politicscouk--2020-06-25--Details at the pub door: Covid is becoming a data feeding frenzy

The British government has launched phase two of its Covid normalisation plan .
As long as they do n't mind providing their details at the door , punters will soon be able to get back to the pub for a pint .
While everybody is eager to get the economy going again - and a gin and tonic in a beer garden in this heatwave sounds like a dream - questions need to be asked about the government 's proposed mitigations .
The rush to control Coronavirus is quickly becoming a data feeding frenzy , and while being able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important , citizens need to be wary about the data they are handing over to make things 'safer ' .
The concept of handing over your contact information to enter a pub may not sound particularly problematic at first .
However , the stark reality is that the way in which people 's contact details are collected could cause security and privacy concerns - unless it is coordinated in a highly protected manner .
Having your name , address and phone number written in a book as you walk into a pub so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a localized covid outbreak might sound like a reasonable exchange for both a pint and peace of mind .
But that changes if you 're the woman who signs-in and ends up being hit on by the drunk bloke who was standing behind her in the queue .
He now knows her full name , number , and potentially even address .
Then there is the storage of the data itself and who has access .
People 's contact details are a window into their life and with pubs all over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that data , the potential for it to be mishandled , misappropriated , abused , hacked or leaked becomes significant .
In 2013 in America , NSA workers were discovered using their surveillance powers to spy on their love interests .
Those were trusted agents with security clearance and they abused the data that was available to them .
How much training will bar staff really have on this ?
Unfortunately , we see this kind of thing all the time .
In 2017 , an Australian police officer was found guilty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 50 women he met via a dating app .
It 's a reminder of how even the most trusted members of society may behave when data is put in front of them .
Access to data is power , and power makes people do stupid things .
These are n't just abstract hypothetical concerns , either .
In New Zealand , where a similar data collection system was put in place , one woman found herself harassed by a Subway employee who used her contact information to track her down , send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages , and even approach her in real life .
The government 's proposals are hazy and incomplete at best .
The ICO has stated that it will be `` assessing the potential data protection implications of this proposed scheme and is monitoring developments '' .
At present , there are no real details about how contact details might be collected and stored by pubs .
This leaves too many questions unanswered and appears to put publicans in the uncomfortable position of becoming data controllers overnight .
Generally speaking , we can agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processed , and stored in a manner that is compliant with GDPR .
This would ensure that the data is only available for the purpose it is intended for , and that it is only stored for the period of time for which it is necessary .
However , for this pub data collection system to be ready for July 4th , the government is going to need to provide very clear guidelines for landlords , and quickly .
The information must be collected in such a way that other punters are never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferable for members of staff working on-premises to have little or no access - particularly if they are directly customer-facing .
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy .
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 Ray Walsh
The British government has launched phase two of its Covid normalisation plan. As long as they don't mind providing their details at the door, punters will soon be able to get back to the pub for a pint.
While everybody is eager to get the economy going again – and a gin and tonic in a beer garden in this heatwave sounds like a dream – questions need to be asked about the government's proposed mitigations.
The rush to control Coronavirus is quickly becoming a data feeding frenzy, and while being able to contact citizens who contract the virus is important, citizens need to be wary about the data they are handing over to make things 'safer'.
The concept of handing over your contact information to enter a pub may not sound particularly problematic at first. However, the stark reality is that the way in which people's contact details are collected could cause security and privacy concerns – unless it is coordinated in a highly protected manner.
Having your name, address and phone number written in a book as you walk into a pub so that you may be contacted if there is a localized covid outbreak might sound like a reasonable exchange for both a pint and peace of mind.
But that changes if you're the woman who signs-in and ends up being hit on by the drunk bloke who was standing behind her in the queue. He now knows her full name, number, and potentially even address.
Then there is the storage of the data itself and who has access. People's contact details are a window into their life and with pubs all over the country suddenly told that they must collect that data, the potential for it to be mishandled, misappropriated, abused, hacked or leaked becomes significant.
In 2013 in America, NSA workers were discovered using their surveillance powers to spy on their love interests. Those were trusted agents with security clearance and they abused the data that was available to them. How much training will bar staff really have on this?
Unfortunately, we see this kind of thing all the time. In 2017, an Australian police officer was found guilty of hacking police systems to access the details of 50 women he met via a dating app.
It's a reminder of how even the most trusted members of society may behave when data is put in front of them. Access to data is power, and power makes people do stupid things.
These aren't just abstract hypothetical concerns, either. In New Zealand, where a similar data collection system was put in place, one woman found herself harassed by a Subway employee who used her contact information to track her down, send her social media friend requests, text messages, and even approach her in real life.
The government's proposals are hazy and incomplete at best. The ICO has stated that it will be "assessing the potential data protection implications of this proposed scheme and is monitoring developments".
At present, there are no real details about how contact details might be collected and stored by pubs. This leaves too many questions unanswered and appears to put publicans in the uncomfortable position of becoming data controllers overnight.
Generally speaking, we can agree that the data should be collected, processed, and stored in a manner that is compliant with GDPR. This would ensure that the data is only available for the purpose it is intended for, and that it is only stored for the period of time for which it is necessary.
However, for this pub data collection system to be ready for July 4th, the government is going to need to provide very clear guidelines for landlords, and quickly. The information must be collected in such a way that other punters are never privy to it and it would be preferable for members of staff working on-premises to have little or no access – particularly if they are directly customer-facing.
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy. 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--2020-06-26--Long-Bailey sacking shows Starmer is serious about winning

'The British Government should make clear to Israel now that any annexation of the occupied Palestine land would lead to sanctions . '
That unequivocal statement of support for Palestinians was published just yesterday , part of a statement by the Socialist Campaign Group of left-wing Labour MPs signed by 21 of their number .
The letter was unhesitant in its condemnation of Israel 's plans and its support of Palestinian statehood .
It demanded meaningful action against Israel in the form of sanctions .
And yet it neither sparked nor fed a row over anti-semitism .
None of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn and Richard Burgon - face any disciplinary measures for endorsing it .
It is worth bearing that in mind as Corbynites decry the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet .
The now departed shadow education secretary - Starmer 's main rival in the recent leadership contest - approvingly shared a newspaper interview in which socialist actor Maxine Peake tied the murder of black American George Floyd to Israeli training of US police - despite there being no evidence that the latter led to the former .
Starmer acted swiftly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article containing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory .
According to Starmer 's critics , this will hinder Labour MPs from speaking out against Israel 's oppression of Palestinians .
And yet 21 Labour MPs quite rightly face no backlash - certainly not from within Labour - for signing a statement calling for sanctions against Israel .
The difference , of course , is that the letter dredged up no conspiracy theories , unleashed no vitriol about Zionist lobbies , and simply stuck to the reality of Israel 's Trump-backed plan to illegally annex swathes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizing Palestinian land .
If some of the signatories have a problematic history with anti-semitism , that does not make their statement yesterday problematic .
It was n't and no problem has arisen .
The Long-Bailey row shows just how easily some British Palestine campaigners link all the world 's evils back to Israel .
In her interview , Peake goes from Floyd 's killing to Israeli training of US police in a heartbeat - apparently the nearest available evidence of the global nature of systemic racism .
Somehow , Israel is always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ultimate diagnosis for every political ill .
The row also shows how keen Starmer is to get on top of Labour 's anti-semitism problem - to demonstrate a clean break from the recent past , putting an end to the drip-drip of racism rows that riddled the Corbyn era and displaying a decisiveness that contrasts with both his predecessor and his opposite number .
And it reveals the sheer willingness , almost determination even , among many Corbynites to see betrayal at every turn of the Starmer leadership .
Because he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be out to destroy us , goes the thinking .
He is not a Corbynite , so he must be a Blairite .
They see Starmer 's every action and inaction through the frame of 'betrayal ' .
When Starmer did n't call for Dominic Cummings to go , it was betrayal .
When he does n't demand Robert Jenrick 's head , it 's betrayal .
When he avoids coming across as too hostile to the government on its botched handling of the pandemic , it 's betrayal .
Anyone would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that they long for its sweet taste of vindication , the chance to lecture all those who backed Starmer for their 'liberal ' naivety .
The trouble is the Corbynites appear to have forgotten the electorate exists - not even just the national electorate , but the Labour one .
There is no analysis of why Labour lost so heavily six months ago beyond blaming Remainer MPs - who were largely responding to the radicalisation of Remain voters - and the media .
2017 is written up as the great near-miss , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive Corbyn surge , Labour still finished 55 seats behind the Tories .
There is no interest in Starmer 's personal ratings among the public rising massively above Corbyn 's - even at Corbyn 's 2017 peak .
And there is not even a nod to Starmer 's utterly comprehensive victory among Labour members just two months ago .
Long-Bailey trailed with barely a quarter of the vote .
