a slower spread of the virus. It means the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed instantly. But eventually, unless we get a handle on things, it will be overwhelmed regardless. We'll still end up off that cliff.
There are only two conceivable strategies the government can be pursuing. The first is to drive cases into remission – in other words, to put the car into reverse. This means going further than just getting R below 1. Even at 0.9, the infection rate could remain static at a high level and we'd be overwhelmed anyway. It means getting it far below 1.
This would mean meaningful reductions in case numbers again, to whatever threshold our track and trace system can actually keep up with. Unfortunately we don't know what that level is, because track and trace is such a shambles. Is it 1,000 cases a day? 10,000? Every day we make it harder – nearer to 100,000 than 10,000.
If we aren't trying to reduce case numbers anymore, if we aren't trying to get into reverse, then what are we doing? If the R remains above 1, cases continue to double. And then we will be overwhelmed – but in months rather than weeks. This slow drive forward will require mass restrictions and economic hurt anyway. The government must know this.
So what does that leave us with? This can only be herd immunity once more, by the backdoor. A conscious choice to allow increasing infection, to build up again to March levels, and to allow the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.
The fog of arguments over the summer – about pre-existing immunity, false positives, dead fragments of virus – have dissipated in the blistering heat of this ferocious pathogen once more. We are left with steady growth of the virus, now over 200 deaths a day, and a government that's either actively encouraging the virus to spread or incompetently failing to control it.
Either way, we need drastic change now. We have edged perilously close to the precipice.
Dr Dominic Pimenta is a London-based doctor and writer. His book Duty of Care, is available now. All royalties from book sales go to Heroes, a charity supporting healthcare workers. 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--2020-10-27--UK-Japan trade deal will provide political cover - but only a limited trade boost

Last Friday , after signing the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement ( Cepa ) , trade secretary Liz Truss described it as a historic and a landmark moment .
In truth , while the agreement has a certain political significance , its economic impact is likely to be very small .
It contains very limited improvements relative to the trade deal the UK enjoyed with Japan through its EU membership - the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement ( EPA ) , which entered into force in February 2019 .
First , the politics .
Concluding its first free trade agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and signing a deal with the world 's third largest economy will alleviate some political pressure on the UK government .
That is especially true given Japan is the UK 's fourth largest non-EU export market .
That pressure has been especially acute given the UK is still on a cliff-edge regarding its relationship with the EU .
The FTA with the US , originally pitched as a key element of the post-Brexit agenda , remains some way off .
In part , this is due to uncertainty from the US presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas , such as the food safety standards of US agricultural products .
So it is very apt timing for the UK government to have some significant results to show from the Global Britain project .
But while Downing Street has presented the agreement as going far beyond the EU-Japan deal , the Japanese government 's evaluation is more downbeat .
It highlights the importance of maintaining market access at the EU-Japan level , with some improved rules - for example in e-commerce .
The original vision for the trade deal had greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'roll-over ' the EPA was driven from two incentives .
First , it wanted greater clarity regarding UK-EU future trade relations .
And second , it wanted to negotiate something more ambitious , by upgrading the UK 's market access commitments and reviewing some rule-making issues rejected by the EU during the EPA negotiations .
Over time , though , Japan repositioned itself in order to prioritise 'continuity ' .
There was strong pressure from Japanese business to ensure a smooth transition from the EU-Japan EPA framework to the Japan-UK FTA from January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to conclude the deal within an unprecedentedly short negotiating time frame , both governments had to downgrade the scope and the level of ambitions .
The economic impacts of the agreement look very small due to this minimum value-add .
According to the Department for International Trade ( DIT ) , the long-term economic gains from the Japan-UK FTA relative to no-deal amount to £1.5 billion in the case of the UK ( a 0.07 % increase in its GDP ) and equally £1.5 billion in the case of Japan ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
In truth though , even these estimates probably exaggerate the gains , as the UK is currently already enjoying benefits of the EU-Japan deal .
The value-added elements relative to the EU-Japan EPA are limited to some finely narrowed-down improvements in rules , for instance in e-commerce , rules of origin , and financial services , and the UK 's immediate reductions of tariffs on some car and rail manufacturing products .
The last-minute deal for the UK 's stilton cheese exports was made within the EU-Japan EPA framework by allocating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheese exports .
Achieving 'continuity ' was set as the first priority in order to avoid the negative economic impacts of falling into bilateral trade on WTO terms .
A major short-coming in the agreement is the failure to build on the investment section of the EU-Japan EPA , which covers only investment liberalisation .
This seems to reflect a lack of UK strategic policy-making .
Japan is the largest investor abroad in the world , accounting for 14 % of the world total in 2018 , and the UK is the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDI ) for Japan .
Given that Japanese FDI has been playing an important role in the UK economy and that retaining its existing investment in post-Brexit Britain is crucial , the UK government should have shown a strong commitment to Japanese investment by including a comprehensive investment chapter encompassing investment protection and dispute settlement .
Going forward , this will be an important lesson for the UK for future FTA negotiations .
The UK government needs to strategically analyse investment relations with its FTA partners especially from the inward FDI perspective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the double economic uncertainty from covid and Brexit .
Enhancing investment policy cooperation through investment liberalisation , protection and a dispute resolution mechanism is one way in which the gains from UK FTAs could be higher than the currently very small projected gains .
Dr Minako Morita-Jaeger is an international trade policy consultant and fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory .
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 Minako Morita-Jaeger
Last Friday, after signing the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (Cepa), trade secretary Liz Truss described it as a historic and a landmark moment. In truth, while the agreement has a certain political significance, its economic impact is likely to be very small. It contains very limited improvements relative to the trade deal the UK enjoyed with Japan through its EU membership – the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), which entered into force in February 2019.
First, the politics. Concluding its first free trade agreement (FTA) as an 'independent' nation and signing a deal with the world's third largest economy will alleviate some political pressure on the UK government. That is especially true given Japan is the UK's fourth largest non-EU export market.
That pressure has been especially acute given the UK is still on a cliff-edge regarding its relationship with the EU. The FTA with the US, originally pitched as a key element of the post-Brexit agenda, remains some way off. In part, this is due to uncertainty from the US presidential election but also because of disagreements over key areas, such as the food safety standards of US agricultural products. So it is very apt timing for the UK government to have some significant results to show from the Global Britain project.
But while Downing Street has presented the agreement as going far beyond the EU-Japan deal, the Japanese government's evaluation is more downbeat. It highlights the importance of maintaining market access at the EU-Japan level, with some improved rules – for example in e-commerce.
The original vision for the trade deal had greater ambition. Japan's original refusal to 'roll-over' the EPA was driven from two incentives. First, it wanted greater clarity regarding UK-EU future trade relations. And second, it wanted to negotiate something more ambitious, by upgrading the UK's market access commitments and reviewing some rule-making issues rejected by the EU during the EPA negotiations.
Over time, though, Japan repositioned itself in order to prioritise 'continuity'. There was strong pressure from Japanese business to ensure a smooth transition from the EU-Japan EPA framework to the Japan-UK FTA from January 1st 2021.
The reality is that in order to conclude the deal within an unprecedentedly short negotiating time frame, both governments had to downgrade the scope and the level of ambitions.
The economic impacts of the agreement look very small due to this minimum value-add. According to the Department for International Trade (DIT), the long-term economic gains from the Japan-UK FTA relative to no-deal amount to £1.5 billion in the case of the UK (a 0.07% increase in its GDP) and equally £1.5 billion in the case of Japan (a 0.04 % increase in its GDP). In truth though, even these estimates probably exaggerate the gains, as the UK is currently already enjoying benefits of the EU-Japan deal.
