politicscouk--2020-07-07--Chancellor should follow his own advice when it comes to British business

Spend , spend , spend to save British jobs .
That was chancellor Rishi Sunak ’ s message to consumers last week as he prepares to announce a package of measures designed to prevent a generation of young people being `` lost '' to the economic effects of coronavirus .
The plea for consumers to start spending was welcomed by Britain ’ s beleaguered hospitality industry which re-opened after three months of lockdown on Saturday .
But can we take the Chancellor ’ s patriotic appeal seriously when the government is spending billions of pounds of taxpayers money each year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned companies ?
The need for action to rescue Britain ’ s economy is clear .
The IMF has predicted that it will shrink 10.2 % this year and thousands of jobs are being lost every week .
Without the right support , many firms won ’ t make it .
Nor could anyone deny that the government has been generous in its support for business during the lockdown .
The furlough scheme is currently paying the salaries of more than a quarter of the workforce ( 9.4m workers ) .
Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in government-backed emergency loans has been provided to 972,000 businesses of which one quarter ( £10.5bn ) went to medium sized companies and a further £28bn to smaller businesses .
But , as important as this government support has been , it is not a long term solution .
A recent report by the Recapitalisation Group , predicts that by March 2021 , UK businesses could be saddled with up to £107bn of unsustainable debt of which around half will sit with SMEs and between £16bn-£17bn on medium-sized businesses .
A third of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A temporary cut in Vat , money for traineeships and the raising of the threshold for stamp duty on property – all measures apparently being considered by the government – would give a welcome boost to the economy .
But why not also take its own advice to back British firms by using its own vast spending power ?
According to the Institute for Government , the government procures around £284bn of goods and services – circa 12 % of GDP - each year .
Simply by ensuring that more of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government can provide a massive boost to our economy .
By purchasing more goods and services from homegrown businesses the government can also help give them credibility and stability which in turn drives shareholder confidence enabling them to raise debt and private investment more easily .
This has long been understood by many of the world ’ s most successful economies .
In Singapore the government announced it would increase spending on technology by 30 % to help the economy recover from the pandemic , with 80 % of that spending targeted at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government spending to back British firms and British jobs seems so obvious that it seems surprising that it is not already happening .
Yet , research by Tussell reveals that last year 38 % of central government spending on IT companies was with firms based outside of the UK .
That represents a significant improvement from 2018 when the figure was nearly 50 % but it still means that £1.4bn of public procurement is going to non-UK firms and that is just spending by central government and in one sector .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefitting from government spending are those which practise the most aggressive forms of tax avoidance .
A report by the think tank , Demos last year found 24 out of 35 of government ’ s ‘ strategic suppliers ’ - companies that receive over £100m in revenue per year from Government contracts - operate in offshore jurisdictions .
As attention turns to how we pay for the huge cost of the business support and other financial measures during the epidemic , it is only right that these companies should be asked to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting support for British businesses at the heart of government procurement strategy , we can ensure the backbone of our economy remains strong and fit enough to weather the storm .
Simon Hansford is co-founder and Chief Executive of UKCloud and a board member of techUK 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 Simon Hansford
Spend, spend, spend to save British jobs. That was chancellor Rishi Sunak’s message to consumers last week as he prepared to announce a package of measures designed to prevent a generation of young people being "lost" to the economic effects of coronavirus.
The plea for consumers to start spending was welcomed by Britain’s beleaguered hospitality industry, which re-opened after three months of lockdown on Saturday.
But can we take the Chancellor’s patriotic appeal seriously when the government is spending billions of pounds of taxpayers money each year on procuring goods and services from foreign-owned companies?
The need for action to rescue Britain’s economy is clear. The IMF has predicted that it will shrink 10.2% this year and thousands of jobs are being lost every week. Without the right support, many firms won’t make it.
Nor could anyone deny that the government has been generous in its support for business during the lockdown. The furlough scheme is currently paying the salaries of more than a quarter of the workforce (9.4m workers). Since the end of March a total of £40.7bn in government-backed emergency loans has been provided to 972,000 businesses, of which one quarter (£10.5bn) went to medium sized companies and a further £28bn to smaller businesses.
But, as important as this government support has been, it is not a long term solution. A recent report by the Recapitalisation Group predicts that by March 2021 UK businesses could be saddled with up to £107bn of unsustainable debt, of which around half will sit with SMEs, and between £16bn-£17bn on medium-sized businesses. A third of the total will come from government-backed loans.
A temporary cut in VAT, money for traineeships and the raising of the threshold for stamp duty on property – all measures apparently being considered by the government – would give a welcome boost to the economy. But why not also take its own advice to back British firms by using its own vast spending power?
According to the Institute for Government, the government procures around £284bn of goods and services – circa 12% of GDP – each year. Simply by ensuring that more of this money goes to British companies, the government can provide a massive boost to our economy.
By purchasing more goods and services from home-grown businesses, the government can also help give them credibility and stability which in turn drives shareholder confidence, enabling them to raise debt and private investment more easily.
This has long been understood by many of the world’s most successful economies. In Singapore the government announced it would increase spending on technology by 30% to help the economy recover from the pandemic, with 80% of that spending targeted at local businesses.
The logic of using government spending to back British firms and British jobs is so obvious that it seems surprising that it is not already happening.
Yet, research by Tussell reveals that last year 38% of central government spending on IT companies was with firms based outside of the UK. That represents a significant improvement from 2018, when the figure was nearly 50%, but it still means that £1.4bn of public procurement is going to non-UK firms – and that is just spending by central government and in one sector.
At the same time many of the big businesses benefitting from government spending are those which practise the most aggressive forms of tax avoidance. A report by the think tank Demos last year found 24 out of 35 of government’s ‘strategic suppliers’ – companies that receive over £100m in revenue per year from Government contracts – operate in offshore jurisdictions.
As attention turns to how we pay for the huge cost of the business support and other financial measures during the epidemic, it is only right that these companies should be asked to pay their fair share.
Equally, by putting support for British businesses at the heart of government procurement strategy, we can ensure the backbone of our economy remains strong and fit enough to weather the storm.
Simon Hansford is co-founder and Chief Executive of UKCloud and a board member of techUK
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-08--I worry about 'brittle' Boris