Richard Burgon , the Corbynite 's Corbynite , traipsed in third in the deputy leadership vote .
Perhaps Corbynites have also forgotten how unenthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the early stages of the contest , Ian Lavery was floating himself as a possible rival candidate from the left .
Long-Bailey lacks the stature or reputation on the radical left of a Tony Benn - or , indeed , of Corbyn in 2015 .
And Starmer 's platform was not as a Corbynite - but not as a Blairite either .
He is a centre-left politician who ran as a centre-left candidate , promising to detoxify the party , unify it and maintain most - but not all - of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing now is the clash between unifying the party and detoxifying it - but there is little sign Starmer will seek to expel Momentum or tear out swathes of the 2017 manifesto .
It is Starmer 's strong approval among members , MPs and the public that makes him secure .
What is the Corbynite left going to do , exactly ?
They ca n't force him out .
There 's no public appetite for a radical left-wing breakaway party , and none among the major trade unions either .
There 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter support for Long-Bailey , whose public reputation and name-recognition is limited .
If they resign en masse from the shadow frontbench , they 'd be surrendering what influence they have with the leadership .
If they quit the party , they 'll surrender their influence in the party .
No wonder the Socialist Campaign Group 's response to the sacking was to tweet out a petition of support for Long-Bailey , with no shadow ministers ' names attached to it .
The Labour Left is in danger of becoming the wing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' every five minutes , they 'd be better off keeping their powder dry for the real thing - policy pledges and parliamentary votes .
There will be existing Labour policies that Corbynites are keen on but Starmer simply is n't .
If they want to keep mass nationalisation in the next Labour manifesto , they 'll need allies outside their ranks , both among MPs and union leaders .
It 's not yet clear how secure the pledge to abolish university fees is - this , after all , was in Long-Bailey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's unlikely Starmer will lead Labour into abstaining on the rolling back of trans rights , there would be an almighty firestorm if he does .
In the last 24 hours Labour 's Corbynite wing has shown it has learned nothing from its recent downfall , and has lost the strategic nous it briefly developed during the early Corbyn years .
Starmer has shown he wants Labour to win power .
If that 's what Corbynites want as well , they have a funny way of showing it .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
'The British Government should make clear to Israel now that any annexation of the occupied Palestine land would lead to sanctions.'
That unequivocal statement of support for Palestinians was published just yesterday, part of a statement by the Socialist Campaign Group of left-wing Labour MPs signed by 21 of their number.
The letter was unhesitant in its condemnation of Israel's plans and its support of Palestinian statehood. It demanded meaningful action against Israel in the form of sanctions.
And yet it neither sparked nor fed a row over anti-semitism. None of the signatories – including Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Burgon – face any disciplinary measures for endorsing it.
It is worth bearing that in mind as Corbynites decry the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet.
The now departed shadow education secretary – Starmer's main rival in the recent leadership contest – approvingly shared a newspaper interview in which socialist actor Maxine Peake tied the murder of black American George Floyd to Israeli training of US police – despite there being no evidence that the latter led to the former.
Starmer acted swiftly, sacking Long-Bailey, explicitly for sharing an article containing an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
According to Starmer's critics, this will hinder Labour MPs from speaking out against Israel's oppression of Palestinians. And yet 21 Labour MPs quite rightly face no backlash – certainly not from within Labour – for signing a statement calling for sanctions against Israel.
The difference, of course, is that the letter dredged up no conspiracy theories, unleashed no vitriol about Zionist lobbies, and simply stuck to the reality of Israel's Trump-backed plan to illegally annex swathes of the occupied West Bank, permanently seizing Palestinian land. If some of the signatories have a problematic history with anti-semitism, that does not make their statement yesterday problematic. It wasn't and no problem has arisen.
The Long-Bailey row shows just how easily some British Palestine campaigners link all the world's evils back to Israel. In her interview, Peake goes from Floyd's killing to Israeli training of US police in a heartbeat – apparently the nearest available evidence of the global nature of systemic racism. Somehow, Israel is always the nearest available evidence, 'Zionists' the ultimate diagnosis for every political ill.
The row also shows how keen Starmer is to get on top of Labour's anti-semitism problem – to demonstrate a clean break from the recent past, putting an end to the drip-drip of racism rows that riddled the Corbyn era and displaying a decisiveness that contrasts with both his predecessor and his opposite number.
And it reveals the sheer willingness, almost determination even, among many Corbynites to see betrayal at every turn of the Starmer leadership. Because he is not 'one of us', he must be out to destroy us, goes the thinking. He is not a Corbynite, so he must be a Blairite. They see Starmer's every action and inaction through the frame of 'betrayal'.
When Starmer didn't call for Dominic Cummings to go, it was betrayal. When he doesn't demand Robert Jenrick's head, it's betrayal. When he avoids coming across as too hostile to the government on its botched handling of the pandemic, it's betrayal.
Anyone would think they actively want to be betrayed, that they long for its sweet taste of vindication, the chance to lecture all those who backed Starmer for their 'liberal' naivety.
The trouble is the Corbynites appear to have forgotten the electorate exists – not even just the national electorate, but the Labour one. There is no analysis of why Labour lost so heavily six months ago beyond blaming Remainer MPs – who were largely responding to the radicalisation of Remain voters – and the media. 2017 is written up as the great near-miss, ignoring the fact that even with the impressive Corbyn surge, Labour still finished 55 seats behind the Tories.
There is no interest in Starmer's personal ratings among the public rising massively above Corbyn's – even at Corbyn's 2017 peak.
And there is not even a nod to Starmer's utterly comprehensive victory among Labour members just two months ago. Long-Bailey trailed with barely a quarter of the vote. Richard Burgon, the Corbynite's Corbynite, traipsed in third in the deputy leadership vote.
Perhaps Corbynites have also forgotten how unenthusiastic their own support of Long-Bailey actually was. In the early stages of the contest, Ian Lavery was floating himself as a possible rival candidate from the left. Long-Bailey lacks the stature or reputation on the radical left of a Tony Benn – or, indeed, of Corbyn in 2015.
And Starmer's platform was not as a Corbynite – but not as a Blairite either. He is a centre-left politician who ran as a centre-left candidate, promising to detoxify the party, unify it and maintain most – but not all – of its existing policy agenda. What we are seeing now is the clash between unifying the party and detoxifying it – but there is little sign Starmer will seek to expel Momentum or tear out swathes of the 2017 manifesto.
It is Starmer's strong approval among members, MPs and the public that makes him secure. What is the Corbynite left going to do, exactly? They can't force him out. There's no public appetite for a radical left-wing breakaway party, and none among the major trade unions either. There's highly unlikely to be a surge of voter support for Long-Bailey, whose public reputation and name-recognition is limited. If they resign en masse from the shadow frontbench, they'd be surrendering what influence they have with the leadership. If they quit the party, they'll surrender their influence in the party.
No wonder the Socialist Campaign Group's response to the sacking was to tweet out a petition of support for Long-Bailey, with no shadow ministers' names attached to it.
The Labour Left is in danger of becoming the wing that cried wolf. Instead of shouting 'betrayal' every five minutes, they'd be better off keeping their powder dry for the real thing – policy pledges and parliamentary votes. There will be existing Labour policies that Corbynites are keen on but Starmer simply isn't. If they want to keep mass nationalisation in the next Labour manifesto, they'll need allies outside their ranks, both among MPs and union leaders. It's not yet clear how secure the pledge to abolish university fees is – this, after all, was in Long-Bailey's now-vacated brief.
And while it's unlikely Starmer will lead Labour into abstaining on the rolling back of trans rights, there would be an almighty firestorm if he does.
In the last 24 hours Labour's Corbynite wing has shown it has learned nothing from its recent downfall, and has lost the strategic nous it briefly developed during the early Corbyn years. Starmer has shown he wants Labour to win power. If that's what Corbynites want as well, they have a funny way of showing it.


politicscouk--2020-06-26--Week in Review: Labour returns to its anti-racist roots

One of the worst things about anti-semitism under Jeremy Corbyn was the wave of disingenuous justifications which followed from any individual incident .
Each article , each slip of the tongue , each conspiracy theory , each Facebook post , each inappropriate use of the word Zionist , each bitterly defensive interview , each godawful Twitter message , each bit of graffiti : they were all followed by the small 'well-actually ' army of Corbyn defenders .
Out they came , every time .
The loyalist ranks , where Corbyn 's survival mattered more than anything , and all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First the anonymous Twitter accounts , then the ones with large followings , then the big hitters , the Corbyn supporters who appear on TV debate programmes - the whole weird cottage industry of faith-based political defensiveness .
All working to chisel away at the seriousness of what was happening , to make the people targeted feel that they were somehow in the wrong .
And that 's how the culture took hold .