The value-added elements relative to the EU-Japan EPA are limited to some finely narrowed-down improvements in rules, for instance in e-commerce, rules of origin, and financial services, and the UK's immediate reductions of tariffs on some car and rail manufacturing products. The last-minute deal for the UK's stilton cheese exports was made within the EU-Japan EPA framework by allocating the EU's left-over quotas to UK cheese exports. Achieving 'continuity' was set as the first priority in order to avoid the negative economic impacts of falling into bilateral trade on WTO terms.
A major short-coming in the agreement is the failure to build on the investment section of the EU-Japan EPA, which covers only investment liberalisation. This seems to reflect a lack of UK strategic policy-making. Japan is the largest investor abroad in the world, accounting for 14% of the world total in 2018, and the UK is the second largest destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) for Japan.
Given that Japanese FDI has been playing an important role in the UK economy and that retaining its existing investment in post-Brexit Britain is crucial, the UK government should have shown a strong commitment to Japanese investment by including a comprehensive investment chapter encompassing investment protection and dispute settlement.
Going forward, this will be an important lesson for the UK for future FTA negotiations. The UK government needs to strategically analyse investment relations with its FTA partners especially from the inward FDI perspective. The importance of this is heightened amid the double economic uncertainty from covid and Brexit. Enhancing investment policy cooperation through investment liberalisation, protection and a dispute resolution mechanism is one way in which the gains from UK FTAs could be higher than the currently very small projected gains.
Dr Minako Morita-Jaeger is an international trade policy consultant and fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory.
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--2020-10-28--Polling deep dive shows Labour taking first steps towards power

April must seem a long time ago in Conservative Central Office .
Where once much of the country rallied round the flag , falling in line behind the government and its stricken prime minister , the Tories ' yawning poll leads have since disappeared , with Labour occasionally even nudging ahead - an unthinkable notion back in the spring .
Through its slipshod handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the fiasco around Dominic Cummings , the Tories have squandered unity , goodwill and vote share in the polls .
Labour 's strategy of critical support for the government has paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keir Starmer has stronger personal ratings than any Labour leader since Gordon Brown 's honeymoon .
But Starmer 's critics on Labour 's Corbynite left ask how he is n't further ahead of a government that has a poor record on covid and seems to stumble from one shambles to the next .
There 's a degree of bitterness to the criticism , but it does point to a more fundamental challenge for Labour : the risk of a Tory revival if the pandemic dissipates and the economy recovers by the next election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their leader .
With both YouGov and Opinium , the Tories ' vote share among its own voters from last December has plunged from more than 85 % in January - sometimes topping 90 % in late March and April - to just 70 % now with Opinium , and the high 60s with YouGov .
But during that time Labour 's vote share among 2019 Conservative voters has only risen slightly , from pretty much nothing back in January to around five percent now .
The biggest rise has come from 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the question of who they 'd vote for in a general election now .
This has more or less doubled from below one in ten in January to almost one in five now .
It 's normal for voters to be unsure how they 'd vote between elections , but interestingly the pattern is not repeated among Labour voters from last year .
The 'do n't knows ' among Labour voters with Opinium has fallen from the mid-teens during winter and spring , to around ten percent now .
With YouGov it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In both poll series , Labour now has more support among its existing voters than the Tories have among theirs - a direct reversal from early this year .
These shifts were most marked around the Dominic Cummings row , but they have continued since then .
Tory support in particular has continued to ebb away over the summer and into autumn .
The Tories ' vanishing poll lead is therefore mostly down to Labour voters - and Lib Dems , around a third of whom are now backing Labour - affirming their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory voters express increasing doubts over who would get their vote .
This is solid stuff which will be reassuring to Labour HQ , but it 's a long way from sending the Conservatives into panic mode .
There 's a niggling concern though .
Does this mean that Labour is piling on support where , in purely electoral terms , it does n't really need it ?
The party has made limited headway among Leave voters in YouGov 's polling - again , the shift is primarily from Conservative to Do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made slightly more progress .
But in both cases , Labour 's advance is split pretty evenly between Leave and Remain voters .
That 's not necessarily a bad thing - after all , some Remain voters in red wall seats defected to the Tories last year , having accepted the referendum result and wanting to 'get Brexit done ' .
Since May , Opinium has been breaking its results down by type of seat - Tory holds in 2019 , Labour holds in 2019 , Tory gains in 2019 , and seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's support in the seats it held onto last December has n't really shifted that much since May - all that is happening is some Tory support is shifting to Do n't Know .
But in the seats it has lost since 2005 , Labour 's support has risen from the low to the high 30s , while the Tories ' has fallen from around 40 % into the 30s , and indeed to just 30 % in the two Opinium polls this month .
In May and June the Tories were comfortably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the picture is increasingly fuzzy , with Labour ahead in the last two polls and the Tories only ahead in two of the six polls conducted since the start of August .
These categories are subject to relatively high margins of error and can fluctuate significantly from one poll to the next , but the pattern over time smooths out .
Labour is making ground where it needs to .
Or , alternatively , the Tories are losing ground where they ca n't afford to .
There are other smoke signals in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town-based voters has disappeared since May , while their lead in rural seats has halved , according to Opinium .
The Tory lead in the Midlands has essentially vanished with both pollsters , while in the North , Labour has retaken the lead and is now comfortably ahead .
YouGov 's series of separate Wales-only polls shows the party is now eight points clear of the Tories , compared to five points in the general election - and a 12-point Tory lead back in April .
Does this mean that Labour is reclaiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to measure .
The rather unsatisfactory ABC1C2DE measure , which is based on old employment categories , shows Labour reversing a healthy Tory lead among the white collar ABC1s , while the Tories maintain a shrinking lead among blue collar C2DEs .
The latter includes state pensioners .
It 's the over-65s who continue to provide the Tories with commanding leads - albeit less commanding than in Spring .
Labour has made little headway among pensioners - although , once again , Do n't Knows have increased .
Its performance among those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Labour doing far better with Opinium .
The same pollster has Labour taking the lead among 35-to-44-year-olds and 45-to-54-year-olds , reversing Tory leads from Spring .
This matters .
The 'crossover ' age at which people became more likely to vote Tory was 39 at the last election , down from 47 in 2017 .
For all the talk about the grey vote , it is these more middle-aged bands that are the critical battleground .
Labour is a long way from being comfortable here , but it 's a marker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it 's worth remembering Labour 's healthy poll leads under Ed Miliband , and prior to the 1987 election under Neil Kinnock .
On both occasions , the following election was a disaster for the party .
Analysts often regard leadership ratings as a better guide to future elections than voting intention polls .
We know that Starmer has taken the lead in 'best prime minister ' polling since becoming Labour leader in April - something that largely eluded Miliband .
There 's an interesting contrast between the leadership polling of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who voted Tory at the last election .
Among current Tory supporters in YouGov 's most recent poll , 80 % said Johnson would make the best prime minister , compared to 65 % of people who voted Tory last year .
Just four percent of current Tory supporters prefer Starmer , compared to eight percent of 2019 Tory voters .
Fifteen percent of current Tory supporters do n't know who 'd make the best prime minister , but a whopping 27 % of 2019 Tory voters say likewise .
Given that around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't currently backing the party in YouGov 's polling , this suggests that Starmer 's ratings are higher among those 2019 Tory voters who are n't currently backing the party , Johnson 's ratings are lower , and 'Do n't Know ' is a much more common response .
Correlation is not causation , but it 's evidence that Johnson 's unconvincing leadership may be turning Tory voters away .
