politicscouk--2020-02-07--Week in Review: Control the language, break reality

The most effective way to stop certain thoughts being formed is to simply eradicate the words which constitute them .
That was one of George Orwell 's most original insights in 1984 .
`` How could you have a slogan like 'Freedom is Slavery ' when the concept of freedom has been abolished ? ''
he asked .
`` The whole climate of thought will be different .
In fact , there will be no thought , as we understand it now . ''
Governments all over the world took that to heart over the years which followed .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conceal the objective reality of what they were talking about .
It was particularly pertinent in war .
'Collateral damage ' replaced the death of innocent people .
'Intervention ' replaced invasion .
Even the name of the Ministry of Defence is a euphemism .
It was called the War Office until 1964 .
Boris Johnson is now using the same tactics with Brexit .
This is n't really some terrible new development .
It 's almost charmingly old-fashioned - vintage UK TV Gold post-truth , rather than the scary new varieties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it 's a lie nonetheless , intended to control the way you think , blur reality , and eliminate thoughts which do not conform with No.10 's narrative .
A directive for Foreign Office staff reported by the Guardian this week banned the phrases 'deal ' and 'no-deal ' .
It 's a quite staggering level of nonsense given the UK is currently pursuing a deal , which it either will or will not get .
`` On 31 December 2020 we will either leave the transition period with a Canada-style free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will give us a trading relationship with the EU like Australia 's , '' staff were told .
None of this makes the slightest sense .
The '2019 deal ' was a divorce agreement .
It had nothing to do with the trade deal the government is negotiating now .
Australia does not have a trade deal with the EU , so saying that we will have a trading relationship on that model is equivalent to saying we will have no-deal .
This is simply the latest attempt to rebrand the phrase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage of specifically stating the reality of the situation , so it must be changed into something more palatable .
Back in the day they used 'WTO model ' , a hilariously inept description , given almost all countries are in the WTO , or 'clean break Brexit ' , a phrase which bore no relation to the chaos and mangled horror that sudden no-deal disruption would create .
Now we have the Australia model .
The phrases change , but the nonsense and cynicism remain .
Johnson also appears intent on banning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication .
`` Brexit is completed , '' the directive says .
`` So do not use the term 'Brexit ' save as a historical event that took place on 31 January 2020 . ''
If you read that sentence enough times you start to feel reality slip away from you altogether .
If Brexit is completed , why is the government about to enter Brexit trade talks ?
Would those talks be happening if Britain was not leaving the EU ?
No .
Are those talks the result of Britain leaving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit talks .
It 's embarrassing to even have to specify this .
The Brexit-not-Brexit rebrand is a variant on the oldest of all Brexit lies : the claim this can all be simple , easy and quick .
The reality is it is complex , difficult and long .
The feverish and agonising last four years were just the opening act .
Brexit will go on for years , in negotiations , in implementation and in consequence .
Things which happen ten years from now - public spending decisions , industrial shrinkage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - will be the result of the decisions taken now .
Brexit is a generational project with no function except the satisfaction of unrelated cultural dreams .
It wo n't go away if you rename it .
What will happen - and what the government intends - is that those consequences will be blamed on something else .
That is the purpose of the rebrand .
To disconnect the decision from what it causes .
Because if they do n't , the communities in the Midlands and the North who will be damaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pursuing might just put two and two together .
That 's why the language matters .
It allows people to link an action to its consequences .
It lets them scrutinise power .
It anchors them down in fact , which they can compare to government rhetoric .
The government has made naming things a radical act .
To even say what it is they are doing is to oppose them .
The absurdity of that gives a pretty good indication of how far gone they are .
Ian Dunt is editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The most effective way to stop certain thoughts being formed is to simply eradicate the words which constitute them.
That was one of George Orwell's most original insights in 1984. "How could you have a slogan like 'Freedom is Slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished?" he asked. "The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now."
Governments all over the world took that to heart over the years which followed. They constructed a variety of phrases which served to conceal the objective reality of what they were talking about.
It was particularly pertinent in war. 'Collateral damage' replaced the death of innocent people. 'Intervention' replaced invasion. Even the name of the Ministry of Defence is a euphemism. It was called the War Office until 1964.
Boris Johnson is now using the same tactics with Brexit. This isn't really some terrible new development. It's almost charmingly old-fashioned – vintage UK TV Gold post-truth, rather than the scary new varieties we've been presented with recently. But it's a lie nonetheless, intended to control the way you think, blur reality, and eliminate thoughts which do not conform with No.10's narrative.
A directive for Foreign Office staff reported by the Guardian this week banned the phrases 'deal' and 'no-deal'. It's a quite staggering level of nonsense given the UK is currently pursuing a deal, which it either will or will not get.
"On 31 December 2020 we will either leave the transition period with a Canada-style free trade agreement or the '2019 deal' which will give us a trading relationship with the EU like Australia's," staff were told.
None of this makes the slightest sense. The '2019 deal' was a divorce agreement. It had nothing to do with the trade deal the government is negotiating now. Australia does not have a trade deal with the EU, so saying that we will have a trading relationship on that model is equivalent to saying we will have no-deal.
This is simply the latest attempt to rebrand the phrase 'no-deal'. That phrase has the advantage of specifically stating the reality of the situation, so it must be changed into something more palatable. Back in the day they used 'WTO model', a hilariously inept description, given almost all countries are in the WTO, or 'clean break Brexit', a phrase which bore no relation to the chaos and mangled horror that sudden no-deal disruption would create. Now we have the Australia model. The phrases change, but the nonsense and cynicism remain.
Johnson also appears intent on banning the word 'Brexit' itself from government communication. "Brexit is completed," the directive says. "So do not use the term 'Brexit' save as a historical event that took place on 31 January 2020."
If you read that sentence enough times you start to feel reality slip away from you altogether. If Brexit is completed, why is the government about to enter Brexit trade talks? Would those talks be happening if Britain was not leaving the EU? No. Are those talks the result of Britain leaving the EU? Yes. So they are Brexit talks. It's embarrassing to even have to specify this.
The Brexit-not-Brexit rebrand is a variant on the oldest of all Brexit lies: the claim this can all be simple, easy and quick. The reality is it is complex, difficult and long.
The feverish and agonising last four years were just the opening act. Brexit will go on for years, in negotiations, in implementation and in consequence. Things which happen ten years from now – public spending decisions, industrial shrinkage, movements of peoples, NHS funding – will be the result of the decisions taken now. Brexit is a generational project with no function except the satisfaction of unrelated cultural dreams. It won't go away if you rename it.
What will happen – and what the government intends – is that those consequences will be blamed on something else. That is the purpose of the rebrand. To disconnect the decision from what it causes. Because if they don't, the communities in the Midlands and the North who will be damaged by the hardline non-alignment approach the government is pursuing might just put two and two together.
That's why the language matters. It allows people to link an action to its consequences. It lets them scrutinise power. It anchors them down in fact, which they can compare to government rhetoric.
The government has made naming things a radical act. To even say what it is they are doing is to oppose them. The absurdity of that gives a pretty good indication of how far gone they are.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-10--Schofield coming out revealed a generational gulf in the gay community