The anti-semitism was there , bubbling under the surface .
And it was allowed to take root and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relegated it to secondary importance .
Defending Corbyn was the chief moral requirement .
Everything else could be sacrificed in order to secure that aim .
It was , at its heart , a matter of priorities .
Keir Starmer 's decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey starts to draw a line under that culture .
She shared an article with an anti-semitic conspiracy theory in it .
She was told to apologise and delete it .
She did n't .
He fired her .
You can go this way and that over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent to which Long-Bailey becomes culpable for retweeting it .
But crucially , that is not what this is about .
It 's a question of priorities .
Anti-semitism took hold of the Labour party .
Destroying it now takes precedence over all other considerations .
This has been portrayed as a decisive political move , and it is .
But the most important element is not so much political as moral .
Zero-tolerance is an ethical strategy .
It recognises the extent of the poison and acts to neutralise it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those waves of justifications , all so perfectly reasonable on their own terms , each digging into the minutiae of a case , bore an unmistakable message : the racism against you does n't really matter .
It is of secondary importance .
This was how Jews were made to feel afraid .
This is how we reached the obscene spectacle of Jewish people feeling they could not vote for Britain 's opposition party .
It is a sentence whose full horror needs to be properly absorbed , not just as a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this country 's political culture .
That has now changed .
Tackling anti-semitism in the Labour party is the first priority .
The wave of defences can splutter away in the background , but they are not initiated by or in defence of the leadership .
That 's what anti-racism involves .
That is how it operates : as chief among all moral considerations .
It is a relief to see it happen .
It means that while things may not yet be fixed , there are at least people in charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are getting their party back .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out on September 17th .
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 .

One of the worst things about anti-semitism under Jeremy Corbyn was the wave of disingenuous justifications which followed from any individual incident. Each article, each slip of the tongue, each conspiracy theory, each Facebook post, each inappropriate use of the word Zionist, each bitterly defensive interview, each godawful Twitter message, each bit of graffiti: they were all followed by the small 'well-actually' army of Corbyn defenders.
Out they came, every time. The loyalist ranks, where Corbyn's survival mattered more than anything, and all that challenged him was by definition a conspiracy. First the anonymous Twitter accounts, then the ones with large followings, then the big hitters, the Corbyn supporters who appear on TV debate programmes – the whole weird cottage industry of faith-based political defensiveness. All working to chisel away at the seriousness of what was happening, to make the people targeted feel that they were somehow in the wrong.
And that's how the culture took hold. The anti-semitism was there, bubbling under the surface. And it was allowed to take root and spread because people who were not anti-semitic relegated it to secondary importance. Defending Corbyn was the chief moral requirement. Everything else could be sacrificed in order to secure that aim. It was, at its heart, a matter of priorities.
Keir Starmer's decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey starts to draw a line under that culture. She shared an article with an anti-semitic conspiracy theory in it. She was told to apologise and delete it. She didn't. He fired her.
You can go this way and that over the content of the article she shared or the extent to which Long-Bailey becomes culpable for retweeting it. But crucially, that is not what this is about. It's a question of priorities. Anti-semitism took hold of the Labour party. Destroying it now takes precedence over all other considerations.
This has been portrayed as a decisive political move, and it is. But the most important element is not so much political as moral. Zero-tolerance is an ethical strategy. It recognises the extent of the poison and acts to neutralise it.
For Jewish people, every one of those waves of justifications, all so perfectly reasonable on their own terms, each digging into the minutiae of a case, bore an unmistakable message: the racism against you doesn't really matter. It is of secondary importance.
This was how Jews were made to feel afraid. This is how we reached the obscene spectacle of Jewish people feeling they could not vote for Britain's opposition party. It is a sentence whose full horror needs to be properly absorbed, not just as a statement on Labour but as a terrifying development in this country's political culture.
That has now changed. Tackling anti-semitism in the Labour party is the first priority. The wave of defences can splutter away in the background, but they are not initiated by or in defence of the leadership.
That's what anti-racism involves. That is how it operates: as chief among all moral considerations.
It is a relief to see it happen. It means that while things may not yet be fixed, there are at least people in charge who are prepared to try. Anti-racists are getting their party back.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out on September 17th.
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--2020-07-01--Johnson and Trump now share the same covid policy: Pretend it doesn't exist

It is perhaps no coincidence that , before they became world leaders , both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump made cameo appearances as themselves on soap operas .
In 2009 Johnson propped up the bar of the Queen Vic , while in 2005 Trump appeared in Days of Our Lives .
Both men have short attention spans and love performing .
The main appeal of soap , of course , is that things constantly happen but never for too long .
New characters arrive , storylines get tidied up , and events that captivate viewers one month are well forgotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Brookside once killed a couple of minor characters and then vanished .
The reality of politics actually has quite a lot in common with soap .
News cycles are episodic , major figures can be quickly dispatched , and newspapers will cast a protagonist as hero and then villain in the same month .
Politicians , like scriptwriters , depend on short memories .
But here ’ s the problem .
Real life actually is not soap , and coronavirus is not a storyline .
And yet both Johnson and Trump are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgently want to wrap it up .
In Johnson 's press conference last week he announced that pubs , restaurants and cinemas would reopen on July 4th , and social distancing would be reduced to 'one metre plus ' .
He has urged people to return to shops and bars almost as a patriotic duty .
Trump , meanwhile , has all but ignored the new record highs in daily cases , blaming the spike on increased testing .
The two countries ' outbreaks are different , but the political tactics broadly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intents and purposes , no longer exists .
The leaders have declared we must move on , so move on we must .
The reason is straightforward enough .
Soaps , like demagogues , exist to be popular , and when push comes to shove , coronavirus is n't very entertaining .
It grabbed people 's attention , and was certainly dramatic , but it was n't comfort viewing .
It was also a story seemingly without end .
For the government , that has made it both boring and dangerous .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic , is simply to cancel it .
Part of this is narcissism .
Both Johnson and Trump are gripped by the myth of their own greatness and their delusion of total control .
In the mould of all strongmen , they want to believe they can dictate and decree their countries ' fortunes .
This is the Brexit model of fantasy : you can engineer any defiance of reality if you simply believe hard enough .
What these men can not control must simply disappear .
But it is also more practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump believe they can write the narrative of coronavirus quite literally .
From the start , covid has been treated like a political campaign , conducted in soundbites .
The focus is always the script and the stage , never the work behind the scenes .
In Britain it is about war rhetoric , massaging figures , and presenting every fresh disaster as a government triumph against the odds .
In America it is about safeguarding Trump 's election chances , bashing the Democrats and opening a new front in the culture war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trumped public health .
Nothing really matters provided the government is winning .
When you treat the virus as drama , everything becomes presentation .
The key means of communicating to the public – press briefings and national addresses – have been measured not by clarity of communication but by ratings .
Trump boasted about the viewing figures for his press conferences as though they were just another reality show , while the British government ditched the weekend briefings because of low ratings .
Now the pandemic storyline is over , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conferences – and so last week Downing Street scrapped them altogether .
The message to viewers was plain enough : move on , because there ’ s nothing to see here .
Certainly , Johnson was n't blatant enough to declare the pandemic literally finished .
He has not reprised his March 19th exhortation to `` get the virus done '' , like an epidemiological Brexit .
Not everything will open on Saturday and things that do will not be as they were before .
But the prime minister knows people are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more important than the substance , and could not be clearer : social distancing is out , the pubs are back , July 4th is our independence day and everything is back to normal .
Of course , we are all desperate to return to normality .
No doubt many of the government ’ s critics will be enjoying a pint on Saturday .
Lockdown has now lasted for almost four months .
People want to have their families round for dinner , hug their friends , and go for a drink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be afraid anymore , and the government is notionally giving them what they want .
Except this is n't actually about what people want .
This is about what the government wants .
Johnson is tired of the virus , panicked by the polls , and desperate to get back to entertaining the public .
Fist-banging about Brexit is fun , mitigating a pandemic is not .
And so here is where things become even more toxic .
Of course people will crowd the beaches .
Of course they will loosen up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after months of hardship , some will behave excessively .
But those people have also followed the government 's nudge-and-wink messaging .
So when cases begin to rise , as they inevitably will , it will be the fault of the people who were confused , not the people who confused them .
Ministers are , in effect , setting up the public to fail .
This way the government can have its cake and eat it .
First , it gets to distract people and pretend the virus no longer exists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much to exist , they can blame the public for not navigating the tightrope they laid out for them .
It is a double-whammy of cynicism that allows the government to absolve itself of responsibility in all circumstances .
It is no consolation that Trump 's version of this tactic is even more extreme : to pretend the virus has disappeared by concealing the numbers of cases .