Other than that , Starmer 's own ratings largely mirror the patterns seen with Labour 's ratings in the voting intention polls - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dem voters from last year , popular with Remainers , younger voters , ABC1s and Londoners .
Perhaps unlike Labour , his own ratings shot up early on and have since plateaued , whereas the party has made slower but steadier progress throughout the year .
So where does this all leave us ?
We 're very far from a general election , a lot might change , and there are substantial margins for error in the data .
But certain trends are positive , if not exactly triumphant , for Labour .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their remaining heartlands .
They are winning over middle-aged voters and those in their former seats .
They are making up ground in towns and rural seats .
And meanwhile , a significant minority of Tory voters have grown unsure about the government without being won over by the opposition .
That means Labour has room to grow - but it also means the Tories do too .
A lot will hinge on which of them succeeds in doing so .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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
April must seem a long time ago in Conservative Central Office. Where once much of the country rallied round the flag, falling in line behind the government and its stricken prime minister, the Tories’ yawning poll leads have since disappeared, with Labour occasionally even nudging ahead – an unthinkable notion back in the spring.
Through its slipshod handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the fiasco around Dominic Cummings, the Tories have squandered unity, goodwill and vote share in the polls. Labour’s strategy of critical support for the government has paid solid dividends so far with voters. Keir Starmer has stronger personal ratings than any Labour leader since Gordon Brown’s honeymoon.
But Starmer’s critics on Labour’s Corbynite left ask how he isn’t further ahead of a government that has a poor record on covid and seems to stumble from one shambles to the next. There’s a degree of bitterness to the criticism, but it does point to a more fundamental challenge for Labour: the risk of a Tory revival if the pandemic dissipates and the economy recovers by the next election – and especially if the Conservatives change their leader.
With both YouGov and Opinium, the Tories’ vote share among its own voters from last December has plunged from more than 85% in January – sometimes topping 90% in late March and April – to just 70% now with Opinium, and the high 60s with YouGov. But during that time Labour’s vote share among 2019 Conservative voters has only risen slightly, from pretty much nothing back in January to around five percent now. The biggest rise has come from 2019 Tory voters responding ‘don’t know’ to the question of who they’d vote for in a general election now. This has more or less doubled from below one in ten in January to almost one in five now.
It’s normal for voters to be unsure how they’d vote between elections, but interestingly the pattern is not repeated among Labour voters from last year. The ‘don’t knows’ among Labour voters with Opinium has fallen from the mid-teens during winter and spring, to around ten percent now. With YouGov it’s generally in the low teens. In both poll series, Labour now has more support among its existing voters than the Tories have among theirs – a direct reversal from early this year.
These shifts were most marked around the Dominic Cummings row, but they have continued since then. Tory support in particular has continued to ebb away over the summer and into autumn.
The Tories’ vanishing poll lead is therefore mostly down to Labour voters – and Lib Dems, around a third of whom are now backing Labour – affirming their support for Starmer’s party, while Tory voters express increasing doubts over who would get their vote. This is solid stuff which will be reassuring to Labour HQ, but it’s a long way from sending the Conservatives into panic mode.
There’s a niggling concern though. Does this mean that Labour is piling on support where, in purely electoral terms, it doesn’t really need it?
The party has made limited headway among Leave voters in YouGov’s polling – again, the shift is primarily from Conservative to Don’t Know. With Opinium, Labour has made slightly more progress. But in both cases, Labour’s advance is split pretty evenly between Leave and Remain voters. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – after all, some Remain voters in red wall seats defected to the Tories last year, having accepted the referendum result and wanting to ‘get Brexit done’.
Since May, Opinium has been breaking its results down by type of seat – Tory holds in 2019, Labour holds in 2019, Tory gains in 2019, and seats Labour has lost since 2005.
Labour’s support in the seats it held onto last December hasn’t really shifted that much since May – all that is happening is some Tory support is shifting to Don’t Know.
But in the seats it has lost since 2005, Labour’s support has risen from the low to the high 30s, while the Tories’ has fallen from around 40% into the 30s, and indeed to just 30% in the two Opinium polls this month. In May and June the Tories were comfortably outpolling Labour in these seats – now the picture is increasingly fuzzy, with Labour ahead in the last two polls and the Tories only ahead in two of the six polls conducted since the start of August.
These categories are subject to relatively high margins of error and can fluctuate significantly from one poll to the next, but the pattern over time smooths out. Labour is making ground where it needs to. Or, alternatively, the Tories are losing ground where they can’t afford to.
There are other smoke signals in the data. The Tories’ lead among town-based voters has disappeared since May, while their lead in rural seats has halved, according to Opinium. The Tory lead in the Midlands has essentially vanished with both pollsters, while in the North, Labour has retaken the lead and is now comfortably ahead.
YouGov’s series of separate Wales-only polls shows the party is now eight points clear of the Tories, compared to five points in the general election – and a 12-point Tory lead back in April.
Does this mean that Labour is reclaiming its working class base? This is harder to measure. The rather unsatisfactory ABC1C2DE measure, which is based on old employment categories, shows Labour reversing a healthy Tory lead among the white collar ABC1s, while the Tories maintain a shrinking lead among blue collar C2DEs.
The latter includes state pensioners. It’s the over-65s who continue to provide the Tories with commanding leads – albeit less commanding than in Spring. Labour has made little headway among pensioners – although, once again, Don’t Knows have increased. Its performance among those approaching retirement varies between the two pollsters, with Labour doing far better with Opinium.
The same pollster has Labour taking the lead among 35-to-44-year-olds and 45-to-54-year-olds, reversing Tory leads from Spring. This matters. The ‘crossover’ age at which people became more likely to vote Tory was 39 at the last election, down from 47 in 2017. For all the talk about the grey vote, it is these more middle-aged bands that are the critical battleground. Labour is a long way from being comfortable here, but it’s a marker of significant progress.
For all that, it’s worth remembering Labour’s healthy poll leads under Ed Miliband, and prior to the 1987 election under Neil Kinnock. On both occasions, the following election was a disaster for the party. Analysts often regard leadership ratings as a better guide to future elections than voting intention polls.
We know that Starmer has taken the lead in ‘best prime minister’ polling since becoming Labour leader in April – something that largely eluded Miliband.
There’s an interesting contrast between the leadership polling of people currently intending to vote Tory and those who voted Tory at the last election. Among current Tory supporters in YouGov’s most recent poll, 80% said Johnson would make the best prime minister, compared to 65% of people who voted Tory last year. Just four percent of current Tory supporters prefer Starmer, compared to eight percent of 2019 Tory voters. Fifteen percent of current Tory supporters don’t know who’d make the best prime minister, but a whopping 27% of 2019 Tory voters say likewise.
Given that around a third of 2019 Tory voters aren’t currently backing the party in YouGov’s polling, this suggests that Starmer’s ratings are higher among those 2019 Tory voters who aren’t currently backing the party, Johnson’s ratings are lower, and ‘Don’t Know’ is a much more common response. Correlation is not causation, but it’s evidence that Johnson’s unconvincing leadership may be turning Tory voters away.
Other than that, Starmer’s own ratings largely mirror the patterns seen with Labour’s ratings in the voting intention polls – he’s popular with Labour and Lib Dem voters from last year, popular with Remainers, younger voters, ABC1s and Londoners. Perhaps unlike Labour, his own ratings shot up early on and have since plateaued, whereas the party has made slower but steadier progress throughout the year.
So where does this all leave us? We’re very far from a general election, a lot might change, and there are substantial margins for error in the data. But certain trends are positive, if not exactly triumphant, for Labour. They are not just piling up support in their remaining heartlands. They are winning over middle-aged voters and those in their former seats. They are making up ground in towns and rural seats.