Coming out is a statement , an announcement .
It is not a question that requires an answer .
It is not a dialogue .
Social media , however , is a largely negative space - a void needing to be filled .
If you post nothing , you do n't exist .
And so , many have felt compelled to pontificate on Phillip Schofield 's coming out .
`` He should have come out earlier . ''
`` He should have come out differently . ''
`` He should have come out with better words . ''
`` He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Thousands of glib responses along the lines of `` yawn '' , `` who cares '' , `` so what '' , `` why is this a big deal '' , counterweighted by thousands of responses containing homophobic slurs or questioning why he could n't just be 'discreet ' about it , proving that , unfortunately , it still is a big deal .
Most galling of all , some younger members of the LGBTQ+ community engaged in historical revisionism to suggest there 's nothing brave about it , that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closet for so long , or that it 's been easy for many decades .
It has n't .
I do n't know what psychological phenomenon is responsible for the fact that something which is settled reality now , often feels like it has been that way for a very long time .
But , regardless , how something feels does not make it fact .
Berating Schofield for not having come out in past decades because `` it was easy '' is illiterate nonsense .
It 's like me scolding a 90-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blitz .
And age , I 'm afraid , matters .
Having been there matters .
This is not to dismiss or devalue young people 's opinions .
None of us understand something they way people who lived it do .
`` Elton John never pretended to be straight , '' one tweeter mused .
Did n't he ?
I 'm sorry to sound like your gran , but it 's just an immutable temporal fact .
I was around and you were not .
I have been your age , while you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow me to administer a corrective .
Phillip Schofield was six when the Stonewall Riots happened .
He was seven when the first Pride rally took place in London , consisting of roughly 150 people marching .
He was 19 when Dynasty caused an uproar by featuring a character struggling with his sexuality .
He was 20 when Mary Whitehouse took the National Theatre to court over a simulated homosexual act .
He was 21 when Elton John married a woman named Renate Blauer and Simon Hughes , who would later come out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey .
He was 24 when Rock Hudson died , at the peak of the moral panic over HIV/AIDS .
He was 26 when Clause 28 was passed .
He was 27 when furious MPs demanded Eastenders be banned over two men kissing .
He was 28 when the West London murders went largely uninvestigated .
He was in his early 30s when Westminster Council targetted gay bars in Soho and plain-clothes vice cops were entrapping and arresting people in cruising areas .
He was 38 when the Admiral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 when the age of consent was equalised .
He was 41 when `` gay panic '' was finally rejected by the courts as a defence to murder .
And he was 58 when same-sex marriage became legal in all parts of the United Kingdom , less than a month ago .
I know it seems like it has always been easy , but it 's just not true .
It is a disservice to all those who fought a myriad battles before you to minimise their struggle , or to revise it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when this is pointed out .
Also , it is profoundly offensive , since it adds about a decade to my age , damn you .
`` I 'm not young enough to know everything , '' Oscar Wilde once quipped .
The truth is , I get you .
Because I have been your age .
I have been in the unassailable position of being able to judge everyone else 's life choices , at a time when none of my own have yet proved to be shitty .
This , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass on other matters .
I know little of his work or his politics .
A subsection of reproach centres around the fact that he gave a relatively easy interview to Boris Johnson and had a selfie taken with him .
I 'm not sure that an interviewer having their picture taken with the Prime Minister is a blanket endorsement of his politics but if you want to criticise him for it , that 's fine .
There is , however , nothing progressive about using his coming out as a peg on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have much more sympathy with those expressing concern for his wife through this whole episode .
Yet even that often involves hefty speculation : That he knew he was gay and somehow used her .
That their marriage was unhappy .
That she only found out now .
All those things may be true , or none .
What I do n't understand is the alternatives being proposed .
Should he time-travel and not marry her ?
Should he have realised he was gay before he realised he was gay ?
Should he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly practical or utilitarian .
The closet is an ugly place , full of self loathing .
Anyone with the courage to come out makes the world a more positive place .
Condemning them for their past deceit seems unfeeling and unnecessary , since the crux of coming out is an admission that , up until now , one has not been honest .
Most importantly , coming out is a deeply personal act , which is best done on one 's own terms .
I chose to do it by standing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aged 17 , dressed as Evita , singing `` Don ’ t Cry for Me , Argentina '' .
Schofield has chosen to do it , aged 57 , on his own breakfast show , to the nation .
Good on him .
Alex Andreou worked in market regulation before retraining as an actor and writer .
He writes for the Guardian , the New Statesman and others and appears as a regular panelist on the podcasts Remainacs and The Bunker .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Alex Andreou
Coming out is a statement, an announcement. It is not a question that requires an answer. It is not a dialogue.
Social media, however, is a largely negative space – a void needing to be filled. If you post nothing, you don't exist. And so, many have felt compelled to pontificate on Phillip Schofield's coming out.
"He should have come out earlier." "He should have come out differently." "He should have come out with better words." "He shouldn't have come out at all." Thousands of glib responses along the lines of "yawn", "who cares", "so what", "why is this a big deal", counterweighted by thousands of responses containing homophobic slurs or questioning why he couldn't just be 'discreet' about it, proving that, unfortunately, it still is a big deal.
Most galling of all, some younger members of the LGBTQ+ community engaged in historical revisionism to suggest there's nothing brave about it, that he was a coward for staying in the closet for so long, or that it's been easy for many decades. It hasn't.
I don't know what psychological phenomenon is responsible for the fact that something which is settled reality now, often feels like it has been that way for a very long time. But, regardless, how something feels does not make it fact. Berating Schofield for not having come out in past decades because "it was easy" is illiterate nonsense. It's like me scolding a 90-year-old for not having behaved differently during the Blitz.
And age, I'm afraid, matters. Having been there matters. This is not to dismiss or devalue young people's opinions. None of us understand something they way people who lived it do. "Elton John never pretended to be straight," one tweeter mused. Didn't he?
I'm sorry to sound like your gran, but it's just an immutable temporal fact. I was around and you were not. I have been your age, while you have not yet been mine.
So allow me to administer a corrective. Phillip Schofield was six when the Stonewall Riots happened. He was seven when the first Pride rally took place in London, consisting of roughly 150 people marching. He was 19 when Dynasty caused an uproar by featuring a character struggling with his sexuality. He was 20 when Mary Whitehouse took the National Theatre to court over a simulated homosexual act. He was 21 when Elton John married a woman named Renate Blauer and Simon Hughes, who would later come out himself, ran a discgracefully homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey. He was 24 when Rock Hudson died, at the peak of the moral panic over HIV/AIDS. He was 26 when Clause 28 was passed. He was 27 when furious MPs demanded Eastenders be banned over two men kissing. He was 28 when the West London murders went largely uninvestigated. He was in his early 30s when Westminster Council targetted gay bars in Soho and plain-clothes vice cops were entrapping and arresting people in cruising areas. He was 38 when the Admiral Duncan pub was bombed. He was 40 when the age of consent was equalised. He was 41 when "gay panic" was finally rejected by the courts as a defence to murder. And he was 58 when same-sex marriage became legal in all parts of the United Kingdom, less than a month ago.
I know it seems like it has always been easy, but it's just not true. It is a disservice to all those who fought a myriad battles before you to minimise their struggle, or to revise it and respond with "OK boomer" when this is pointed out. Also, it is profoundly offensive, since it adds about a decade to my age, damn you.
"I'm not young enough to know everything," Oscar Wilde once quipped. The truth is, I get you. Because I have been your age. I have been in the unassailable position of being able to judge everyone else's life choices, at a time when none of my own have yet proved to be shitty.
This, by no means, gives Schofield a free pass on other matters. I know little of his work or his politics. A subsection of reproach centres around the fact that he gave a relatively easy interview to Boris Johnson and had a selfie taken with him. I'm not sure that an interviewer having their picture taken with the Prime Minister is a blanket endorsement of his politics but if you want to criticise him for it, that's fine. There is, however, nothing progressive about using his coming out as a peg on which to hang that criticism.
I have much more sympathy with those expressing concern for his wife through this whole episode. Yet even that often involves hefty speculation: That he knew he was gay and somehow used her. That their marriage was unhappy. That she only found out now. All those things may be true, or none.
What I don't understand is the alternatives being proposed. Should he time-travel and not marry her? Should he have realised he was gay before he realised he was gay? Should he continue living a lie? None seem particularly practical or utilitarian.
The closet is an ugly place, full of self loathing. Anyone with the courage to come out makes the world a more positive place. Condemning them for their past deceit seems unfeeling and unnecessary, since the crux of coming out is an admission that, up until now, one has not been honest.
Most importantly, coming out is a deeply personal act, which is best done on one's own terms. I chose to do it by standing on a balcony above a town square, aged 17, dressed as Evita, singing "Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina". Schofield has chosen to do it, aged 57, on his own breakfast show, to the nation. Good on him.
Alex Andreou worked in market regulation before retraining as an actor and writer. He writes for the Guardian, the New Statesman and others and appears as a regular panelist on the podcasts Remainacs and The Bunker. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-11--Nandy is grasping the nettle on the moral need for tax increases