The president openly declares his intention to cut the number of tests , and his government is ending the federal funding of 13 testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marginally less unhinged face of the administration , has insisted that cases are only rising because tests have , but that is simply untrue .
New York is conducting 50 % more tests than last month and getting 60 % fewer positive results , while Florida is testing 22 % fewer people and getting 341 % more positives .
The virus in America is not over , and in some states it is barely getting started .
And so now begins the great project of old power-grabs and new distractions .
The UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civil service , a Brexit 'shock and awe ' campaign , and a bogus promise of grand public investment .
The US administration is returning to the promotion of white supremacy and the excitement of Trump 's re-election battle .
Johnson and Trump are desperate to be strongmen , but like their counterparts Vladimir Putin and Jair Bolsonaro , they just happen to be presiding over the world 's worst outbreaks .
We all wish this virus would go away and , indeed , that it had never arrived at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature 's greatest dangers and struggle to accept our own weakness .
But covid is not a storyline our leaders can ditch when it gets too dull or convoluted , and the writers ca n't subsequently pretend it never happened .
Johnson and Trump love drama and love entertaining , but what they love most of all is themselves .
The people they lead have never even come close .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

It is perhaps no coincidence that, before they became world leaders, both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump made cameo appearances as themselves on soap operas. In 2009 Johnson propped up the bar of the Queen Vic, while in 2005 Trump appeared in Days of Our Lives. Both men have short attention spans and love performing. The main appeal of soap, of course, is that things constantly happen but never for too long. New characters arrive, storylines get tidied up, and events that captivate viewers one month are well forgotten the next. A mystery killer virus on Brookside once killed a couple of minor characters and then vanished.
The reality of politics actually has quite a lot in common with soap. News cycles are episodic, major figures can be quickly dispatched, and newspapers will cast a protagonist as hero and then villain in the same month. Politicians, like scriptwriters, depend on short memories. But here’s the problem. Real life actually is not soap, and coronavirus is not a storyline. And yet both Johnson and Trump are behaving as though it is – and urgently want to wrap it up.
In Johnson’s press conference last week he announced that pubs, restaurants and cinemas would reopen on July 4th, and social distancing would be reduced to ‘one metre plus’. He has urged people to return to shops and bars almost as a patriotic duty. Trump, meanwhile, has all but ignored the new record highs in daily cases, blaming the spike on increased testing. The two countries’ outbreaks are different, but the political tactics broadly the same. The virus, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. The leaders have declared we must move on, so move on we must.
The reason is straightforward enough. Soaps, like demagogues, exist to be popular, and when push comes to shove, coronavirus isn’t very entertaining. It grabbed people’s attention, and was certainly dramatic, but it wasn’t comfort viewing. It was also a story seemingly without end. For the government, that has made it both boring and dangerous. The answer, on both sides of the Atlantic, is simply to cancel it.
Part of this is narcissism. Both Johnson and Trump are gripped by the myth of their own greatness and their delusion of total control. In the mould of all strongmen, they want to believe they can dictate and decree their countries’ fortunes. This is the Brexit model of fantasy: you can engineer any defiance of reality if you simply believe hard enough. What these men cannot control must simply disappear.
But it is also more practical and political than that. Johnson and Trump believe they can write the narrative of coronavirus quite literally. From the start, covid has been treated like a political campaign, conducted in soundbites. The focus is always the script and the stage, never the work behind the scenes. In Britain it is about war rhetoric, massaging figures, and presenting every fresh disaster as a government triumph against the odds. In America it is about safeguarding Trump’s election chances, bashing the Democrats and opening a new front in the culture war. In both countries public relations have trumped public health. Nothing really matters provided the government is winning.
When you treat the virus as drama, everything becomes presentation. The key means of communicating to the public – press briefings and national addresses – have been measured not by clarity of communication but by ratings. Trump boasted about the viewing figures for his press conferences as though they were just another reality show, while the British government ditched the weekend briefings because of low ratings. Now the pandemic storyline is over, of course, there is no need for the conferences – and so last week Downing Street scrapped them altogether. The message to viewers was plain enough: move on, because there’s nothing to see here.
Certainly, Johnson wasn’t blatant enough to declare the pandemic literally finished. He has not reprised his March 19th exhortation to “get the virus done”, like an epidemiological Brexit. Not everything will open on Saturday and things that do will not be as they were before. But the prime minister knows people are not reading the small print. The messaging is more important than the substance, and could not be clearer: social distancing is out, the pubs are back, July 4th is our independence day and everything is back to normal.
Of course, we are all desperate to return to normality. No doubt many of the government’s critics will be enjoying a pint on Saturday. Lockdown has now lasted for almost four months. People want to have their families round for dinner, hug their friends, and go for a drink. In short, people want not to be afraid anymore, and the government is notionally giving them what they want.
Except this isn’t actually about what people want. This is about what the government wants. Johnson is tired of the virus, panicked by the polls, and desperate to get back to entertaining the public. Fist-banging about Brexit is fun, mitigating a pandemic is not.
And so here is where things become even more toxic. Of course people will crowd the beaches. Of course they will loosen up in the pub. Of course, after months of hardship, some will behave excessively. But those people have also followed the government’s nudge-and-wink messaging. So when cases begin to rise, as they inevitably will, it will be the fault of the people who were confused, not the people who confused them. Ministers are, in effect, setting up the public to fail.
This way the government can have its cake and eat it. First, it gets to distract people and pretend the virus no longer exists. Then, when the virus turns out very much to exist, they can blame the public for not navigating the tightrope they laid out for them. It is a double-whammy of cynicism that allows the government to absolve itself of responsibility in all circumstances.
It is no consolation that Trump’s version of this tactic is even more extreme: to pretend the virus has disappeared by concealing the numbers of cases. The president openly declares his intention to cut the number of tests, and his government is ending the federal funding of 13 testing sites. Vice-President Mike Pence, the marginally less unhinged face of the administration, has insisted that cases are only rising because tests have, but that is simply untrue. New York is conducting 50% more tests than last month and getting 60% fewer positive results, while Florida is testing 22% fewer people and getting 341% more positives. The virus in America is not over, and in some states it is barely getting started.
And so now begins the great project of old power-grabs and new distractions. The UK government is offering the generational shake-up of the civil service, a Brexit ‘shock and awe’ campaign, and a bogus promise of grand public investment. The US administration is returning to the promotion of white supremacy and the excitement of Trump’s re-election battle. Johnson and Trump are desperate to be strongmen, but like their counterparts Vladimir Putin and Jair Bolsonaro, they just happen to be presiding over the world’s worst outbreaks.
We all wish this virus would go away and, indeed, that it had never arrived at all. As humans we instinctively seek to curb nature’s greatest dangers and struggle to accept our own weakness. But covid is not a storyline our leaders can ditch when it gets too dull or convoluted, and the writers can’t subsequently pretend it never happened. Johnson and Trump love drama and love entertaining, but what they love most of all is themselves. The people they lead have never even come close.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
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--2020-07-03--Week in Review: Brexit finally begins

Week in Review: Brexit finally begins

And so on Tuesday it finally began .
After four years of hearing how everything would stay the same , things started to change .
First , parliament passed the Immigration Bill , which definitively terminated freedom of movement in law .
Then , at midnight , the deadline passed for the UK and EU to extend the Brexit transition period .
There is now , to all intents and purposes , no going back .
We 've had the rhetoric , and now comes the reality .
The transition has cocooned us in the illusion that the most complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any consequences .
Since January , we have been out of the EU and have n't noticed it once in our daily lives .
But the transition period was n't designed to be the calm before the storm .
It was designed to avoid that storm .
The entire purpose was to create a 21-month period of frenetic activity in which the economy could implement and adjust to our new trade agreement .
Now , in line with an international treaty , that period will end in six months , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't even exist .
The Immigration Bill was more predictable .
It was , after all , the central plank of Brexit and the issue ministers most enjoyed promoting .
Sure enough , it passed by a majority of 94 votes in the Commons .
MPs even rejected an amendment from Yvette Cooper which sought to preserve the rights of unaccompanied child refugees .
And yet , for all the inevitability and cruelty , the vote was still a moment of historic shock .
Here was a democratic legislature voting to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its closest neighbours and allies .
One of the few constants , necessities and joys of human civilisation has been to seek a better life in another place .
Since 1973 , millions have taken the opportunity to work , study , find love or retire in a place where they were not born .
MPs denounced and discarded that freedom , and then celebrated .
Perhaps it was no coincidence Boris Johnson gave his much-vaunted 'FDR ' speech on the same day both the bill and deadline passed .
Only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could promise to 'build , build , build ' at the precise moment he was tearing everything down .
Never mind that the speech was a barely edible reheating of previous manifesto commitments , which in some cases amounted to spending cuts , and in any case totalled under £100 of spending per head .
It flew in the face of what the government is actually doing .