And meanwhile, a significant minority of Tory voters have grown unsure about the government without being won over by the opposition. That means Labour has room to grow – but it also means the Tories do too. A lot will hinge on which of them succeeds in doing so.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-10-29--Anti-semitism report: Starmer faces the crossroads

The publication of the long-awaited historic EHRC report into anti-semitism in the Labour party is a crucial moment .
It is the culmination not just of a near 18-month investigation , but also Labour Against Antisemitism 's three-and-a half-year campaign to challenge , tackle and expose endemic anti-Jewish racism across the Labour movement .
While we hope it brings some measure of closure on Jeremy Corbyn 's leadership of the Labour party , it will also move focus on to the response of the current leader , Keir Starmer .
The report is unlikely to say that the Labour party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to label Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite or order his expulsion .
The language will be tight and legally careful , as befits an organisation with the authority of the EHRC .
But conclusions can still be drawn that support these assumptions .
What does it say , for instance , about how allegations of antisemitism were dealt with , how Jewish - and non-Jewish - complainants were treated , and the overall efficacy of the party 's complaints system ?
This will be highly instructive about the culture of anti-semitism that gripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole way and declares that the Labour party acted illegally is still to be seen , but it is expected to at least be highly critical and set out a list of recommendations that , as a statutory body , Starmer will be legally obliged to follow .
It is our sincerest hope that the Labour leader will go forward and use these recommendations to begin the difficult but necessary process of returning the opposition to a valid party of government once again .
Such measures may include apologies and speeches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of those already and in truth the time for tea and sympathy for the British Jewish community passed many months ago .
What is required – demanded – is action , and that will mean difficult political choices for the Labour leader that must be taken head on .
At the basis of the EHRC 's investigation , and at the heart of Labour Against Antisemitism 's campaign , was the question of the protection of equality .
Was a Jewish Labour party member able to engage with the organisation , attend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected representative , and generally act as a political voice for themselves and their community without facing discrimination ?
Our 15,000-page dossier of evidence , provided to the EHRC in May 2019 , detailed the progress of every report of anti-Jewish conduct we had submitted since 2017 and , in our view , demonstrated that they could not .
We showed them not just the hundreds of cases we reported , but also how many were ignored or mismanaged - creating a culture of permissiveness for anti-semitic views that were abhorrent , rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this culture appeared in the newspapers , such as Luciana Berger requiring security to visit her own party conference in 2018 , or Dame Louise Ellman discovering that a constituency meeting to discuss her resignation was scheduled for Kol Nidre , the eve of Yom Kippur .
But most often it could be found splashed across the private groups that Labour party members created on social media .
The immediate task for Starmer is to ensure that the Labour party , as a political organisation , becomes a welcoming environment for Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by making significant structural changes to the party 's disciplinary processes .
The requirement for an independent , well-resourced complaints system as befits a modern party is absolute , so that we can ensure that any decision-making over what is and is n't antisemitic is removed from the forever-war of internal Labour factional politics .
There must be a review of all those cases that were submitted during the Corbyn era to ensure that members holding anti-semitic views are finally held to account and expelled .
Zero tolerance of racism must have some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party activist or shadow Cabinet member - if it is proven that you have promoted or hold anti-semitic views , there should be no place for you in the Labour party .
Less tangible to measure , but equally important , is for Starmer to engineer a cultural shift in the party 's view of the Jewish community , that community 's relationship with Israel , and the way that the Israel/Palestine conflict has become an unnaturally prominent demarcation of political identity within the Labour party .
Israel has provided a convenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Labour party throughout its history , and to pretend that there is no link with the current crisis is at best naive and at worst disingenuous .
Not every criticism of Israel is anti-semitic , but the relentless demonisation of the Middle East 's only liberal democracy , whether fairly or not , has created a febrile and fanatical obsession that has fed anti-Jewish sentiment and echoes long-standing anti-semitic historic myths such as the Blood Libel and 'Christ-Killing ' .
To resolve this will take hard work requiring good-faith engagement with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
But unless it is undertaken it is unlikely that the biased worldview which has become wired into Labour party thinking will be effectively challenged .
These measures will not be readily adopted by the Labour party .
The Corbyn years radicalised a latent anti-semitism across much of the party membership , who are also highly defensive of their former leader and extremely sensitive to any external criticism .
Within the parliamentary party there appears to be an innate avoidance of reality , a failure to accept any kind of culpability , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingent who will be resistant to any attempts at reform .
Some who themselves have allegations of anti-semitism to answer may justifiably be concerned about where an independent complaints process might lead .
Yet where Starmer may see the EHRC report as a challenge , he could equally see opportunity .
The history of the failure of the Labour party , since its founding , has been a history of failing to police its borders to the left .
This has repeatedly led to electoral failure , occasionally catastrophic , as the spectre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader .
Now Starmer has a window to do what every Labour leader has failed to do .
He can set out a direction that unmistakably rejects the toxicity represented by figures such as Ken Livingstone , Jeremy Corbyn and their ilk , whose ideology should have no place in a mainstream social democratic party .
The British electorate usually rewards Labour leaders who take on their extremists and win and would surely do so again .
The temptation for Starmer will be to do just enough : limit the expenditure of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfy the EHRC , keep together the internal coalition that presented him with the Labour party leadership and at the same time convincing enough voters that the anti-semitism crisis has been dealt with .
That would be a mistake .
Politically and morally he needs to demonstrate true leadership and make the fight against anti-semitism the defining feature of his identity .
He owes it to the Jewish community , who will continue to carry the wounds of this period of Labour party history for many years to come .
Euan Philipps is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can follow the group 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 Euan Philipps
The publication of the long-awaited historic EHRC report into anti-semitism in the Labour party is a crucial moment. It is the culmination not just of a near 18-month investigation, but also Labour Against Antisemitism’s three-and-a half-year campaign to challenge, tackle and expose endemic anti-Jewish racism across the Labour movement. While we hope it brings some measure of closure on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party, it will also move focus on to the response of the current leader, Keir Starmer.
The report is unlikely to say that the Labour party is institutionally racist. Nor is it likely to label Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite or order his expulsion. The language will be tight and legally careful, as befits an organisation with the authority of the EHRC. But conclusions can still be drawn that support these assumptions.
What does it say, for instance, about how allegations of antisemitism were dealt with, how Jewish – and non-Jewish – complainants were treated, and the overall efficacy of the party’s complaints system? This will be highly instructive about the culture of anti-semitism that gripped the organisation.
Whether the report goes the whole way and declares that the Labour party acted illegally is still to be seen, but it is expected to at least be highly critical and set out a list of recommendations that, as a statutory body, Starmer will be legally obliged to follow.
It is our sincerest hope that the Labour leader will go forward and use these recommendations to begin the difficult but necessary process of returning the opposition to a valid party of government once again. Such measures may include apologies and speeches of regret, but there have already been plenty of those already and in truth the time for tea and sympathy for the British Jewish community passed many months ago. What is required – demanded – is action, and that will mean difficult political choices for the Labour leader that must be taken head on.
At the basis of the EHRC’s investigation, and at the heart of Labour Against Antisemitism’s campaign, was the question of the protection of equality. Was a Jewish Labour party member able to engage with the organisation, attend meetings, stand and sit as an elected representative, and generally act as a political voice for themselves and their community without facing discrimination? Our 15,000-page dossier of evidence, provided to the EHRC in May 2019, detailed the progress of every report of anti-Jewish conduct we had submitted since 2017 and, in our view, demonstrated that they could not.