Blink and you might have missed it , but Lisa Nandy recently made the most significant comment of the Labour leadership contest so far .
Speaking to the Evening Standard , she hinted that as Labour leader , she would support tax rises for lower and middle earners in order to fund public services .
Asked if she might raise the basic rate of income tax , she replied : `` I do not believe that you can go to the country and argue for the level of investment in public services that we did at the last election without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money comes from .
And that does mean raising money through tax revenue . ''
It 's not exactly 'no ' .
Were Labour under Nandy to go into an election promising income tax rises for the average voter , it would be one of the biggest political risks taken by a major party in modern times .
Since 1979 , the basic rate of income tax has only ever headed downwards .
Branded as a high tax party by the Tories , Labour came to shy away from hiking income tax .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's 'shadow Budget ' promised to cut taxes for the average person - the 'tax bombshell ' of political folklore would have been restricted to higher earners .
It was no accident that five years later , New Labour pledged not to raise income tax at all .
And when Gordon Brown did increase tax on the lowest earners in 2008 , it caused a political storm that forced a partial U-turn .
In short : tax is toxic for Labour .
This is why Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell went into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise taxes on anyone earning below £80,000 a year , instead focusing big tax rises on the highest earners and even accepting Tory tax cuts for people earning more than twice the national average .
In 2017 the strategy worked , neutralising Tory attack lines while still - just about - funding hefty rises in public spending .
But in 2019 it fell apart .
Labour 's 2017 manifesto had blind spots , particularly around welfare , that the 2019 version tried to address .
But that required even higher spending increases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2017 , voters simply did n't believe it .
The sums seemed fantastical .
The daily promises of new giveaways added to the sense of a party on a pub crawl .
And while Labour 's giant infrastructure spending plans did n't require tax rises , all the sums merged into one gargantuan blob in the eye of the electorate .
This helps explain why Nandy is ready to cross the line even Corbyn dared not touch .
On the one hand , this makes sense .
Labour clearly lacked credibility with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if voters do n't believe your tax promises , they 're not going to believe your flashy spending promises or your ability to manage the economy either .
Squaring with voters , being 'honest and clear ' about the need for everyone to pay a bit more so that everyone can benefit from what it buys , helps address that .
On the other hand , people do n't like paying more tax - and Labour still has room to fall at the next election .
Labour could , of course , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure spending and renationalisation programme did not , at least on the surface , require upfront tax rises - this is marked as 'capital ' spending that generates a return .
The 'revenue ' spending , which needs taxes to fund it , goes on necessities like health , education , social care and benefits .
Labour , from Nandy herself to the membership , would be loath to start dropping those commitments and accept some of the human cost of austerity .
Which is why Nandy wants to make tax more popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , '' she said in a speech last month .
`` Tax is not an evil .
Tax is how we contribute to something bigger , better than ourselves . ''
Honesty may indeed be the best policy towards a public justifiably cynical towards politicians ' spending pledges .
But raising income tax still has its limitations .
The Lib Dems said their 2019 election pledge to increase the basic rate of income tax by one percent would raise an extra £7bn a year for health and social care .
Labour 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public spending a year by 2023/24 -around 12 times as much .
However , what all discussion of manifestos ignore is that spending money in one area can save money in another .
If you spend more on housing benefit , you can spend less on temporary housing for people made homeless by housing benefit cuts .
If you spend more on social housing , you can spend less on housing benefit .
If you spend more on social care , you can spend less on the NHS .
And so on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the electorate about the need to raise their tax , she may as well front up about the reality of public spending - if you spend money now , you can save money later .
Keir Starmer remains the clear frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest and has restricted himself to repeating Corbyn 's pledges to hit the rich on tax .
But that just wo n't wash with the public anymore .
Whoever becomes Labour leader is going to have to grasp the nettle of either making most people pay more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their agenda .
Otherwise , Labour faces electoral disaster once more .
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 .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Chaminda Jayanetti
Blink and you might have missed it, but Lisa Nandy recently made the most significant comment of the Labour leadership contest so far.
Speaking to the Evening Standard, she hinted that as Labour leader, she would support tax rises for lower and middle earners in order to fund public services.
Asked if she might raise the basic rate of income tax, she replied: "I do not believe that you can go to the country and argue for the level of investment in public services that we did at the last election without being honest and clear about where that money comes from. And that does mean raising money through tax revenue."
It's not exactly 'no'.
Were Labour under Nandy to go into an election promising income tax rises for the average voter, it would be one of the biggest political risks taken by a major party in modern times.
Since 1979, the basic rate of income tax has only ever headed downwards. Branded as a high tax party by the Tories, Labour came to shy away from hiking income tax.
Even in the 1992 election, Labour's 'shadow Budget' promised to cut taxes for the average person – the 'tax bombshell' of political folklore would have been restricted to higher earners.
It was no accident that five years later, New Labour pledged not to raise income tax at all. And when Gordon Brown did increase tax on the lowest earners in 2008, it caused a political storm that forced a partial U-turn.
In short: tax is toxic for Labour.
This is why Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell went into the 2017 and 2019 elections pledging not to raise taxes on anyone earning below £80,000 a year, instead focusing big tax rises on the highest earners and even accepting Tory tax cuts for people earning more than twice the national average.
In 2017 the strategy worked, neutralising Tory attack lines while still – just about – funding hefty rises in public spending.
But in 2019 it fell apart. Labour's 2017 manifesto had blind spots, particularly around welfare, that the 2019 version tried to address. But that required even higher spending increases. And while Labour repeated its tax pledge from 2017, voters simply didn't believe it. The sums seemed fantastical. The daily promises of new giveaways added to the sense of a party on a pub crawl. And while Labour's giant infrastructure spending plans didn't require tax rises, all the sums merged into one gargantuan blob in the eye of the electorate.
This helps explain why Nandy is ready to cross the line even Corbyn dared not touch.
On the one hand, this makes sense. Labour clearly lacked credibility with voters in its tax plans – and if voters don't believe your tax promises, they're not going to believe your flashy spending promises or your ability to manage the economy either. Squaring with voters, being 'honest and clear' about the need for everyone to pay a bit more so that everyone can benefit from what it buys, helps address that.
On the other hand, people don't like paying more tax – and Labour still has room to fall at the next election.
Labour could, of course, just cut back its manifesto. But its infrastructure spending and renationalisation programme did not, at least on the surface, require upfront tax rises – this is marked as 'capital' spending that generates a return.
The 'revenue' spending, which needs taxes to fund it, goes on necessities like health, education, social care and benefits. Labour, from Nandy herself to the membership, would be loath to start dropping those commitments and accept some of the human cost of austerity.
Which is why Nandy wants to make tax more popular. "We need to change the debate," she said in a speech last month. "Tax is not an evil. Tax is how we contribute to something bigger, better than ourselves."
Honesty may indeed be the best policy towards a public justifiably cynical towards politicians' spending pledges.
But raising income tax still has its limitations. The Lib Dems said their 2019 election pledge to increase the basic rate of income tax by one percent would raise an extra £7bn a year for health and social care. Labour's 2019 manifesto pledged an extra £83bn of public spending a year by 2023/24 -around 12 times as much.
However, what all discussion of manifestos ignore is that spending money in one area can save money in another. If you spend more on housing benefit, you can spend less on temporary housing for people made homeless by housing benefit cuts. If you spend more on social housing, you can spend less on housing benefit. If you spend more on social care, you can spend less on the NHS. And so on.
If Nandy is going to front up to the electorate about the need to raise their tax, she may as well front up about the reality of public spending – if you spend money now, you can save money later.
Keir Starmer remains the clear frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest and has restricted himself to repeating Corbyn's pledges to hit the rich on tax. But that just won't wash with the public anymore.
Whoever becomes Labour leader is going to have to grasp the nettle of either making most people pay more, or baking aspects of austerity into their agenda. Otherwise, Labour faces electoral disaster once more.
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--2020-02-13--The grip tightens: Javid resignation shows even scrutiny within govt is fading