Jobs are draining from the economy , fast .
On Tuesday alone , while parliament was ending free movement and Johnson was promising investment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A government which paid basic lip service to caring about its people would act to stem the flow .
This one simply blows another stick of dynamite in the dam .
Here 's the point .
The transition extension was meant to give more time for negotiations , thereby avoiding a no-deal outcome in December which will devastate jobs and supply chains .
No-deal used to be impossible because parliament was sensible enough to reject it , but that is no longer the case .
No-deal could happen by accident or design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the negotiation like the virus and pretend it is n't happening .
Some actively seek no-deal , which they will blame on both covid and the EU .
Against this backdrop , a slogan of 'build , build , build ' is like cutting off all your fingers to establish a career in needlework .
Eventually there will probably be a frenzied , last-minute attempt to make a deal when it can no longer be avoided .
At that moment the nationalist game-playing will give way to legal fine print .
But even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be messy and pointless , imposing barriers where none previously existed and restricting profitable sectors of the economy .
There will simply be no time to achieve anything better .
As if on cue , the latest round of negotiation ended prematurely yesterday , with EU negotiator Michel Barnier noting the lack of progress .
What this all really amounts to is dogma .
Most commentators assumed the government would see sense on the transition .
They had every reason and excuse to extend it , and polls repeatedly indicated widespread public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end , the worst pandemic in a century is to postpone every major world event except the voluntary implosion of our economy , for reasons we can not explain .
The lesson here is bleak .
Both freedom of movement and the transition extension were about preserving options .
Migration rights were an opportunity for individuals .
The extension was a back-up plan for the country .
But we treated the EU 's offer of friendly assistance as an enemy attack and deliberately sealed our own escape routes .
At a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government not only has no plan to make our lives better , it plans to make them worse .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator .
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 .

And so on Tuesday it finally began. After four years of hearing how everything would stay the same, things started to change. First, parliament passed the Immigration Bill, which definitively terminated freedom of movement in law. Then, at midnight, the deadline passed for the UK and EU to extend the Brexit transition period. There is now, to all intents and purposes, no going back. We’ve had the rhetoric, and now comes the reality.
The transition has cocooned us in the illusion that the most complicated divorce in British history can be accomplished without any consequences. Since January, we have been out of the EU and haven’t noticed it once in our daily lives. But the transition period wasn’t designed to be the calm before the storm. It was designed to avoid that storm. The entire purpose was to create a 21-month period of frenetic activity in which the economy could implement and adjust to our new trade agreement. Now, in line with an international treaty, that period will end in six months, and the agreement we’re meant to be implementing doesn’t even exist.
The Immigration Bill was more predictable. It was, after all, the central plank of Brexit and the issue ministers most enjoyed promoting. Sure enough, it passed by a majority of 94 votes in the Commons. MPs even rejected an amendment from Yvette Cooper which sought to preserve the rights of unaccompanied child refugees. And yet, for all the inevitability and cruelty, the vote was still a moment of historic shock. Here was a democratic legislature voting to take away its citizens’ rights and those of its closest neighbours and allies. One of the few constants, necessities and joys of human civilisation has been to seek a better life in another place. Since 1973, millions have taken the opportunity to work, study, find love or retire in a place where they were not born. MPs denounced and discarded that freedom, and then celebrated.
Perhaps it was no coincidence Boris Johnson gave his much-vaunted ‘FDR’ speech on the same day both the bill and deadline passed. Only a man who governs by slogans and gaslighting could promise to ‘build, build, build’ at the precise moment he was tearing everything down. Never mind that the speech was a barely edible reheating of previous manifesto commitments, which in some cases amounted to spending cuts, and in any case totalled under £100 of spending per head. It flew in the face of what the government is actually doing.
Jobs are draining from the economy, fast. On Tuesday alone, while parliament was ending free movement and Johnson was promising investment, major companies announced almost 10,000 job losses. A government which paid basic lip service to caring about its people would act to stem the flow. This one simply blows another stick of dynamite in the dam.
Here’s the point. The transition extension was meant to give more time for negotiations, thereby avoiding a no-deal outcome in December which will devastate jobs and supply chains. No-deal used to be impossible because parliament was sensible enough to reject it, but that is no longer the case. No-deal could happen by accident or design. Some senior Conservatives want to treat the negotiation like the virus and pretend it isn’t happening. Some actively seek no-deal, which they will blame on both covid and the EU. Against this backdrop, a slogan of ‘build, build, build’ is like cutting off all your fingers to establish a career in needlework.
Eventually there will probably be a frenzied, last-minute attempt to make a deal when it can no longer be avoided. At that moment the nationalist game-playing will give way to legal fine print. But even if there is a deal, it will be messy and pointless, imposing barriers where none previously existed and restricting profitable sectors of the economy. There will simply be no time to achieve anything better. As if on cue, the latest round of negotiation ended prematurely yesterday, with EU negotiator Michel Barnier noting the lack of progress.
What this all really amounts to is dogma. Most commentators assumed the government would see sense on the transition. They had every reason and excuse to extend it, and polls repeatedly indicated widespread public support for doing so. But in the end, the worst pandemic in a century is to postpone every major world event except the voluntary implosion of our economy, for reasons we cannot explain.
The lesson here is bleak. Both freedom of movement and the transition extension were about preserving options. Migration rights were an opportunity for individuals. The extension was a back-up plan for the country. But we treated the EU’s offer of friendly assistance as an enemy attack and deliberately sealed our own escape routes. At a time when everything is falling apart, our government not only has no plan to make our lives better, it plans to make them worse.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
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--2020-07-06--'As far as I care, you can sleep in your car': The Corona tenants

`` As far as I care , you can sleep in your car . ''
Maria had just discovered what it means to be a tenant in the time of corona .
It was June 5th and her landlady was ordering her to move out of her lodging that very day .
Just 24 hours earlier , she had given Maria a month 's notice to leave , accusing her of using too much water when she washed her hands in line with government advice , and of damaging the property .
Now all of a sudden , she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was feeling all the emotions at the same time , '' Maria says .
`` I was scared , I was anxious , I was confused , I could n't believe what was happening .
I wanted to cry . ''
Maria had been lodging in the house in Bristol for three years when the pandemic hit .
Despite there being five other occupants , the landlady blamed her alone for the rising water bill .
`` She would be literally breathing on my neck [ when I washed my hands ] , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use .
She kept watching me all the time , '' Maria says .
`` One day she came up to me and shoved the water bill in my face .
She wanted me to pay £300 extra . ''
On June 4th , she gave her a month to move out after accusing Maria of deliberately damaging her bedroom window - `` Why would I damage my own window ? ''
Maria asks - and the next day , she called her into the bathroom they both used and unleashed an even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the ceiling in the bathroom .
And she 's like , 'oh , what is that ? '
I was like , 'what do you mean ? '
'Oh , there 's black mould on the ceiling ' .
`` She accused me of pouring water and bleach on the ceiling on purpose to damage the property .
That 's what she accused me of .
Why would I do that ?
Like , that does n't make any sense .
`` She said I 'd have to leave the house immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was like , 'why would I damage the bathroom on purpose ? '
And she 's like , 'no , you have to leave now or I 'm going to call the police ' .
And I was like , where am I going to go ? '
`` I go , 'you ca n't put me on the street in the middle of a pandemic ' .
And she said , 'as far as I care , you can sleep in your car ' .
`` And the worst thing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Despite everything , in some ways Maria got lucky - she was able to stay at a friend 's place for a week before finding a new long-term tenancy , though she has little hope of getting back her £420 deposit .
But the situation facing tenants is perilous .
Amid a crisis exacerbated by underlying inequalities , lodgers like Maria face more inequality than most , with few legal rights or protections .
But even renters with long-term tenancies face a multitude of threats .
Politics.co.uk has heard of numerous cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since lockdown began .
Vital repairs have been delayed , with one block of flats left without running water at a time when personal hygiene is paramount .
Some landlords have even tried to put the rent up in the middle of the pandemic .
Many migrants are at particular risk due to their insecure legal status and lack of access to benefits .
`` If you are undocumented or you do n't have the right to be here , then obviously that makes it a bit more complicated , because the landlord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold some power over you - so whether you 're going to stand up to them is another matter , '' says Fizza Qureshi of Migrants ' Rights Network .
And then there 's section 21 .
Section 21 is the 'no fault ' eviction route .
It allows landlords to kick tenants out for any reason , as long as the correct procedure is followed and three months ' notice is given .
The government suspended legal evictions at the start of lockdown , first until 23rd June and then until 23rd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent arrears rise , section 21 eviction notices have been piling in , ready to take effect once the evictions ban is over .
“ Nobody should lose their home because of coronavirus , '' says Polly Neate , chief executive of Shelter .