We showed them not just the hundreds of cases we reported, but also how many were ignored or mismanaged – creating a culture of permissiveness for anti-semitic views that were abhorrent, rarely challenged and unbelievably harmful. Sometimes evidence of this culture appeared in the newspapers, such as Luciana Berger requiring security to visit her own party conference in 2018, or Dame Louise Ellman discovering that a constituency meeting to discuss her resignation was scheduled for Kol Nidre, the eve of Yom Kippur. But most often it could be found splashed across the private groups that Labour party members created on social media.
The immediate task for Starmer is to ensure that the Labour party, as a political organisation, becomes a welcoming environment for Jewish members once again. He can begin by making significant structural changes to the party’s disciplinary processes. The requirement for an independent, well-resourced complaints system as befits a modern party is absolute, so that we can ensure that any decision-making over what is and isn’t antisemitic is removed from the forever-war of internal Labour factional politics.
There must be a review of all those cases that were submitted during the Corbyn era to ensure that members holding anti-semitic views are finally held to account and expelled. Zero tolerance of racism must have some kind of meaning. Whether you are a party activist or shadow Cabinet member – if it is proven that you have promoted or hold anti-semitic views, there should be no place for you in the Labour party.
Less tangible to measure, but equally important, is for Starmer to engineer a cultural shift in the party’s view of the Jewish community, that community’s relationship with Israel, and the way that the Israel/Palestine conflict has become an unnaturally prominent demarcation of political identity within the Labour party.
Israel has provided a convenient punch bag that has unified every faction of the Labour party throughout its history, and to pretend that there is no link with the current crisis is at best naive and at worst disingenuous. Not every criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the relentless demonisation of the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, whether fairly or not, has created a febrile and fanatical obsession that has fed anti-Jewish sentiment and echoes long-standing anti-semitic historic myths such as the Blood Libel and ‘Christ-Killing’.
To resolve this will take hard work requiring good-faith engagement with Jewish communal organisations over months, probably years. But unless it is undertaken it is unlikely that the biased worldview which has become wired into Labour party thinking will be effectively challenged.
These measures will not be readily adopted by the Labour party. The Corbyn years radicalised a latent anti-semitism across much of the party membership, who are also highly defensive of their former leader and extremely sensitive to any external criticism. Within the parliamentary party there appears to be an innate avoidance of reality, a failure to accept any kind of culpability, as well as a sizeable hard left contingent who will be resistant to any attempts at reform. Some who themselves have allegations of anti-semitism to answer may justifiably be concerned about where an independent complaints process might lead.
Yet where Starmer may see the EHRC report as a challenge, he could equally see opportunity. The history of the failure of the Labour party, since its founding, has been a history of failing to police its borders to the left. This has repeatedly led to electoral failure, occasionally catastrophic, as the spectre of political extremism has haunted leader after leader. Now Starmer has a window to do what every Labour leader has failed to do. He can set out a direction that unmistakably rejects the toxicity represented by figures such as Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn and their ilk, whose ideology should have no place in a mainstream social democratic party. The British electorate usually rewards Labour leaders who take on their extremists and win and would surely do so again.
The temptation for Starmer will be to do just enough: limit the expenditure of political capital by agreeing to superficial measures that satisfy the EHRC, keep together the internal coalition that presented him with the Labour party leadership and at the same time convincing enough voters that the anti-semitism crisis has been dealt with. That would be a mistake. Politically and morally he needs to demonstrate true leadership and make the fight against anti-semitism the defining feature of his identity. He owes it to the Jewish community, who will continue to carry the wounds of this period of Labour party history for many years to come.
Euan Philipps is a spokesperson for Labour Against Antisemitism. You can follow the group 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--2020-10-29--Corbyn suspended: Shocking move shows Starmer is tackling anti-semitism at the root

This really was n't the way it was supposed to go .
Keir Starmer was trying to make the Labour electable while keeping Jeremy Corbyn supporters onboard .
That required delicate shifts , not punishment beatings .
But Corbyn 's statement today made that impossible .
Suddenly the seemingly impossible has happened .
Labour has suspended the man who , just months ago , was leading it .
The Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) report published this morning painted a devastating picture of a party beset by anti-semitism under the former Labour leader .
Starmer then gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it .
He would not just target those making anti-semitic comments themselves .
He would also target those who tried to discredit the claims of anti-semitism .
`` And if , after all the pain , '' he said , `` all the grief , and all the evidence in this report , there are still those who think there 's no problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party , that it 's all exaggerated , or a factional attack , then frankly you are part of the problem too and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either . ''
The trouble was that Corbyn 's statement , released moments earlier , did precisely that .
`` One anti-semite is one too many , but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party , as well as by much of the media , '' he said .
`` That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated . ''
In other words : this was ultimately just a conspiracy by the capitalist media and the Blairites inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Insofar as apologies to the Jewish community are required , it is from them - not us .
To be consistent , Starmer had to suspend him for that statement , and remove the whip .
`` In light of his comments made today and his failure to retract them subsequently , the Labour party has suspended Jeremy Corbyn pending investigation , '' a spokesperson said .
This is frustrating .
There are plenty of decent , humane people who supported Corbynism , as a way to defend and improve the lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laissez-faire era - deprived communities , the victims of austerity , fading industries .
Having to suspend Corbyn threatens to alienate them from the new leadership , splintering the left .
But the stakes on the side of inaction were even more severe .
Our piece today from Euan Philipps at Labour Against Antisemitism makes them clear .
The question was , fundamentally , about the protection of equality .
`` Was a Jewish Labour party member able to engage with the organisation , attend meetings , stand and sit as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political voice for themselves and their community without facing discrimination ? ''
he asked .
The group 's 15,000 page dossier of evidence , submitted to the ECHR , `` demonstrated that they could not . ''
How did that situation come about ?
How could racism take root in a progressive political party ?
Certainly it was because anti-semites were operating in the organisation .
But it was also because of a subtler cultural shift , a kind of conspiracy-theory-lite , which became all-encompassing and utterly toxic under Corbyn .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Against Antisemitism dubbed it 'the Livingstone formulation ' .
`` Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance , '' they said , `` the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question .
'There must be an ulterior motive .
There must be some hidden objective .
This is not a genuine complaint ' . ''
This corroded the party 's ability to investigate complaints .
It was an internal moral laundering system .
Criticism of the leadership must come from conspirators , by definition .
So they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored .
It 's the same form of reasoning , you 'll notice , as that raised against those scrutinising Brexit .
It is an epistemic breakdown , a moral implosion , the catastrophic effect of extreme tribalism of the human mind .
That was precisely what Corbyn was doing today .
Starmer was not just forced into this position because of the wording of his own speech .
He was forced into it because those who had looked most closely at the growth of anti-semitism in the party concluded that this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was allowed to flourish .
So it was a test of whether the new Labour leader was really serious about tackling anti-semitism .
And that , of course , is another way of testing whether he was really serious about being an anti-racist .
There are few greater moral responsibilities for a party leader than that .
Starmer will not have wanted this outcome .
He is trying to maintain a broad church and this threatens to push the party once again into internal warfare .
But he was left with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , when presented once again with precisely the behaviour which allowed anti-semitism to take root ?
Nothing .
The fault for this , as with the problem of anti-semitism in Labour in general , ultimately rests with Corbyn himself .
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 .

This really wasn’t the way it was supposed to go. Keir Starmer was trying to make the Labour electable while keeping Jeremy Corbyn supporters onboard. That required delicate shifts, not punishment beatings. But Corbyn’s statement today made that impossible. Suddenly the seemingly impossible has happened. Labour has suspended the man who, just months ago, was leading it.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report published this morning painted a devastating picture of a party beset by anti-semitism under the former Labour leader. Starmer then gave a speech, with a crucial passage in it. He would not just target those making anti-semitic comments themselves. He would also target those who tried to discredit the claims of anti-semitism.