That was quick .
Seven months since Sajid Javid took the post of chancellor , and before he had even delivered a Budget , he is gone .
Late this morning , he was given an ultimatum by Boris Johnson .
He could stay in post , but only if he sacked all his aides and submitted to Dominic Cummings ' joint team of advisers .
He was being brought under Downing Street control .
Javid , to his credit , said no .
This battle has been going on since the summer .
Back in August , Javid 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissed by Cummings and then escorted from her workplace by police - an unnecessary additional humiliation which spoke volumes about the character of the man who instigated it .
Javid and Cumming also had disagreements over HS2 and how tightly to hold the fiscal leash in the years ahead .
But the items themselves are less important than the power dynamic .
We do n't really know what the tactics were .
Perhaps Cummings and Johnson meant to neuter Javid but thought he would take the offer and stay in his job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave .
It does n't really matter .
Either avenue led to the same destination : the subjugation of the Treasury to No.10 .
Of all the government departments , the Treasury is the one which has real power over prime ministers .
Nigel Lawson 's resignation was a key moment leading to Margaret Thatcher 's downfall .
Gordon Brown operated as an internal resistance movement to Tony Blair .
Philip Hammond stolidly maintained his independence from Theresa May .
But now it is being brought under control .
The attempt to eradicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No.10 now includes those within government .
Cummings has n't won all his battles .
Once upon a time , this reshuffle was going to be the Valentine 's Day Massacre .
Now it is a relatively modest reorganisation with a grenade inadvertently lobbed in the middle .
His attempt to bring the civil service to heel has n't materialised either .
But it is clear that those who wrote him off did so too soon .
Even after losing battles over HS2 and civil service reorganisation , he is still able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more power .
And it is clear from Johnson 's decision to go along with it that he will prioritise Cummings over his Cabinet secretaries .
Those in other departments who looked capable of exercising even a smidgen of independent judgement have also been gotten rid of .
Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith , who managed to help secure the return of power-sharing arrangements last month , was sacked .
Attorney general Geoffrey Cox , who mostly went along with Johnson 's constitutional vandalism last year but at least had the good grace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also jettisoned .
In his place we have Suella Braverman , former chair of the ERG Brexiter hardliners .
Last month she wrote a piece for ConservativeHome insisting that `` we must take back control , not just from the EU , but from the judiciary '' .
Why ?
Well they had stood up to the government .
She cited two occasions in particular .
The first was the Supreme Court decision on giving MPs a vote on triggering Article 50 , thereby ensuring parliament was not sidelined on a generational constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision against Johnson 's illegal prorogation of parliament , thereby ensuring the prime minister could not simply cancel the legislature .
The Supreme Court is clearly in their sights .
So is the Human Rights Act , which provides individuals with protections from the state .
And so is judicial review , the system which allows citizens to take ministers to court .
The judiciary , like the Treasury - and like the media , which is also under assault - are undermined because they can impose restraint on No.10 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the foundational ideas of what constitutes a free society operating under the rule of law .
It is now under attack .
This is a domestic Brexit : the dismantling of institutions in favour of executive power .
It may not have gone as far as Cummings wanted it to .
But today edged things in his direction .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

That was quick. Seven months since Sajid Javid took the post of chancellor, and before he had even delivered a Budget, he is gone.
Late this morning, he was given an ultimatum by Boris Johnson. He could stay in post, but only if he sacked all his aides and submitted to Dominic Cummings' joint team of advisers. He was being brought under Downing Street control. Javid, to his credit, said no.
This battle has been going on since the summer. Back in August, Javid's advisor, Sonia Khan, was brutally dismissed by Cummings and then escorted from her workplace by police – an unnecessary additional humiliation which spoke volumes about the character of the man who instigated it.
Javid and Cumming also had disagreements over HS2 and how tightly to hold the fiscal leash in the years ahead. But the items themselves are less important than the power dynamic.
We don't really know what the tactics were. Perhaps Cummings and Johnson meant to neuter Javid but thought he would take the offer and stay in his job. Perhaps they knew he was likely to leave. It doesn't really matter. Either avenue led to the same destination: the subjugation of the Treasury to No.10.
Of all the government departments, the Treasury is the one which has real power over prime ministers. Nigel Lawson's resignation was a key moment leading to Margaret Thatcher's downfall. Gordon Brown operated as an internal resistance movement to Tony Blair. Philip Hammond stolidly maintained his independence from Theresa May.
But now it is being brought under control. The attempt to eradicate potential sources of scrutiny or opposition to No.10 now includes those within government.
Cummings hasn't won all his battles. Once upon a time, this reshuffle was going to be the Valentine's Day Massacre. Now it is a relatively modest reorganisation with a grenade inadvertently lobbed in the middle. His attempt to bring the civil service to heel hasn't materialised either.
But it is clear that those who wrote him off did so too soon. Even after losing battles over HS2 and civil service reorganisation, he is still able to orchestrate major upheavals in order to secure more power. And it is clear from Johnson's decision to go along with it that he will prioritise Cummings over his Cabinet secretaries.
Those in other departments who looked capable of exercising even a smidgen of independent judgement have also been gotten rid of. Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith, who managed to help secure the return of power-sharing arrangements last month, was sacked. Attorney general Geoffrey Cox, who mostly went along with Johnson's constitutional vandalism last year but at least had the good grace to seem mournful about it, was also jettisoned.
In his place we have Suella Braverman, former chair of the ERG Brexiter hardliners. Last month she wrote a piece for ConservativeHome insisting that "we must take back control, not just from the EU, but from the judiciary".
Why? Well they had stood up to the government. She cited two occasions in particular. The first was the Supreme Court decision on giving MPs a vote on triggering Article 50, thereby ensuring parliament was not sidelined on a generational constitutional change. And the second was the Supreme Court decision against Johnson's illegal prorogation of parliament, thereby ensuring the prime minister could not simply cancel the legislature.
The Supreme Court is clearly in their sights. So is the Human Rights Act, which provides individuals with protections from the state. And so is judicial review, the system which allows citizens to take ministers to court.
The judiciary, like the Treasury – and like the media, which is also under assault – are undermined because they can impose restraint on No.10. That, of course, is one of the foundational ideas of what constitutes a free society operating under the rule of law. It is now under attack. This is a domestic Brexit: the dismantling of institutions in favour of executive power.
It may not have gone as far as Cummings wanted it to. But today edged things in his direction.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-14--Week in Review: Johnson sets up his future failure

This morning , Boris Johnson sat down with his new Cabinet of drone workers .
Those with trace elements of independence have been sacked .
Julian Smith , who dared to say no-deal would be a disaster , is gone .
Geoffrey Cox , who maintained a last sliver of constitutional responsibility , went with him .
Sajid Javid , who would not allow his department to become subjugated to No.10 , resigned .
They 've been replaced by yes-men , sycophants and tribal loyalists .
Subservience is prioritised over competence .
People in power often assume this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they typically show a little more restraint about it .
Power wants more power .
If feels efficient , to be able to control what happens .
But in actual fact it 's the opposite .
Policy-making requires dissent at the point of formulation .
It needs people who disagree , or who maintain independence of mind , to hammer an idea , to raise alternatives and cite objections .
This does n't weaken policy .
It improves it .
It tests the ideas in it .
It explores where they fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better by being untested .
But policy-making needs open-mindedness on the back end too , at the point of implementation .
The philosopher of science Karl Popper was one of the first people to properly articulate why .
It 's because of the law of unintended consequences .
Even when what you are planning to do is admirable , it can often lead to undesired or counter-productive outcomes .
His example was a housing market in a small village .
The person trying to sell their house inadvertently lowers the price of houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they have increased supply .
The person trying to buy inadvertently raises the price simply by shopping for it , because they have increased demand .
Neither intends to go against their own interests , but both do , because of the law of unintended consequences .
Life is full of these examples .
It 's one of the hardest things to emotionally accept , as a human - how chaotic and unpredictable and surprisingly self-defeating our activity is .
This is why so many people , including many in the present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's much easier to blame a sinister plot against you than it is to emotionally accept the fundamental chaos of the world and your own accidental part in it .
This is why allowing dissent is more efficient than ideological and organisational dominance .
Dissent means you test ideas and find their flaws before you implement them .
Dissent means you are more likely to discover the unintended consequences of them after you implement them and can change them accordingly .
It is what makes things work - really work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world of political PR and mock-machismo .
It 's how you change things .
So that new-look Cabinet today is not a show of strength .
It is a show of crippling insecurity , of two men - Johnson and Dominic Cummings - who are too thin-skinned to understand that their purpose would be enhanced by having independent thinkers around them .
It is not a sign of victory either .
Quite the opposite .
Their plans will soon become a shambles .
They will not have been tested in formulation or improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by people who lack in competence what they made up for in loyalty .
They 'll fall apart , in a million predictable and unpredictable ways .
The cause of that shambles will lie here , at the Cabinet table , and the petrified , trembling minds which selected the people who sat around it .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the website or its owners .