`` But if the government fails to act , tens of thousands of renters who ’ ve lost their livelihoods will soon face this terrifying prospect .
`` When the evictions ban lifts on 23rd August , anyone in rent arrears could face automatic eviction from their home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that councils would struggle to cope with . ''
Aidan Cassidy of Acorn , which campaigns for tenants ' rights , says he is aware of 10-20 cases of landlords issuing section 21 notices during lockdown , just among Acorn 's thousand members in Bristol .
`` Due to coronavirus and the whole load of financial issues that it 's caused , a lot of people have missed rent payments , '' says Cassidy .
`` Lots of landlords have unfortunately decided to act without any sort of thought for the wellbeing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially evicted them or given them a section 21 notice because of these rent arrears . ''
One such case is an elderly self-employed handyman who ca n't work during the pandemic and has faced delays to his benefits , leaving him £150 in arrears on his rent .
It 's a relatively small amount - but it 's proved enough to trigger a section 21 notice .
`` Instead of the landlord being sympathetic or reasonable , he 's just said , 'no , we 're not even going to talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get out ' , '' says Cassidy .
What makes this even worse is that he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , a lung condition that makes it hard to breathe and places him firmly on the 'shielding ' list of people at heightened risk from coronavirus .
`` Obviously if he is now evicted , he 's at massive risk , '' Cassidy explains .
`` There 's absolutely no way he can go about his normal business looking for a new place .
The lockdown might be over but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I think any suggestion that life is back to normal for people who are very susceptible to coronavirus is just nonsense . ''
And evictions have a sting in the tail that increase the risk of enduring homelessness .
`` If people are evicted with rent arrears under section 21 , the landlord can then take whatever they can off those arrears from their deposit , '' says Portia Msimang of Renters ' Rights London .
`` So people are left with no deposit with which to get another property .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Short of eviction notices , rising rent arrears are a looming crisis .
With the economy likely to be hamstrung for months to come , many tenants will be financially squeezed while landlords come knocking for missed rent - one of the biggest sticks of dynamite in a bulging debt timebomb also comprising utility bills , loans and council tax .
`` The biggest problem we 've faced is people saying that they 're worried about getting behind on the rent .
And those that are getting behind on the rent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from landlords , '' says Caitlin Wilkinson of Generation Rent .
The Institute for Fiscal Studies ( IFS ) calculates there were 11 percent fewer rental payments in April and May than a year before .
Both the debt advice service StepChange and the Resolution Foundation think tank have estimated that just under 600,000 tenants in the private rented sector are in arrears , while Generation Rent says arrears have trebled .
The government has boosted Universal Credit , reversing years of cuts - but still not enough to cover average rents in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advised tenants to negotiate rent reductions with their landlords - a laughable prospect for many tenants .
Acorn branches report occasional successes , but for the most part landlords hold the whip hand in Britain 's housing crisis and do n't want to know .
The IFS has found only one or two percent of tenants have received a rent holiday .
What makes the situation particularly egregious is that the Tories promised to abolish section 21 evictions in their 2019 manifesto .
Yet nothing has happened .
A statement from the ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not specifically mention a ban on section 21 : `` We are committed to bringing forward legislation to enhance renters ' security as part of the largest changes to renting in 30 years .
`` We are working with the judiciary to ensure when evictions proceedings start again , arrangements , including rules , are in place to give appropriate protections for those who have been particularly affected by coronavirus.
” Most organisations campaigning for renters ' rights agree on the need to increase Universal Credit to cover average rents , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrears is more contentious .
Forcing landlords to waive rents and cancel arrears may contravene the Human Rights Act - one reason Labour dropped this approach under Keir Starmer , sparking anger from campaigners who fear Labour 's new policy would leave tenants with unpayable debts .
Generation Rent 's solution is to effectively extend the government furlough scheme to landlords , covering 80 percent of their monthly income up to £2,500 a month per tenant - with councils able to restrict the payment on the basis of need .
Then there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lost her work income during lockdown .
After her landlady refused her request for a rent reduction , and with benefits not covering the shortfall , she got involved with the London Renters Union and simply stopped paying .
She has n't heard from her landlady for two months .
`` For me it 's not just a means thing , '' Heather says .
`` It started out like that , but now it feels much more like part of a movement against landlords , against this culture of people accruing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything into the system . ''
And this is a feature of Britain 's economic response to coronavirus .
Employers have taken a hit .
Workers and tenants have taken a hit .
But landlords , the part of the economy that produces the least value , have had the most protection of all .
The names of tenants have been changed in this article .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Chaminda Jayanetti
"As far as I care, you can sleep in your car."
Maria had just discovered what it means to be a tenant in the time of corona. It was June 5th and her landlady was ordering her to move out of her lodging that very day.
Just 24 hours earlier, she had given Maria a month's notice to leave, accusing her of using too much water when she washed her hands in line with government advice, and of damaging the property.
Now all of a sudden, she was being summarily kicked out.
"I was feeling all the emotions at the same time," Maria says. "I was scared, I was anxious, I was confused, I couldn't believe what was happening. I wanted to cry."
Maria had been lodging in the house in Bristol for three years when the pandemic hit. Despite there being five other occupants, the landlady blamed her alone for the rising water bill.
"She would be literally breathing on my neck [when I washed my hands], checking on how much water I'd use. She kept watching me all the time," Maria says.
"One day she came up to me and shoved the water bill in my face. She wanted me to pay £300 extra."
On June 4th, she gave her a month to move out after accusing Maria of deliberately damaging her bedroom window – "Why would I damage my own window?" Maria asks – and the next day, she called her into the bathroom they both used and unleashed an even more bizarre accusation.
"She points at the ceiling in the bathroom. And she's like, 'oh, what is that?' I was like, 'what do you mean?' 'Oh, there's black mould on the ceiling'.
"She accused me of pouring water and bleach on the ceiling on purpose to damage the property. That's what she accused me of. Why would I do that? Like, that doesn't make any sense.
"She said I'd have to leave the house immediately, and I looked at her and I was like, 'why would I damage the bathroom on purpose?' And she's like, 'no, you have to leave now or I'm going to call the police'. And I was like, where am I going to go?'
"I go, 'you can't put me on the street in the middle of a pandemic'. And she said, 'as far as I care, you can sleep in your car'.
"And the worst thing about it is she's a nurse."
Private rented tsunami
Despite everything, in some ways Maria got lucky – she was able to stay at a friend's place for a week before finding a new long-term tenancy, though she has little hope of getting back her £420 deposit.
But the situation facing tenants is perilous. Amid a crisis exacerbated by underlying inequalities, lodgers like Maria face more inequality than most, with few legal rights or protections. But even renters with long-term tenancies face a multitude of threats.
Politics.co.uk has heard of numerous cases of rising rent arrears and illegal evictions since lockdown began. Vital repairs have been delayed, with one block of flats left without running water at a time when personal hygiene is paramount. Some landlords have even tried to put the rent up in the middle of the pandemic.
Many migrants are at particular risk due to their insecure legal status and lack of access to benefits.
"If you are undocumented or you don't have the right to be here, then obviously that makes it a bit more complicated, because the landlord, if they know that, they hold some power over you – so whether you're going to stand up to them is another matter," says Fizza Qureshi of Migrants' Rights Network.
And then there's section 21.
Section 21 is the 'no fault' eviction route. It allows landlords to kick tenants out for any reason, as long as the correct procedure is followed and three months' notice is given.
The government suspended legal evictions at the start of lockdown, first until 23rd June and then until 23rd August.
But as incomes fall and rent arrears rise, section 21 eviction notices have been piling in, ready to take effect once the evictions ban is over.
“Nobody should lose their home because of coronavirus," says Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter. "But if the government fails to act, tens of thousands of renters who’ve lost their livelihoods will soon face this terrifying prospect.
"When the evictions ban lifts on 23rd August, anyone in rent arrears could face automatic eviction from their home. This could unleash a tsunami of homelessness that councils would struggle to cope with."
Aidan Cassidy of Acorn, which campaigns for tenants' rights, says he is aware of 10-20 cases of landlords issuing section 21 notices during lockdown, just among Acorn's thousand members in Bristol.
"Due to coronavirus and the whole load of financial issues that it's caused, a lot of people have missed rent payments," says Cassidy. "Lots of landlords have unfortunately decided to act without any sort of thought for the wellbeing and health of their tenants, and have essentially evicted them or given them a section 21 notice because of these rent arrears."
One such case is an elderly self-employed handyman who can't work during the pandemic and has faced delays to his benefits, leaving him £150 in arrears on his rent.
It's a relatively small amount – but it's proved enough to trigger a section 21 notice.
"Instead of the landlord being sympathetic or reasonable, he's just said, 'no, we're not even going to talk about this, you've got three months to get out'," says Cassidy.