“And if, after all the pain,” he said, “all the grief, and all the evidence in this report, there are still those who think there’s no problem with anti-semitism in the Labour party, that it’s all exaggerated, or a factional attack, then frankly you are part of the problem too and you should be nowhere near the Labour party either.”
The trouble was that Corbyn’s statement, released moments earlier, did precisely that. “One anti-semite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media,” he said. “That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”
In other words: this was ultimately just a conspiracy by the capitalist media and the Blairites inside the party to make us look bad. Insofar as apologies to the Jewish community are required, it is from them – not us.
To be consistent, Starmer had to suspend him for that statement, and remove the whip. “In light of his comments made today and his failure to retract them subsequently, the Labour party has suspended Jeremy Corbyn pending investigation,” a spokesperson said.
This is frustrating. There are plenty of decent, humane people who supported Corbynism, as a way to defend and improve the lives of those who had been forgotten by the laissez-faire era – deprived communities, the victims of austerity, fading industries. Having to suspend Corbyn threatens to alienate them from the new leadership, splintering the left.
But the stakes on the side of inaction were even more severe. Our piece today from Euan Philipps at Labour Against Antisemitism makes them clear. The question was, fundamentally, about the protection of equality. “Was a Jewish Labour party member able to engage with the organisation, attend meetings, stand and sit as an elected representative, and generally act as a political voice for themselves and their community without facing discrimination?” he asked. The group’s 15,000 page dossier of evidence, submitted to the ECHR, “demonstrated that they could not.”
How did that situation come about? How could racism take root in a progressive political party? Certainly it was because anti-semites were operating in the organisation. But it was also because of a subtler cultural shift, a kind of conspiracy-theory-lite, which became all-encompassing and utterly toxic under Corbyn.
In their press conference today, the Campaign Against Antisemitism dubbed it ‘the Livingstone formulation’. “Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance,” they said, “the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question. ‘There must be an ulterior motive. There must be some hidden objective. This is not a genuine complaint’.”
This corroded the party’s ability to investigate complaints. It was an internal moral laundering system. Criticism of the leadership must come from conspirators, by definition. So they can, by definition, be safely ignored. It’s the same form of reasoning, you’ll notice, as that raised against those scrutinising Brexit. It is an epistemic breakdown, a moral implosion, the catastrophic effect of extreme tribalism of the human mind.
That was precisely what Corbyn was doing today. Starmer was not just forced into this position because of the wording of his own speech. He was forced into it because those who had looked most closely at the growth of anti-semitism in the party concluded that this was one of the chief manners in which it was allowed to flourish.
So it was a test of whether the new Labour leader was really serious about tackling anti-semitism. And that, of course, is another way of testing whether he was really serious about being an anti-racist. There are few greater moral responsibilities for a party leader than that.
Starmer will not have wanted this outcome. He is trying to maintain a broad church and this threatens to push the party once again into internal warfare. But he was left with no other choice. What else can you do, when presented once again with precisely the behaviour which allowed anti-semitism to take root? Nothing. The fault for this, as with the problem of anti-semitism in Labour in general, ultimately rests with Corbyn himself.
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--2020-10-30--Priti Patel: How many lives will it take before you change course?

The news of the six and nine year old children , with their parents who lost their lives in the Channel this week is utterly heartbreaking .
It is an unspeakable tragedy .
But in the midst of the sadness I also find myself absolutely furious .
This did n't have to happen .
This was n't just a horrible accident that nothing could have prevented .
Desperate people who see no alternative will do desperate things .
Imagine how much at your wits end you must be to put your young children in a small boat to cross the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is it going to take ?
How many lives is it going to take before the government finds its compassion and stops turning a blind eye to the plight of desperate people ?
This is n't a rhetorical question .
How many lives is it going to take ?
No.10 and the Home Office are very happy to place blame on the criminal gangs facilitating these journey .
And it 's true , for what it 's worth , that we must do everything we can to stop the profiteering from desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people will continue to place hope in the gangs who promise to get them to the UK .
Priti Patel said on Tuesday evening that she will `` do everything I can to stop callous criminals exploiting vulnerable people '' .
Call me cynical but I will see it before I believe it .
Everything she can ?
Well here 's one suggestion : focus on providing alternatives for refugees to come to the UK through safe and legal routes .
We had an excellent scheme which successfully resettled nearly 20,000 refugees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was understandably suspended in March due to the pandemic but there 's no news on when it will be reopened .
People can arrive from any country in the world via other visa routes , provided they quarantine for 14 days .
So what exactly is the government 's defence for the ongoing suspension ?
This scheme needs to be reinstated immediately with a long-term commitment for its continuation .
Second : protect the existing family reunion routes as the UK leaves the EU .
The government recently voted against an amendment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family reunion routes were protected .
Without these schemes in place , how can we expect people seeking asylum in the UK to get here without risking their lives under a truck , or a lorry , or an inflatable boat ?
Patel in her conference speech talked about the importance of refugees using legal routes to come to the UK .
I agree .
So please provide some .
Open these routes up for safe travel to the UK and ensure they exist after Brexit .
Patel may lump me in with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way of reform .
But in fact we are crying out for reform .
We want reform with compassion and humanity at its heart , not just a crack down on the criminals who are exploiting the desperation she had a hand in creating .
Safe and legal routes are not something the government can afford to delay until we 've sorted out the pandemic and Brexit .
These routes need to be open and in place so that there 's an alternative to the criminal gangs .
We should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borders .
We need to be better than this .
Tim Farron is the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party , MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration .
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 Tim Farron
The news of the six and nine year old children, with their parents who lost their lives in the Channel this week is utterly heartbreaking. It is an unspeakable tragedy. But in the midst of the sadness I also find myself absolutely furious.
This didn't have to happen. This wasn't just a horrible accident that nothing could have prevented. Desperate people who see no alternative will do desperate things. Imagine how much at your wits end you must be to put your young children in a small boat to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world.
What is it going to take? How many lives is it going to take before the government finds its compassion and stops turning a blind eye to the plight of desperate people? This isn't a rhetorical question. How many lives is it going to take?
No.10 and the Home Office are very happy to place blame on the criminal gangs facilitating these journey. And it's true, for what it's worth, that we must do everything we can to stop the profiteering from desperate people. But with no safe alternative, people will continue to place hope in the gangs who promise to get them to the UK. Priti Patel said on Tuesday evening that she will "do everything I can to stop callous criminals exploiting vulnerable people". Call me cynical but I will see it before I believe it. Everything she can?
Well here's one suggestion: focus on providing alternatives for refugees to come to the UK through safe and legal routes. We had an excellent scheme which successfully resettled nearly 20,000 refugees displaced from Syria since 2015. This was understandably suspended in March due to the pandemic but there's no news on when it will be reopened.
People can arrive from any country in the world via other visa routes, provided they quarantine for 14 days. So what exactly is the government's defence for the ongoing suspension? This scheme needs to be reinstated immediately with a long-term commitment for its continuation.
Second: protect the existing family reunion routes as the UK leaves the EU. The government recently voted against an amendment to the forthcoming immigration bill that would ensure family reunion routes were protected. Without these schemes in place, how can we expect people seeking asylum in the UK to get here without risking their lives under a truck, or a lorry, or an inflatable boat?
Patel in her conference speech talked about the importance of refugees using legal routes to come to the UK. I agree. So please provide some. Open these routes up for safe travel to the UK and ensure they exist after Brexit.