This morning, Boris Johnson sat down with his new Cabinet of drone workers. Those with trace elements of independence have been sacked. Julian Smith, who dared to say no-deal would be a disaster, is gone. Geoffrey Cox, who maintained a last sliver of constitutional responsibility, went with him. Sajid Javid, who would not allow his department to become subjugated to No.10, resigned. They've been replaced by yes-men, sycophants and tribal loyalists. Subservience is prioritised over competence.
People in power often assume this is the right way to go, even if they typically show a little more restraint about it. Power wants more power. If feels efficient, to be able to control what happens. But in actual fact it's the opposite.
Policy-making requires dissent at the point of formulation. It needs people who disagree, or who maintain independence of mind, to hammer an idea, to raise alternatives and cite objections. This doesn't weaken policy. It improves it. It tests the ideas in it. It explores where they fail to hold. Nothing in this world performs better by being untested.
But policy-making needs open-mindedness on the back end too, at the point of implementation. The philosopher of science Karl Popper was one of the first people to properly articulate why. It's because of the law of unintended consequences. Even when what you are planning to do is admirable, it can often lead to undesired or counter-productive outcomes.
His example was a housing market in a small village. The person trying to sell their house inadvertently lowers the price of houses simply by putting it on sale, because they have increased supply. The person trying to buy inadvertently raises the price simply by shopping for it, because they have increased demand. Neither intends to go against their own interests, but both do, because of the law of unintended consequences.
Life is full of these examples. It's one of the hardest things to emotionally accept, as a human – how chaotic and unpredictable and surprisingly self-defeating our activity is. This is why so many people, including many in the present government, get lost in conspiracy theories. It's much easier to blame a sinister plot against you than it is to emotionally accept the fundamental chaos of the world and your own accidental part in it.
This is why allowing dissent is more efficient than ideological and organisational dominance. Dissent means you test ideas and find their flaws before you implement them. Dissent means you are more likely to discover the unintended consequences of them after you implement them and can change them accordingly. It is what makes things work – really work, in the objective world, not the world of political PR and mock-machismo. It's how you change things.
So that new-look Cabinet today is not a show of strength. It is a show of crippling insecurity, of two men – Johnson and Dominic Cummings – who are too thin-skinned to understand that their purpose would be enhanced by having independent thinkers around them.
It is not a sign of victory either. Quite the opposite. Their plans will soon become a shambles. They will not have been tested in formulation or improved in implementation. They will be managed by people who lack in competence what they made up for in loyalty. They'll fall apart, in a million predictable and unpredictable ways.
The cause of that shambles will lie here, at the Cabinet table, and the petrified, trembling minds which selected the people who sat around it.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-17--European citizens warn of post-Brexit discrimination

They said `` nothing would change '' for EU citizens in the UK , that concerns were Project Fear and we were valued members of British society whose rights and livelihoods would be protected .
But Europeans are already feeling the brunt of a flawed system and widespread public misinformation .
European citizens throughout Britain , alongside other immigrants and ethnic minorities , have been faced with numerous hate crimes and attacks since the referendum .
`` Polish go home '' graffiti has been sprayed on walls .
Seventy-seven per cent of eastern European school pupils have reported xenophobic bullying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routinely being insulted and harassed .
'Happy Brexit Day ' signs posted on doors in a Norwich residential tower block told people to speak `` the Queens [ sic ] English '' and to either `` obey the rule of the majority or leave '' .
Racially-motivated hate crimes in England and Wales have more than doubled in recent years , going from 35,944 in 2011/12 to 78,991 in 2018/19 , with a particular spike following the Brexit referendum .
In a Europe Street News survey from last September , 56 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against as a result of their nationality , with the number increasing to 60 % among UK-based Poles .
And now there 's a new form of discrimination emerging - not of abuse , but in formal issues linked to employment and service provision around settled status .
The problem is simple .
The Conservative 's Hostile Environment programme imposes various checks for immigration status on those in work or carrying out various other activities , like renting property .
But European citizens have been refused a physical document proving their rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ database .
A recent report from Dr Tanja Bueltmann , a professor at Northumbria University , has revealed that nearly 90 % of the EU citizens surveyed are `` not happy with their digital status and fear being discriminated at work , at the border or trying to rent a property '' .
Some 10.9 % have already revealed that details of their status have been requested by councils , landlords and banks , despite such evidence not being needed prior to 2021 .
One individual employed by the public sector was refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his `` future [ being ] uncertain in the UK '' .
Even worse , seven per cent of those answering the survey did not know they had to apply for settled status at all .
In Limbo , a non-profit project collecting testimonies of EU citizens in the UK and Brits in EU member states , has recorded some particularly worrying incidents .
Emma ( not her real name ) , an Austrian national living in Britain , reported how the uncertain political climate directly resulted in her losing a job offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] he feedback received could not have been more glowing , '' she wrote in the group .
`` However , I received a call yesterday confirming the positive feedback but , in a nutshell , telling me they will take two British candidates forward .
I quote : 'It 's too risky ' . ''
Diana , a Spaniard , noted instead how an employer rejected her merely on account of her foreign-sounding name .
`` Let 's not waste time , '' they said .
`` We are looking for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association said , the government should be providing European citizens with physical proof of status .
Johnson has made bold promises to EU nationals and it 's time he lives up to them .
A problematic application system and public misinformation about it is already leading to real problems .
Unless the matter is handled urgency , the UK will have a full-blown crisis on its hands .
Andrea Carlo is an Italian-born British writer and journalist .
His work has been published by HuffPost UK , The Times , The Independent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Andrea Carlo
They said "nothing would change" for EU citizens in the UK, that concerns were Project Fear and we were valued members of British society whose rights and livelihoods would be protected. But Europeans are already feeling the brunt of a flawed system and widespread public misinformation.
European citizens throughout Britain, alongside other immigrants and ethnic minorities, have been faced with numerous hate crimes and attacks since the referendum. "Polish go home" graffiti has been sprayed on walls. Seventy-seven per cent of eastern European school pupils have reported xenophobic bullying. Immigrants from all over Europe are routinely being insulted and harassed. 'Happy Brexit Day' signs posted on doors in a Norwich residential tower block told people to speak "the Queens [sic] English" and to either "obey the rule of the majority or leave".
Racially-motivated hate crimes in England and Wales have more than doubled in recent years, going from 35,944 in 2011/12 to 78,991 in 2018/19, with a particular spike following the Brexit referendum. In a Europe Street News survey from last September, 56% of the EU citizens polled reported feeling discriminated against as a result of their nationality, with the number increasing to 60% among UK-based Poles.
And now there's a new form of discrimination emerging – not of abuse, but in formal issues linked to employment and service provision around settled status.
The problem is simple. The Conservative's Hostile Environment programme imposes various checks for immigration status on those in work or carrying out various other activities, like renting property. But European citizens have been refused a physical document proving their rights and instead have to rely on a digital database.
A recent report from Dr Tanja Bueltmann, a professor at Northumbria University, has revealed that nearly 90% of the EU citizens surveyed are "not happy with their digital status and fear being discriminated against at work, at the border or trying to rent a property". Some 10.9% have already revealed that details of their status have been requested by councils, landlords and banks, despite such evidence not being needed prior to 2021. One individual employed by the public sector was refused a permanent contract as a result of his "future [being] uncertain in the UK". Even worse, seven per cent of those answering the survey did not know they had to apply for settled status at all.
In Limbo, a non-profit project collecting testimonies of EU citizens in the UK and Brits in EU member states, has recorded some particularly worrying incidents. Emma (not her real name), an Austrian national living in Britain, reported how the uncertain political climate directly resulted in her losing a job offer. "I had applied… [t]he feedback received could not have been more glowing," she wrote in the group. "However, I received a call yesterday confirming the positive feedback but, in a nutshell, telling me they will take two British candidates forward. I quote: 'It's too risky'."
Diana, a Spaniard, noted instead how an employer rejected her merely on account of her foreign-sounding name. "Let's not waste time," they said. "We are looking for a British-born."
As the Residential Landlords Association said, the government should be providing European citizens with physical proof of status. Johnson has made bold promises to EU nationals and it's time he lives up to them. A problematic application system and public misinformation about it is already leading to real problems. Unless the matter is handled urgently, the UK will have a full-blown crisis on its hands.
Andrea Carlo is an Italian-born British writer and journalist. His work has been published by HuffPost UK, The Times, The Independent, and Metro.co.uk. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-19--The end of free movement: This is a nation dismantling itself over nonsense