What makes this even worse is that he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a lung condition that makes it hard to breathe and places him firmly on the 'shielding' list of people at heightened risk from coronavirus.
"Obviously if he is now evicted, he's at massive risk," Cassidy explains. "There's absolutely no way he can go about his normal business looking for a new place. The lockdown might be over but the virus is very much still out there and I think any suggestion that life is back to normal for people who are very susceptible to coronavirus is just nonsense."
And evictions have a sting in the tail that increase the risk of enduring homelessness.
"If people are evicted with rent arrears under section 21, the landlord can then take whatever they can off those arrears from their deposit," says Portia Msimang of Renters' Rights London. "So people are left with no deposit with which to get another property. And this is how people fall into homelessness."
It's raining rents
Short of eviction notices, rising rent arrears are a looming crisis. With the economy likely to be hamstrung for months to come, many tenants will be financially squeezed while landlords come knocking for missed rent – one of the biggest sticks of dynamite in a bulging debt timebomb also comprising utility bills, loans and council tax.
"The biggest problem we've faced is people saying that they're worried about getting behind on the rent. And those that are getting behind on the rent aren't getting the help they need from landlords," says Caitlin Wilkinson of Generation Rent.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculates there were 11 percent fewer rental payments in April and May than a year before. Both the debt advice service StepChange and the Resolution Foundation think tank have estimated that just under 600,000 tenants in the private rented sector are in arrears, while Generation Rent says arrears have trebled.
The government has boosted Universal Credit, reversing years of cuts – but still not enough to cover average rents in a local area.
It has also advised tenants to negotiate rent reductions with their landlords – a laughable prospect for many tenants. Acorn branches report occasional successes, but for the most part landlords hold the whip hand in Britain's housing crisis and don't want to know. The IFS has found only one or two percent of tenants have received a rent holiday.
Biting back
What makes the situation particularly egregious is that the Tories promised to abolish section 21 evictions in their 2019 manifesto. Yet nothing has happened.
A statement from the ministry for housing in response to this article did not specifically mention a ban on section 21: "We are committed to bringing forward legislation to enhance renters' security as part of the largest changes to renting in 30 years.
"We are working with the judiciary to ensure when evictions proceedings start again, arrangements, including rules, are in place to give appropriate protections for those who have been particularly affected by coronavirus.”
Most organisations campaigning for renters' rights agree on the need to increase Universal Credit to cover average rents, and scrap section 21.
The issue of arrears is more contentious. Forcing landlords to waive rents and cancel arrears may contravene the Human Rights Act – one reason Labour dropped this approach under Keir Starmer, sparking anger from campaigners who fear Labour's new policy would leave tenants with unpayable debts.
Generation Rent's solution is to effectively extend the government furlough scheme to landlords, covering 80 percent of their monthly income up to £2,500 a month per tenant – with councils able to restrict the payment on the basis of need.
Then there are rent strikes. Heather, in Haringey, lost her work income during lockdown. After her landlady refused her request for a rent reduction, and with benefits not covering the shortfall, she got involved with the London Renters Union and simply stopped paying. She hasn't heard from her landlady for two months.
"For me it's not just a means thing," Heather says. "It started out like that, but now it feels much more like part of a movement against landlords, against this culture of people accruing lots of wealth by not actually paying anything into the system."
And this is a feature of Britain's economic response to coronavirus. Employers have taken a hit. Workers and tenants have taken a hit. But landlords, the part of the economy that produces the least value, have had the most protection of all.
The names of tenants have been changed in this article.
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--2020-07-07--'Despair' the greatest obstacle to a Biden presidency

Last month , a Politico reporter attended a brunch for around 40 affluent black professionals in the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe Woods and spent six hours talking about the presidential election .
Every single person there expected Donald Trump to win in November because Republicans would turn out and Democrats wouldn ’ t , even though all of them personally planned to show up for Joe Biden .
“ I ’ m going to vote , ” said one woman .
“ But Trump ’ s getting back in office either way.
” On 24 June , a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times Upshot poll gave Biden an extraordinary 14-point lead over Donald Trump , with gains in every demographic , turning red states purple and purple states blue while endangering the Republicans ’ Senate majority .
There hasn ’ t been a summer polling margin this wide since 1996 , when Bill Clinton eventually thumped Bob Dole by carrying 31 states , and no candidate has hit 50 % since Ronald Reagan in 1984 , prior to his 49-state demolition of Walter Mondale .
In the latest credible polls , Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper , this seems obvious .
Biden is facing a weak and erratic President who has bungled his response to both coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter protests , lost the strong economy that he inherited from Barack Obama , and never seen his approval rating exceed 50 % , even during the initial rally-around-the-flag phase of the pandemic that favoured incumbents around the world .
So why do so many people find it so hard to accept that Trump is exceedingly likely to lose ?
Well , for the same reason that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ overwhelmingly likely to ” .
Britain has just marked the fourth anniversary of the EU referendum , which saw nationalist populism drive a horse and cart through liberal orthodoxies .
Trump ’ s much more shocking victory in November completed 2016 ’ s double whammy and the liberal left has not yet recovered from that compound trauma .
By trampling long-held assumptions about political behaviour into the dirt , it created a terrible new form of received wisdom : What ’ s the worst that can happen ?
Bet on that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict that Trump will either win or refuse to accept defeat , offering no evidence except their pessimism .
Writing in the New Statesman recently , Andrew Marr warned against “ the ‘ now-next illusion ’ — the trap of thinking that today ’ s vivid headlines are a good guide to the near future ” .
Criticising the American intellectual James Burnham 74 years earlier , George Orwell noted the same tendency among political “ prophets ” who believed that whatever was happening at the time of writing would continue to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trend [ towards oligarchy ] and assumes that it is irresistible , rather as a rabbit fascinated by a boa constrictor might assume that a boa constrictor is the strongest thing in the world.
” Since 2016 , right-wing populism has been our boa constrictor and its face is that of Donald Trump .
This strong bias towards pessimism has survived even the Democrats ’ impressive gains in the 2018 midterms , when the Trump playbook demonstrably failed .
For Britons , watching the campaign in the aftermath of a Tory landslide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is even harder to think positive .
Psychologically , we are still fighting the last war .
Let us look at the evidence .
Trump is exactly the President that his fiercest critics said he would be : unstable , incurious , petty , vindictive , paranoid , ignorant and inept .
Whenever a major test has come along , he has flunked it .
While his base remains fanatically loyal ( though apparently incapable of filling an arena in Oklahoma ) , this historically unpopular president has shown no ability to expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition , because he is utterly incapable of not doing the things that alienate people .
Millions of Americans hate him like they have never hated anyone before , while many of the voters who took a punt on him despite their reservations , because they hated Hillary Clinton , or hoped that he would rise to the occasion , are tired of him turning the country into 24/7 rolling chaos .
They know what another four years of Trump would look like .
One plank of his campaign , the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , racial grievance wrapped in the tissue paper of law and order , has proved limited in the face of Black Lives Matter ’ s popularity .
Lest we forget , even though it feels like several years ago , he is one of only four presidents ever to be impeached .
His opponent , meanwhile , is perennially underrated .
As Bernie Sanders discovered , Biden ’ s hold on key demographics , notably older black voters , is ultimately undiminished by his low-key campaigning style and occasional blunders .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favourite to underdog to comeback kid .
If Biden does not generate great excitement , then nor does he inspire intense hatred , as Hillary Clinton did .
He made few enemies as Barack Obama ’ s genial vice president ; Sanders himself is personally fond of the man .
Neither his son Hunter ’ s business dealings in Ukraine , nor former staffer Tara Reade ’ s sexual harassment allegations , have damaged him .
Claims that Biden is suffering from cognitive decline ( as opposed to continuing a tradition of gaffes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backfired in his final debate with Sanders by setting the bar too low .
The more people say that he is sleepy and doddery ( a risky line of attack for the increasingly incoherent Trump ) , the less he has to do to appear impressive .
His responses to Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter have struck the right tone of compassion and competence at a time when the White House offers neither .
Now , only a fool would say that it ’ s impossible for Trump to win .
Perhaps Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Michael Dukakis in ’ 88 , whose substantial lead in early summer evaporated by the autumn .
The polls will inevitably narrow .
Perhaps he will make a truly disastrous mistake , or fall foul of a scandal that we can not foresee .
Perhaps disillusioned members of the Democratic base will be unpersuaded that the difference between Biden and Trump is substantial enough to get them to the polling booth .
Beyond the standard electoral potholes , there are valid concerns about Trump using voter suppression , mass disinformation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the wire , legal challenges in order to remain in office , although it is worth reassuring anxious friends that constitutionally he can not simply cancel the election , nor refuse to step down if he is defeated .
He may have the instincts of a tyrant but not the power .