Patel may lump me in with the 'do-gooders' that are standing in the way of reform. But in fact we are crying out for reform. We want reform with compassion and humanity at its heart, not just a crack down on the criminals who are exploiting the desperation she had a hand in creating.
Safe and legal routes are not something the government can afford to delay until we've sorted out the pandemic and Brexit. These routes need to be open and in place so that there's an alternative to the criminal gangs.
We should not be seeing families seeking refuge dying on our borders. We need to be better than this.
Tim Farron is the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
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--2020-10-30--Week in Review: This is your brain on tribalism

They 're out there now , acting about as badly as you might expect .
Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was `` dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents '' .
His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media - muddying the water , misrepresenting the report , and seeking , either implicitly or explicitly , to rubbish the whistleblowers .
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight , demanding that Keir Starmer put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means inaction - over the principle of anti-racism .
All that was required of these figures was an apology .
Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it .
There is no other explanation .
The Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party , that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations , particularly when they were media sensitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say sorry .
Or failing that , say nothing .
Let the party deal with the mess they had created .
It was a small ask , after everything .
Instead we get this rank denialism .
They had learned nothing .
They had not bothered thinking about it at all .
They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection .
When the moment came , they regurgitated the same clapped-out , hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place .
There 's no surprise there .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very beginning .
We had no idea how bad they would get , the depths to which they would sink , but the basic outlines were there .
And there is a great deal we can learn from that .
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda .
This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought .
It is a project to overthrow capitalism , so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it .
So from the very beginning , Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment .
And in many cases , of course , that 's true .
The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader , or even a centre-left one .
But actually Britain 's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message .
With control over the opposition party , the impartiality requirements kicked in , and they were duly given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots .
But of course coverage means scrutiny .
That 's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account .
And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power .
It was instead a conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing criticism or evaluating it .
And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap .
They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him , any critical questioning , was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him .
That which was supportive was genuine .
That which was not was discredited .
There could , under this model , be no credible interrogation of the leader .
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes - namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles , and thereby encouraged its spread through the party .
But more importantly than that , it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head .
After all , the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership .
They made Corbyn 's life harder .
So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him - Blairites , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general .
A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised .
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point .
The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation ' : `` Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance , the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question . ''
Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted it was `` all exaggerated , or a factional attack ... are part of the problem '' .
The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday 's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement .
It is an intellectual failing , yes .
But more than that it is a moral failing .
It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want , without ever having to face any questioning , installed as they are with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning , which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions .
But this is not restricted to Marxism .
It can be seen everywhere .
Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right , whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity .
The truth is , we 're all susceptible to it .
We 're all tempted to cover our eyes when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admire .
We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths .
It is up to all of us to police our political alliances , to check for racism or discrimination within them , to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality .
That 's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today .
Watch the people who are doing it closely .
Note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage with the evidence , they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify .
As grim as it is , it is instructive .
We can make sure that we never , ever allow the same thing to happen to us .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or its owners .

They're out there now, acting about as badly as you might expect. Jeremy Corbyn kicked it off yesterday when he insisted that the mountain of well-documented anti-semitism in the Labour party under his leadership was "dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents". His loyalists are currently churning out the same torrid nonsense on social media – muddying the water, misrepresenting the report, and seeking, either implicitly or explicitly, to rubbish the whistleblowers. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey is agitating for a fight, demanding that Keir Starmer put 'party unity' – by which he means inaction – over the principle of anti-racism.
All that was required of these figures was an apology. Anyone still questioning the existence of anti-semitism in the Labour party is purposefully blind to it. There is no other explanation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report yesterday showed that it was rife in the party, that the leadership failed to provide the funding or training for it to be tackled effectively and that it repeatedly interfered with investigations, particularly when they were media sensitive.
All they had to do was say sorry. Or failing that, say nothing. Let the party deal with the mess they had created. It was a small ask, after everything. Instead we get this rank denialism. They had learned nothing. They had not bothered thinking about it at all. They had shown not the slightest flicker of moral introspection. When the moment came, they regurgitated the same clapped-out, hands-over-your-ears self-entitlement which had created the situation in the first place.
There's no surprise there. These qualities were in the project from the very beginning. We had no idea how bad they would get, the depths to which they would sink, but the basic outlines were there. And there is a great deal we can learn from that.
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.
So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders – the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere – were securing positions in prominent TV slots.
But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
This epistemological approach shares many qualities with certain key anti-semitic tropes – namely that all suggestions of anti-semitism come from the 'Israel lobby'. It provides a set of intellectual assumptions which are similar to the ones which operate in anti-semitic circles, and thereby encouraged its spread through the party.
But more importantly than that, it meant that those in the party who were not anti-semitic lost the moral capacity to deal with anti-semitism when it raised its head. After all, the complains of anti-semitism were criticisms of the leadership. They made Corbyn's life harder. So they must by definition be coming from those who wanted to undermine him – Blairites, Conservatives, the press, capitalist forces in general. A great insurmountable mental obstacle was erected which prevented them from seeing the legitimacy of what was being raised.
Those who have done the most work to uncover and address anti-semitism in the Labour party have repeatedly raised this point. The Campaign Against Antisemitism yesterday called it 'the Livingstone formulation': "Rather than deal with the complaint in its substance, the bona-fides of the person raising the complaint are brought into question." Starmer recognised it as a core element of addressing the problem, when he said that those who insisted it was "all exaggerated, or a factional attack… are part of the problem". The fact that it is so plainly visible in the response to yesterday's report is further evidence of how pervasive it is in the Corbyn movement.
It is an intellectual failing, yes. But more than that it is a moral failing. It means that you allow people with power to do whatever they want, without ever having to face any questioning, installed as they are with a supporter-built protective shield to block criticism.
The roots in this case lie in a centuries-old form of Marxist reasoning, which deployed a generalised conceptual form of conspiracy theory to explain the failure of its historic predictions. But this is not restricted to Marxism. It can be seen everywhere. Certainly you see similar psychological processes on the pro-Brexit right, whereby information is judged by the usefulness to the tribe rather than its veracity.
The truth is, we're all susceptible to it. We're all tempted to cover our eyes when we see evidence emerge against a leader we admire. We all want to tell ourselves fairy stories about conspiracies instead of grappling with uncomfortable truths. It is up to all of us to police our political alliances, to check for racism or discrimination within them, to ensure that there are clear systems of accountability so that the temptations of solidarity do not overrule the demands of equality.
That's one of the key things we can learn from the terrible muck being flung around today. Watch the people who are doing it closely. Note the way they cannot bear to engage with the evidence, they way that loyalty to the leader becomes so all-encompassing that there is no moral limit to what they will justify. As grim as it is, it is instructive. We can make sure that we never, ever allow the same thing to happen to us.
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--2020-11-02--The government is trying to undermine the Electoral Commission - we need to save it

Back in July , the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life – an advisory body to the prime minister on ethics – launched an inquiry on how our elections are regulated .
We can now see the submissions made by academics , civil society campaigners and transparency groups .
And they reveal something interesting .
There is very little support for the government 's attempt to undermine the Electoral Commission - Britain 's independent watchdog of election rules .
No.10 has been gearing up for this fight for some time .
After all , parties tend to be unhappy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves are deeply worried about the state of our election rules , suggesting we need stronger enforcement , not dismantling any democratic safeguards .
There is growing public concern over `` inadequate control/regulation of political activity on social media '' - up eight percentage points year on year .
Concerns over `` inadequate regulation/control of the money political parties spend on their election campaigns '' is also high , at 29 % - up eight points on 2019 .