So after four years , we finally get sight of it .
The great points-based system , designed to replace free movement .
No-one coming in under £25,600 , unless there 's a special shortage .
No-one without good English .
No-one who 's self-employed .
No-one without a job offer , unless they 're very highly skilled .
No more bright young people , arriving in London with dreams of making it and seeing what they can do .
No more musicians getting their big break and heading out the next morning .
No more care workers looking after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Poland , out in all weather , getting the job done .
No more freedom .
Just the relentless , black-and-white , ham-fisted drudgery of bureaucratic requirements .
This is what it 's all been about , ultimately .
We forget now .
They barely bother mentioning it .
But free movement was everything in the referendum .
This was why the Brexit campaign skyrocketed .
It is why it won .
It 's why we 're leaving the EU .
It 's why we 're leaving the single market .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
It 's why we 're detonating our trading networks .
It 's why we 've rubbished our international reputation .
All so we could do this .
What is happening today is the single accomplishment of the Brexit era .
And it 's a disaster .
No matter which sector you talk to - from video games to abattoirs , broadcasters to supermarket delivery , financial services to care - they all say the same thing : We need access to people .
It 's nearly always the second thing industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There 's typically one item which is their main regulatory problem .
And then immigration is number two .
For pretty much everyone .
But those views do n't matter anymore .
They are the people who understand their sector , so they are considered experts and can be safely dismissed in favour of the great galaxy brains in Downing Street .
The anti-immigrant lobby insists this is because British employers have become hooked on cheap labour as a way to avoid investing in Brits .
They 've never been able to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple of reports which suggest a very small impact on the bottom ten per cent of workers in certain sectors .
One showed a 1.88 % reduction in pay rises over ten years for those in the sectors with a ten percentage point increase in migrant labour , for instance .
But even in these rare cases , the impact of migration pay reduction is vastly overshadowed by the impact of the financial crash .
Immigration was not the cause of low wages .
The 2008 recession was .
Immigrants were just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies show negligible or zero wage decline , at any level , in any region .
Immigrants do n't just take jobs - they create them , boosting demand and pushing firms towards taking on more workers .
Immigrant workers are often more entrepreneurial , more likely to increase productivity , more likely to start up a business , more likely to contribute to innovation and boost long-run UK competitiveness , more likely to open up new customer bases or overseas trade links for a company .
European immigrants are disproportionately young and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them have some form of higher education and only 15 % left school at 16 .
Britain gains from that two times over .
It does n't pay for the education , but it does gain from tax money they pay as workers .
EU immigrants are net contributors to the public finances , unlike British citizens who are not .
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the lower the immigration level , the higher the national debt will be .
The higher immigration is , the lower the debt becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fewer immigrants means worse public services and more austerity .
The government , not satisfied with slicing up our trading networks , is now breaking up the internal economic performance of the UK .
And all this with no plan whatsoever for how it is going to improve things - no plans for improving productivity , no plans for retraining , no plans for communities outside of the south-east and London except for a railway line in a few decades ' times which half the government anyway does n't want to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 % of Europeans who arrived since 2004 would be ineligible under this system .
That 's what the Home Office is aiming for .
A 70 % reduction in Europeans coming to Britain .
And let 's not pretend they 're so keen to replace that flow with people elsewhere .
All that talk of how Boris Johnson would be a secretly liberal prime is abject nonsense .
The plan is consciously and explicitly to reduce immigration .
To make this country more 'British ' , whatever the hell that means .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jobs they refused to do before .
The entire country is being reformatted to make Nigel Frage more comfortable about hearing foreign languages on a train .
What we are losing is about so much more than money .
It is about being open .
It is about being a place that is confident enough to take in new arrivals .
Being a place new arrivals might wish to come to .
We 've lost that confidence .
We 've lost the sense that difference is beautiful , both for what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we 're replacing it with nationalism .
That 's what it is .
Do n't beat around the bush , or pretend it 's anything other than it is .
It is nationalism .
The grimey pit representing all that 's worst in political thought , the worship of uniformity , the desire to replace warm welcomes with borders and inspections .
We imagine we are restricting others , but in reality we are imprisoning ourselves .
And not just because we are sabotaging our own economy .
We are losing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of humankind : the freedom to move .
The freedom to decide that we will live somewhere else , without any bureaucrat or state official to get in our way .
The freedom of the individual in space - one of the greatest accomplishments of the European project - is now barred for those of us on this island .
The loss is beyond comprehension .
It is the loss of our future , the loss of our rights , and the loss of the highest aspirations of human self-development .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which does not exist with a solution which will make us poorer .
It is a bitterly stupid and small-hearted thing to do .
And we have done it to ourselves .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

So after four years, we finally get sight of it. The great points-based system, designed to replace free movement. No-one coming in under £25,600, unless there's a special shortage. No-one without good English. No-one who's self-employed. No-one without a job offer, unless they're very highly skilled.
No more bright young people, arriving in London with dreams of making it and seeing what they can do. No more musicians getting their big break and heading out the next morning. No more care workers looking after ageing Brits. No more construction workers from Poland, out in all weather, getting the job done. No more freedom. Just the relentless, black-and-white, ham-fisted drudgery of bureaucratic requirements.
This is what it's all been about, ultimately. We forget now. They barely bother mentioning it. But free movement was everything in the referendum. This was why the Brexit campaign skyrocketed. It is why it won. It's why we're leaving the EU. It's why we're leaving the single market. It's why we divided the country against itself. It's why we're detonating our trading networks. It's why we've rubbished our international reputation. All so we could do this. What is happening today is the single accomplishment of the Brexit era.
And it's a disaster. No matter which sector you talk to – from video games to abattoirs, broadcasters to supermarket delivery, financial services to care – they all say the same thing: We need access to people.
It's nearly always the second thing industry bodies say in connection with Brexit. There's typically one item which is their main regulatory problem. And then immigration is number two. For pretty much everyone. But those views don't matter anymore. They are the people who understand their sector, so they are considered experts and can be safely dismissed in favour of the great galaxy brains in Downing Street.
The anti-immigrant lobby insists this is because British employers have become hooked on cheap labour as a way to avoid investing in Brits.
They've never been able to provide decent evidence for this. There's a couple of reports which suggest a very small impact on the bottom ten per cent of workers in certain sectors. One showed a 1.88% reduction in pay rises over ten years for those in the sectors with a ten percentage point increase in migrant labour, for instance. But even in these rare cases, the impact of migration pay reduction is vastly overshadowed by the impact of the financial crash. Immigration was not the cause of low wages. The 2008 recession was. Immigrants were just a useful group to blame.
Most studies show negligible or zero wage decline, at any level, in any region. Immigrants don't just take jobs – they create them, boosting demand and pushing firms towards taking on more workers. Immigrant workers are often more entrepreneurial, more likely to increase productivity, more likely to start up a business, more likely to contribute to innovation and boost long-run UK competitiveness, more likely to open up new customer bases or overseas trade links for a company.
European immigrants are disproportionately young and highly educated. Almost twice as many of them have some form of higher education and only 15% left school at 16. Britain gains from that two times over. It doesn't pay for the education, but it does gain from tax money they pay as workers. EU immigrants are net contributors to the public finances, unlike British citizens who are not. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the lower the immigration level, the higher the national debt will be. The higher immigration is, the lower the debt becomes.
It's as simple as that. Fewer immigrants means worse public services and more austerity. The government, not satisfied with slicing up our trading networks, is now breaking up the internal economic performance of the UK. And all this with no plan whatsoever for how it is going to improve things – no plans for improving productivity, no plans for retraining, no plans for communities outside of the south-east and London except for a railway line in a few decades' times which half the government anyway doesn't want to build.
The Migration Advisory Committee estimates that 70% of Europeans who arrived since 2004 would be ineligible under this system. That's what the Home Office is aiming for. A 70% reduction in Europeans coming to Britain. And let's not pretend they're so keen to replace that flow with people elsewhere. All that talk of how Boris Johnson would be a secretly liberal prime is abject nonsense. The plan is consciously and explicitly to reduce immigration. To make this country more 'British', whatever the hell that means. To imagine that Brits will now do the jobs they refused to do before. The entire country is being reformatted to make Nigel Farage more comfortable about hearing foreign languages on a train.
What we are losing is about so much more than money. It is about being open. It is about being a place that is confident enough to take in new arrivals. Being a place new arrivals might wish to come to. We've lost that confidence. We've lost the sense that difference is beautiful, both for what it accomplishes and in its own right. And we're replacing it with nationalism. That's what it is. Don't beat around the bush, or pretend it's anything other than it is. It is nationalism. The grimy pit representing all that's worst in political thought, the worship of uniformity, the desire to replace warm welcomes with borders and inspections.
We imagine we are restricting others, but in reality we are imprisoning ourselves. And not just because we are sabotaging our own economy. We are losing one of the greatest freedoms achieved in the history of humankind: the freedom to move. The freedom to decide that we will live somewhere else, without any bureaucrat or state official to get in our way. The freedom of the individual in space – one of the greatest accomplishments of the European project – is now barred for those of us on this island.
The loss is beyond comprehension. It is the loss of our future, the loss of our rights, and the loss of the highest aspirations of human self-development.
And all so we can fix a problem which does not exist with a solution which will make us poorer. It is a bitterly stupid and small-hearted thing to do. And we have done it to ourselves.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-20--Facial Recognition: Is racist technology fit for purpose?