Complacency duly guarded against , the smart money is on Trump losing in November , but this is where the trauma of 2016 raises its head .
The polls weren ’ t wrong : it really was extremely unlikely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really did win the popular vote , and yet 77,774 votes in the right districts of the right three states gave Trump the presidency .
But just because an improbable thing has happened once , it doesn ’ t mean that an even more improbable thing will happen next time .
Remember everything that had to go wrong for a much more divisive Democratic candidate , with a narrower lead and a more hostile media , to lose in 2016 .
If populism ’ s opponents used to be far too complacent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prone to seeing a flailing mess of a political project as an unstoppable force .
Fear should inspire Trump ’ s opponents to vote , campaign and fundraise with electric urgency but despair will not .
Despair is the greatest obstacle that Biden needs to overcome .
There are countless reasons to want Biden to decisively rout Trump in November .
The one that matters whether or not you live in the US is the opportunity to finally provide catharsis for the trauma of 2016 .
It wouldn ’ t instantly heal America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t even know what kind of president Biden would be , except a better one .
Still , a result that proved that anger , resentment and race-baiting aren ’ t enough , that flagrant lying can only go so far , that populism is not unbeatable , that the laws of political gravity haven ’ t been permanently suspended , would go a long way to rescuing us all from the nightmare land of anything-can-happen in which we have been living for the past four years .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orwell ’ s rabbit , hypnotised by the boa constrictor .
If nothing else , a Trump defeat would break the spell .
Dorian Lynskey writes about politics and culture for titles including the Guardian , Observer , GQ and New Statesman .
He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute : A History of Protest Songs and The Ministry of Truth : A Biography of George Orwell 's 1984 .
He co-hosts the Remainiacs and Bunker podcasts .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Dorian Lynskey
Last month, a Politico reporter attended a brunch for around 40 affluent black professionals in the Detroit suburb of Grosse Pointe Woods and spent six hours talking about the presidential election. Every single person there expected Donald Trump to win in November because Republicans would turn out and Democrats wouldn’t, even though all of them personally planned to show up for Joe Biden. “I’m going to vote,” said one woman. “But Trump’s getting back in office either way.”
On 24 June, a few days after the brunch, a New York Times Upshot poll gave Biden an extraordinary 14-point lead over Donald Trump, with gains in every demographic, turning red states purple and purple states blue while endangering the Republicans’ Senate majority. There hasn’t been a summer polling margin this wide since 1996, when Bill Clinton eventually thumped Bob Dole by carrying 31 states, and no candidate has hit 50% since Ronald Reagan in 1984, prior to his 49-state demolition of Walter Mondale. In the latest credible polls, Biden’s lead ranges from 5-17 points.
On paper, this seems obvious. Biden is facing a weak and erratic President who has bungled his response to both coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter protests, lost the strong economy that he inherited from Barack Obama, and never seen his approval rating exceed 50%, even during the initial rally-around-the-flag phase of the pandemic that favoured incumbents around the world. So why do so many people find it so hard to accept that Trump is exceedingly likely to lose?
Well, for the same reason that I just replaced “will” with “overwhelmingly likely to”. Britain has just marked the fourth anniversary of the EU referendum, which saw nationalist populism drive a horse and cart through liberal orthodoxies. Trump’s much more shocking victory in November completed 2016’s double whammy and the liberal left has not yet recovered from that compound trauma. By trampling long-held assumptions about political behaviour into the dirt, it created a terrible new form of received wisdom: What’s the worst that can happen? Bet on that. I’ve seen numerous friends confidently predict that Trump will either win or refuse to accept defeat, offering no evidence except their pessimism.
Writing in the New Statesman recently, Andrew Marr warned against “the ‘now-next illusion’ — the trap of thinking that today’s vivid headlines are a good guide to the near future”. Criticising the American intellectual James Burnham 74 years earlier, George Orwell noted the same tendency among political “prophets” who believed that whatever was happening at the time of writing would continue to happen, only moreso: “Burnham sees the trend [towards oligarchy] and assumes that it is irresistible, rather as a rabbit fascinated by a boa constrictor might assume that a boa constrictor is the strongest thing in the world.” Since 2016, right-wing populism has been our boa constrictor and its face is that of Donald Trump. This strong bias towards pessimism has survived even the Democrats’ impressive gains in the 2018 midterms, when the Trump playbook demonstrably failed. For Britons, watching the campaign in the aftermath of a Tory landslide and exit from the EU, it is even harder to think positive. Psychologically, we are still fighting the last war.
Let us look at the evidence. Trump is exactly the President that his fiercest critics said he would be: unstable, incurious, petty, vindictive, paranoid, ignorant and inept. Whenever a major test has come along, he has flunked it. While his base remains fanatically loyal (though apparently incapable of filling an arena in Oklahoma), this historically unpopular president has shown no ability to expand it, nor even retain his winning coalition, because he is utterly incapable of not doing the things that alienate people. Millions of Americans hate him like they have never hated anyone before, while many of the voters who took a punt on him despite their reservations, because they hated Hillary Clinton, or hoped that he would rise to the occasion, are tired of him turning the country into 24/7 rolling chaos. They know what another four years of Trump would look like. One plank of his campaign, the economy, has been snatched away by Covid-19 while another, racial grievance wrapped in the tissue paper of law and order, has proved limited in the face of Black Lives Matter’s popularity. Lest we forget, even though it feels like several years ago, he is one of only four presidents ever to be impeached.
His opponent, meanwhile, is perennially underrated. As Bernie Sanders discovered, Biden’s hold on key demographics, notably older black voters, is ultimately undiminished by his low-key campaigning style and occasional blunders. That’s how he went from clear favourite to underdog to comeback kid. If Biden does not generate great excitement, then nor does he inspire intense hatred, as Hillary Clinton did. He made few enemies as Barack Obama’s genial vice president; Sanders himself is personally fond of the man. Neither his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine, nor former staffer Tara Reade’s sexual harassment allegations, have damaged him. Claims that Biden is suffering from cognitive decline (as opposed to continuing a tradition of gaffes that goes back to the 1980s) backfired in his final debate with Sanders by setting the bar too low. The more people say that he is sleepy and doddery (a risky line of attack for the increasingly incoherent Trump), the less he has to do to appear impressive. His responses to Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter have struck the right tone of compassion and competence at a time when the White House offers neither.
Now, only a fool would say that it’s impossible for Trump to win. Perhaps Biden isn’t Clinton in ’96 but Michael Dukakis in ’88, whose substantial lead in early summer evaporated by the autumn. The polls will inevitably narrow. Perhaps he will make a truly disastrous mistake, or fall foul of a scandal that we cannot foresee. Perhaps disillusioned members of the Democratic base will be unpersuaded that the difference between Biden and Trump is substantial enough to get them to the polling booth. Beyond the standard electoral potholes, there are valid concerns about Trump using voter suppression, mass disinformation, and, if the election result comes down to the wire, legal challenges in order to remain in office, although it is worth reassuring anxious friends that constitutionally he cannot simply cancel the election, nor refuse to step down if he is defeated. He may have the instincts of a tyrant but not the power.
Complacency duly guarded against, the smart money is on Trump losing in November, but this is where the trauma of 2016 raises its head. The polls weren’t wrong: it really was extremely unlikely that he would win, and Hillary Clinton really did win the popular vote, and yet 77,774 votes in the right districts of the right three states gave Trump the presidency. But just because an improbable thing has happened once, it doesn’t mean that an even more improbable thing will happen next time. Remember everything that had to go wrong for a much more divisive Democratic candidate, with a narrower lead and a more hostile media, to lose in 2016. If populism’s opponents used to be far too complacent, then we are now too neurotic – prone to seeing a flailing mess of a political project as an unstoppable force. Fear should inspire Trump’s opponents to vote, campaign and fundraise with electric urgency but despair will not. Despair is the greatest obstacle that Biden needs to overcome.
There are countless reasons to want Biden to decisively rout Trump in November. The one that matters whether or not you live in the US is the opportunity to finally provide catharsis for the trauma of 2016. It wouldn’t instantly heal America or purge the poison of white nationalism. I don’t even know what kind of president Biden would be, except a better one. Still, a result that proved that anger, resentment and race-baiting aren’t enough, that flagrant lying can only go so far, that populism is not unbeatable, that the laws of political gravity haven’t been permanently suspended, would go a long way to rescuing us all from the nightmare land of anything-can-happen in which we have been living for the past four years. We’ve spent too long feeling like Orwell’s rabbit, hypnotised by the boa constrictor. If nothing else, a Trump defeat would break the spell.
Dorian Lynskey writes about politics and culture for titles including the Guardian, Observer, GQ and New Statesman. He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs and The Ministry of Truth: A Biography of George Orwell's 1984. He co-hosts the Remainiacs and Bunker podcasts. 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.