We also saw a rise in concern over `` foreign influence on UK election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than concerns over electoral fraud .
Far from wanting to undermine the Electoral Commission , the inquiry found broad support for enhancing its powers to protect our election integrity .
Many respondents were in consensus with the Electoral Reform Society 's recommendations , which include developing a transparent online political ad database , enhancing the Commission 's powers to obtain and share information when investigating wrongdoing and boosting fines for campaigners who wilfully break the law .
At the moment , the fines are just seen as the cost of doing business .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alan Renwick noted : `` The basic underpinning value of the regulatory system should be that it should help to empower citizens ... to participate actively , equally , and effectively in the democratic system , whether as candidates , campaigners , participants in democratic discussion , or voters .
It should also enable voters to make an informed choice at the ballot box '' .
Justin Fisher of Brunel University and the Association of Electoral Administrators noted good levels of satisfaction among electoral agents with the Electoral Commission 's advice and guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral administration .
Both Renwick and Fisher - as well as the Liberal Democrats - added that the Electoral Commission 's role could be expanded to restore its original educational function : improving public understanding of democracy and elections .
This role was abolished some years ago – perhaps to the detriment of a well-informed debate .
The Association of Electoral Administrators found the Electoral Commission was `` an excellent provider of guidance , supporting resources and good practice , providing a consistency of approach across the UK '' .
There are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these are in the direction of more oversight , not less .
Many respondents referenced the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee 's recent recommendation that the Electoral Commission 's maximum fines for wrongdoing should be increased to £500,000 or four percent of spending , whichever is greater .
Politics is now in a near-permanent campaign mode , but currently only material produced in a designated campaign period is monitored .
Fact-checking group Full Fact argued that the Electoral Commission 's remit should therefore cover a wider period beyond the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for cleaning up Britain ’ s broken party funding rules .
In their separate submissions , Transparency International and the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition called for change to limit the influence of big money in politics , including a £10,000 cap on donations , reducing parties ' spending limit in general elections by 15 % , prohibiting parliamentarians from accepting paid foreign travel over £500 other than from prescribed organisations , reducing the threshold for donation or loans reporting to £500 , and opening up donation reporting from secretive unincorporated associations .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` accountable to no-one '' .
In fact , It is accountable to legislators in all three parliaments .
It has huge expertise and a focus on compliance rather than simply sanctioning after wrongdoing .
Sam Power , who co-wrote the Electoral Reform Society 's recent Democracy in the Dark report , said : `` The simple fact that there is an Electoral Commission itself , with 20 years of institutional knowledge of 'what works ' in terms of electoral regulation is a significant strength and is not the case in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as academic Alistair Clark noted , parties may therefore seek to limit the Commission 's powers precisely because its remit is to regulate them .
That 's why all of us must stand up for the independent watchdog .
The government 's recent criticism of the Electoral Commission is doubly alarming given that the Conservatives now hold a controlling majority of seats on the Speaker 's Committee , which regulates it .
There 's a strong argument that cross-party balance should be restored , with no one party controlling a majority sway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear : there 's strong support for our independent electoral watchdog – and a near-consensus on the need to update our analogue-age election rules .
There 's also plenty of agreement on how to do it .
It 's now up for ministers to come forward with sensible proposals to strengthen our democracy , not weaken it .
Darren Hughes is chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society .
It 's recent report , Democracy in the Dark , is available here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Darren Hughes
Back in July, the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life – an advisory body to the prime minister on ethics – launched an inquiry on how our elections are regulated. We can now see the submissions made by academics, civil society campaigners and transparency groups. And they reveal something interesting. There is very little support for the government's attempt to undermine the Electoral Commission – Britain's independent watchdog of election rules.
No.10 has been gearing up for this fight for some time. After all, parties tend to be unhappy when they get investigated. But voters themselves are deeply worried about the state of our election rules, suggesting we need stronger enforcement, not dismantling any democratic safeguards.
There is growing public concern over "inadequate control/regulation of political activity on social media" – up eight percentage points year on year. Concerns over "inadequate regulation/control of the money political parties spend on their election campaigns" is also high, at 29% – up eight points on 2019. We also saw a rise in concern over "foreign influence on UK election results". This is considerably higher than concerns over electoral fraud.
Far from wanting to undermine the Electoral Commission, the inquiry found broad support for enhancing its powers to protect our election integrity. Many respondents were in consensus with the Electoral Reform Society's recommendations, which include developing a transparent online political ad database, enhancing the Commission's powers to obtain and share information when investigating wrongdoing and boosting fines for campaigners who wilfully break the law. At the moment, the fines are just seen as the cost of doing business.
As the Constitution Unit's deputy director Alan Renwick noted: "The basic underpinning value of the regulatory system should be that it should help to empower citizens… to participate actively, equally, and effectively in the democratic system, whether as candidates, campaigners, participants in democratic discussion, or voters. It should also enable voters to make an informed choice at the ballot box".
Justin Fisher of Brunel University and the Association of Electoral Administrators noted good levels of satisfaction among electoral agents with the Electoral Commission's advice and guidance, as well as high satisfaction with electoral administration.
Both Renwick and Fisher – as well as the Liberal Democrats – added that the Electoral Commission's role could be expanded to restore its original educational function: improving public understanding of democracy and elections. This role was abolished some years ago – perhaps to the detriment of a well-informed debate.
The Association of Electoral Administrators found the Electoral Commission was "an excellent provider of guidance, supporting resources and good practice, providing a consistency of approach across the UK".
There are clearly things which need to change, but these are in the direction of more oversight, not less. Many respondents referenced the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee's recent recommendation that the Electoral Commission's maximum fines for wrongdoing should be increased to £500,000 or four percent of spending, whichever is greater.
Politics is now in a near-permanent campaign mode, but currently only material produced in a designated campaign period is monitored. Fact-checking group Full Fact argued that the Electoral Commission's remit should therefore cover a wider period beyond the current time limit.
The inquiry rightly saw calls for cleaning up Britain’s broken party funding rules. In their separate submissions, Transparency International and the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition called for change to limit the influence of big money in politics, including a £10,000 cap on donations, reducing parties' spending limit in general elections by 15%, prohibiting parliamentarians from accepting paid foreign travel over £500 other than from prescribed organisations, reducing the threshold for donation or loans reporting to £500, and opening up donation reporting from secretive unincorporated associations.
The Conservative government insists that the Electoral Commission is "accountable to no-one". In fact, It is accountable to legislators in all three parliaments. It has huge expertise and a focus on compliance rather than simply sanctioning after wrongdoing.
Sam Power, who co-wrote the Electoral Reform Society's recent Democracy in the Dark report, said: "The simple fact that there is an Electoral Commission itself, with 20 years of institutional knowledge of 'what works' in terms of electoral regulation is a significant strength and is not the case in many countries across the world." However, as academic Alistair Clark noted, parties may therefore seek to limit the Commission's powers precisely because its remit is to regulate them. That's why all of us must stand up for the independent watchdog.
The government's recent criticism of the Electoral Commission is doubly alarming given that the Conservatives now hold a controlling majority of seats on the Speaker's Committee, which regulates it. There's a strong argument that cross-party balance should be restored, with no one party controlling a majority sway over our regulator.
The overall picture is clear: there's strong support for our independent electoral watchdog – and a near-consensus on the need to update our analogue-age election rules. There's also plenty of agreement on how to do it. It's now up for ministers to come forward with sensible proposals to strengthen our democracy, not weaken it.
Darren Hughes is chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. It's recent report, Democracy in the Dark, is available 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.