Last week , the London Metropolitan police once again took real-time facial recognition to the streets of East London .
The invasive facial recognition cameras were set up on top of a police van outside of Stratford station and the adjacent Stratford Centre .
Until recently , real-time facial recognition like that used by the Chinese government was considered a mechanism for totalitarianism , but now the Met is attempting to normalise its use in Britain .
They 're ploughing forward with the use of facial recognition despite warnings from rights groups , lawmakers and human rights experts that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherently racist at worst .
In 2018 , testing in Wales resulted in false positives 92 % of the time .
With such a low success rate , it seems fair to question the validity of using tech that ultimately stands to alter the fabric of society .
What 's even more disturbing is that those algorithms were revealed to unfairly discriminate when tracking those from Black and Minority Ethnic ( Bame ) backgrounds , making its use in racially diverse London neighborhoods such as Stratford likely to result in excessive levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been criticised for long before the invention of facial recognition .
Facial recognition algorithms are only as clever as the data used to develop them .
And those algorithms have been shown to be woefully incapable of scanning the public without prejudice .
Real-time facial recognition fundamentally alters the definition of a public space and massively encroaches on human rights in the process .
It turns public spaces into a virtual identity parade .
Police claim they will only be looking for persons of interest , but the scope for abuse is massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how innocent people 's faces will be processed and insufficient legislation is currently in place to rein in authorities ' power to use facial recognition as an excuse for further surveillance .
What we do know is that citizens ' biometric scans have massive value when it comes to further developing and improving facial recognition algorithms .
This alone suggests that innocent people 's biometrics could be leveraged in one way or another .
As a result , innocent people 's face scans could be held on file - putting them not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authorities ' disposal should they decide to track everybody in the future .
Any promises made now about how the technology will be used could be altered later .
In the eyes of an algorithm , a person 's face never really changes - meaning that if you walk through Stratford today your face could be lodged in the UK 's system forever .
With technologies like Clearview already being developed , the day is quickly approaching when citizens can expect their face to be known at all times and in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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
Last week, the London Metropolitan police once again took real-time facial recognition to the streets of East London.
The invasive facial recognition cameras were set up on top of a police van outside of Stratford station and the adjacent Stratford Centre.
Until recently, real-time facial recognition like that used by the Chinese government was considered a mechanism for totalitarianism, but now the Met is attempting to normalise its use in Britain. They're ploughing forward with the use of facial recognition despite warnings from rights groups, lawmakers and human rights experts that the technology is inaccurate at best, and inherently racist at worst.
In 2018, testing in Wales resulted in false positives 92% of the time. With such a low success rate, it seems fair to question the validity of using tech that ultimately stands to alter the fabric of society. What's even more disturbing is that those algorithms were revealed to unfairly discriminate when tracking those from Black and Minority Ethnic (Bame) backgrounds, making its use in racially diverse London neighborhoods such as Stratford likely to result in excessive levels of racial profiling, something the Met have been criticised for long before the invention of facial recognition.
Facial recognition algorithms are only as clever as the data used to develop them. And those algorithms have been shown to be woefully incapable of scanning the public without prejudice.
Real-time facial recognition fundamentally alters the definition of a public space and massively encroaches on human rights in the process. It turns public spaces into a virtual identity parade. Police claim they will only be looking for persons of interest, but the scope for abuse is massive.
Little to nothing is known about how innocent people's faces will be processed and insufficient legislation is currently in place to rein in authorities' power to use facial recognition as an excuse for further surveillance.
What we do know is that citizens' biometric scans have massive value when it comes to further developing and improving facial recognition algorithms. This alone suggests that innocent people's biometrics could be leveraged in one way or another. As a result, innocent people's face scans could be held on file – putting them not only at risk of hacking, but at the authorities' disposal should they decide to track everybody in the future.
Any promises made now about how the technology will be used could be altered later. In the eyes of an algorithm, a person's face never really changes – meaning that if you walk through Stratford today your face could be lodged in the UK's system forever. With technologies like Clearview already being developed, the day is quickly approaching when citizens can expect their face to be known at all times and in all places.
Ray Walsh digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy.com.
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--2020-02-21--Week in Review: When will Labour get real about how screwed it is?

There 's a weird tone to the Labour leadership contest .
They 're in a moment of existential collapse , but most of the candidates do n't show any real sense of urgency .
It 's like they 've been given a cancer diagnosis and decided to drink some Lemsip and get an early night .
This weekend will see a final frantic spasm of campaigning before voting kicks off on Monday .
There 's still several weeks more of this to go after that , but in previous contests many members cast their votes early .
So we 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fitting - slumping finale , with five weeks of candidates campaigning despite the race probably having already been decided .
Of all the candidates , Lisa Nandy is the only one who has really demonstrated the kind of passionate energy you might expect from a party which is staring into the abyss .
She 's been charismatic , thoughtful and authentic throughout and a credit to her party .
She is very unlikely to find the numbers to win it , but she 's done more than enough to secure herself a prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
Rebecca Long-Bailey is precisely what you would expect .
She 's shown not a smidgen of understanding , or even that much interest , in the national difficulties Labour faces .
One of her first policy announcements was open selections of candidates at an election .
It was the kind of proposal someone would come up with if their intention was to run as far away from reality as possible at the greatest speed available .
Unless something changes , Keir Starmer looks like he will be the next leader .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive political figure , but there 's not been much imagination or clarity in his campaign .
The strategy is plain .
He feels he can bank Labour Remain votes for his record during the last few years .
And he deserves them .
He was the man , more than anyone , who tried to steer the Labour leadership into a sensible position on Brexit - or indeed towards any position at all .
That left a vulnerability on the left-wing of the party .
He had built credibility here , sticking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and largely refraining from criticising the leader .
And he has been careful to let left-wingers know he shares their values .
It all makes perfect strategic sense .
But it leaves us with a very vague and indecipherable candidacy .
Is this just a way of winning an election ?
Or will this also be the way he leads the Labour party ?
If the latter , it will be a disaster .
This period of politics demands firm , easily-understood positions , an immediate sense of who someone is .
Trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a little bit of that on issues which voters are perceived to care about will not work .
It 'll repeat the Miliband years .
Labour has just been handed a very robust beating by the British electorate .
It is important that the party shows that it heard them .
At the moment , that is not the case .
Starmer is too nervous of the Corbyn lobby to be explicit about what happened .
And that creates a sense of a party which does not have the honesty with itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win again .
There is a problem with the morality of it as well .
This week , shadow chancellor John McDonnell paid a two hour visit to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and decided it was suitable to compare his plight to that of Alfred Dreyfus , the Jewish officer who was the subject of a deranged outbreak of nationalist anti-semitism in turn of the century France .
But that was clearly not the lesson McDonnell took from this incident .
He said Assange was `` the Dreyfus case of our age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being persecuted for political reasons for simply exposing the truth of what went on in relation to recent wars '' .
To say it is a misreading of history is to put it in its kindest possible light .
It 's nonsense of the highest order .
Dreyfus did n't 'expose the truths ' about wars .
He was simply fitted up for a crime because he was Jewish .
And Assange is not persecuted for recent wars .
He is a self-serving amoral catastrophe .
McDonnell took an anti-semitic incident and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-war conspiracy theory warbles .
It 's not just wrong on the facts .
It 's worse than that .
It 's further evidence of precisely the kind of wilful blindness and utter lack of interest which allowed anti-semitism to take root in the Labour party in the first place .
The Corbyn period of Labour will be remembered with shame .
You can understand - grudgingly - why a leadership candidate might need to take it easy on the criticism when running to replace him .
But they should n't mistake that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is over .
Labour needs to make massive , honest , hard-headed changes .
It needs to face the reality of what has happened - tactically , politically , electorally and morally .
Or else it wo n't just be five years in the wilderness , or even ten .
It 'll be game over .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in spring 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the website or its owners .

There's a weird tone to the Labour leadership contest. They're in a moment of existential collapse, but most of the candidates don't show any real sense of urgency. It's like they've been given a cancer diagnosis and decided to drink some Lemsip and get an early night.
This weekend will see a final frantic spasm of campaigning before voting kicks off on Monday. There's still several weeks more of this to go after that, but in previous contests many members cast their votes early. So we're set for a strange – but perfectly fitting – slumping finale, with five weeks of candidates campaigning despite the race probably having already been decided.
Of all the candidates, Lisa Nandy is the only one who has really demonstrated the kind of passionate energy you might expect from a party which is staring into the abyss. She's been charismatic, thoughtful and authentic throughout and a credit to her party. She is very unlikely to find the numbers to win it, but she's done more than enough to secure herself a prominent position on the front bench from now on.
Rebecca Long-Bailey is precisely what you would expect. She's shown not a smidgen of understanding, or even that much interest, in the national difficulties Labour faces. One of her first policy announcements was open selections of candidates at an election. It was the kind of proposal someone would come up with if their intention was to run as far away from reality as possible at the greatest speed available.
Unless something changes, Keir Starmer looks like he will be the next leader. He's a smart, principled and impressive political figure, but there's not been much imagination or clarity in his campaign.
The strategy is plain. He feels he can bank Labour Remain votes for his record during the last few years. And he deserves them. He was the man, more than anyone, who tried to steer the Labour leadership into a sensible position on Brexit – or indeed towards any position at all. That left a vulnerability on the left-wing of the party. He had built credibility here, sticking in the shadow Cabinet when others left and largely refraining from criticising the leader. And he has been careful to let left-wingers know he shares their values.
It all makes perfect strategic sense. But it leaves us with a very vague and indecipherable candidacy. Is this just a way of winning an election? Or will this also be the way he leads the Labour party? If the latter, it will be a disaster. This period of politics demands firm, easily-understood positions, an immediate sense of who someone is. Trying to be a little bit of this and a little bit of that on issues which voters are perceived to care about will not work. It'll repeat the Miliband years.
Labour has just been handed a very robust beating by the British electorate. It is important that the party shows that it heard them. At the moment, that is not the case. Starmer is too nervous of the Corbyn lobby to be explicit about what happened. And that creates a sense of a party which does not have the honesty with itself that it needs to ever be able to win again.
There is a problem with the morality of it as well. This week, shadow chancellor John McDonnell paid a two hour visit to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and decided it was suitable to compare his plight to that of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish officer who was the subject of a deranged outbreak of nationalist anti-semitism in turn of the century France.
But that was clearly not the lesson McDonnell took from this incident. He said Assange was "the Dreyfus case of our age, the way in which a person is being persecuted for political reasons for simply exposing the truth of what went on in relation to recent wars".
To say it is a misreading of history is to put it in its kindest possible light. It's nonsense of the highest order. Dreyfus didn't 'expose the truths' about wars. He was simply fitted up for a crime because he was Jewish. And Assange is not persecuted for recent wars. He is a self-serving amoral catastrophe.
McDonnell took an anti-semitic incident and wallpapered it into one of his standard anti-war conspiracy theory warbles. It's not just wrong on the facts. It's worse than that. It's further evidence of precisely the kind of wilful blindness and utter lack of interest which allowed anti-semitism to take root in the Labour party in the first place.
The Corbyn period of Labour will be remembered with shame. You can understand – grudgingly – why a leadership candidate might need to take it easy on the criticism when running to replace him. But they shouldn't mistake that for what is required once the contest is over. Labour needs to make massive, honest, hard-headed changes. It needs to face the reality of what has happened – tactically, politically, electorally and morally. Or else it won't just be five years in the wilderness, or even ten. It'll be game over.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in spring 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-02-25--Lording it over us: Peers' expenses free-for-all continues

It 's a story we 've heard too many times : unelected Lords cashing it in .
This weekend , fresh revelations in the Sunday Times found that in the year to March 2019 peers claimed an average of £30,827 in tax-free allowances .
That 's higher than the median salary of a UK worker and equivalent to a taxable salary of around £40,000 , despite the Lords sitting for less than half the year .
While this was the average claim , there were over 30 peers who claimed more expenses than the standard take-home pay of an MP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second chamber are continuing to spiral .
This April peers have awarded themselves a pay rise of 3.1 % - far above the national average and over double the rate of inflation .
At a time when wages continue to stagnate , it is a snub to ordinary working people that the unelected lords can expect such a large increase to their already bumper pay packets .
And the problem is only going to get worse .
The next round of Lords appointments – expected within weeks – will take the chamber to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest since 1999 when Tony Blair axed the majority of hereditary peers .
The chamber is now in the insane position of potentially reaching 1,000 members in the next decade .
It 's already the second-largest legislative body in the world , surpassed only by China 's National People 's Congress .
Compared to our European counterparts , the Lords looks even more bloated .
Spain 's Senate has just 265 members while France , which has a similar population to the UK , has a Senate of just 348 .
So what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we need to call time on this cash cow .
The Lords is a financial free-for-all , lacking any real oversight .
Nor will relocating it up to York deal with the root causes of the problem .
The trouble is that the Lords ' lack of democratic legitimacy allows it to be overridden and prime ministers are always tempted to pack it with their party cronies at the slightest whiff of effective opposition .
Many peers work hard , but the chamber is its own worst enemy .
Several of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely being seen on the red benches .
To qualify for their £323 a day allowance they simply have to 'sign in ' and confirm they 're conducting parliamentary business – a term with little to no definition .
The Lords authorities themselves recognise the continued risk of further expenses scandals – that image of peers 'leaving the taxi running ' while cashing in , before dashing out again .
Lords reform is one of the rare issues that unites left and right .
We need a revising chamber in parliament – but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that we have now .
The worst thing ?
For all the stories over the weekend , another expenses scandal is just waiting to happen .
If we do n't grasp the nettle now and reform this broken system , it 's a scandal that will come back year after year .
Why do they do it ?
Because without the light of democratic scrutiny , they can .
The government committed in their manifesto to looking at the composition and role of the Lords .
If ministers really want to 'protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a halt to all planned appointments until they commit to genuine , voter-centred reform .
The best way forward is to replace it with a much smaller , proportionally elected Senate , representing the nations and regions of the UK .
Willie Sullivan is senior director for campaigns at the Electoral Reform Society .
The organisation is currently running a petition to scrap and replace the House of Lords .
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 @ @ @ @ @

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Willie Sullivan
It's a story we've heard too many times: unelected Lords cashing it in.
This weekend, fresh revelations in the Sunday Times found that in the year to March 2019 peers claimed an average of £30,827 in tax-free allowances. That's higher than the median salary of a UK worker and equivalent to a taxable salary of around £40,000, despite the Lords sitting for less than half the year.
While this was the average claim, there were over 30 peers who claimed more expenses than the standard take-home pay of an MP.
The costs of funding our bloated second chamber are continuing to spiral. This April peers have awarded themselves a pay rise of 3.1% – far above the national average and over double the rate of inflation.
At a time when wages continue to stagnate, it is a snub to ordinary working people that the unelected lords can expect such a large increase to their already bumper pay packets.
And the problem is only going to get worse. The next round of Lords appointments – expected within weeks – will take the chamber to over 800 members. It's the highest since 1999 when Tony Blair axed the majority of hereditary peers. The chamber is now in the insane position of potentially reaching 1,000 members in the next decade.
It's already the second-largest legislative body in the world, surpassed only by China's National People's Congress. Compared to our European counterparts, the Lords looks even more bloated. Spain's Senate has just 265 members while France, which has a similar population to the UK, has a Senate of just 348.
So what do we do about it?
Firstly, we need to call time on this cash cow. The Lords is a financial free-for-all, lacking any real oversight.
Nor will relocating it up to York deal with the root causes of the problem. The trouble is that the Lords' lack of democratic legitimacy allows it to be overridden and prime ministers are always tempted to pack it with their party cronies at the slightest whiff of effective opposition.
Many peers work hard, but the chamber is its own worst enemy. Several of these Lords claiming bumper paychecks did so despite rarely being seen on the red benches. To qualify for their £323 a day allowance they simply have to 'sign in' and confirm they're conducting parliamentary business – a term with little to no definition. The Lords authorities themselves recognise the continued risk of further expenses scandals – that image of peers 'leaving the taxi running' while cashing in, before dashing out again.
Lords reform is one of the rare issues that unites left and right. We need a revising chamber in parliament – but it must be dramatically different from the one that we have now.
The worst thing? For all the stories over the weekend, another expenses scandal is just waiting to happen. If we don't grasp the nettle now and reform this broken system, it's a scandal that will come back year after year. Why do they do it? Because without the light of democratic scrutiny, they can.
The government committed in their manifesto to looking at the composition and role of the Lords. If ministers really want to 'protect our democracy', they must call a halt to all planned appointments until they commit to genuine, voter-centred reform.
The best way forward is to replace it with a much smaller, proportionally elected Senate, representing the nations and regions of the UK.
Willie Sullivan is senior director for campaigns at the Electoral Reform Society. The organisation is currently running a petition to scrap and replace the House of Lords.
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.