I worry about 'brittle' Boris

I worry for Boris Johnson .
For some weeks now , I have watched him closely during briefings , at press conferences , in parliament , and been struck by the brittleness on display .
As a fellow performer I have to acknowledge , he has always been an exuberant , if vulgar , act .
He is that no more .
He bangs the dispatch box during prime minister ’ s questions , as if following a stage direction .
But there ’ s profound and growing sadness in his eyes .
Speeches seem to take him by surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of those awful dreams us actors have , where someone hands you a prop and says “ you ’ re on ” , but you don ’ t even know the play .
It was particularly noticeable today , during PMQs .
Sallow-skinned and listless , Johnson withered under Keir Starmer ’ s caustic criticism of his suggestion on Monday that care workers were to blame for the shocking death toll in care homes .
He cast furtive glances sideways , as if looking for someone to rescue him ; as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slump .
They never came .
Instead , he was left flailing .
Plainly the Leader of the opposition has got under Johnson ’ s skin .
The wit and charm that often masks his darkness was simply not present .
Just naked nastiness , panicked snarling , trying to shoehorn irrelevant “ jobs , jobs , jobs ” slogan into the conversation .
His sole defence : that nobody knew covid could be asymptomatically transmitted .
It is simply not true .
The first widely shared research on the matter goes back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own policy of 16th March , that if one member of the household has symptoms , the entire household must isolate .
Instead of settling into the job , Johnson seems to be deteriorating before our eyes .
What brought on this catastrophic loss of confidence , I can only speculate .
The coronavirus pandemic messing up his plan for Empire 2.0 , is probably at the heart of it .
As Fintan O ’ Toole so brilliantly wrote , even as late as February , it was “ merely a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his exuberant tapestry of fantasies.
” A touch of post-viral fatigue , perhaps .
The demands of new fatherhood , maybe .
The entire Cummings affair must have taken its toll , too .
It can ’ t have been easy for one narcissist to admit that he depended entirely on another narcissist .
What is certain is that Johnson is what we call in football “ a form player ” : Everything is dandy while he ’ s banging in the goals , but once he begins to spiral , he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been evident for the last few weeks is now , in my view , undeniable .
Nobody truly fit to lead has ever had to do exercise for the Mail on Sunday to prove it .
If the general aspiration at the start of Johnson ’ s premiership was to aim for “ Churchillian ” , well , doing push-ups for a tabloid is what one finds by walking several days in the opposite direction .
This is concerning for several reasons .
The more he feels he has fallen behind , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He strikes me as the sort of personality that tries to get out of trouble , by playing double-or-nothing .
He is a small man , obsessed with projecting size .
And the more he shrinks , the more audacious the stunt that will finally prove his greatness must be .
And the more attractive the voices in Number 10 baying for a culture war will become .
Precisely how this ends , nobody can know , of course .
Except that in my view Johnson ’ s relationship with his closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some point break down irretrievably and that the fallout will be toxic .
Many make the mistake of seeing the two as an indivisible entity , Johnson-slash-Cummings has become shorthand for the source of policy .
It isn ’ t so .
No two such egos can ever fully merge .
Their objectives differ deeply and will at some point , inevitably , diverge .
Johnson , ultimately , doesn ’ t want to be a great prime minister , as Marina Hyde astutely observed .
He wants to have been it already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He longs for the plaudits that follow and wants the route of least resistance to that time .
Cummings , on the other hand , is consumed with shaking everything up , which is often the route of most resistance .
His persistence with the “ purging ” of smart , experienced , civil servants , at a time of national crisis , is actually counterproductive to Johnson ’ s objective .
The time will come - and I sense it will be soon , because the quickest way to bring back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the rest of the team - when one will try to fire the other .
The unspoken conflict between these two men will have to be resolved .
They both draw their strength from the notion that they are the smartest person in any room .
And they have been sharing a room for too long to not begin to wonder .
Alex Andreou is a writer , actor and cook living in London and Greece .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Alex Andreou
I worry for Boris Johnson. For some weeks now, I have watched him closely during briefings, at press conferences, in parliament, and been struck by the brittleness on display. As a fellow performer, I have to acknowledge, he has always been an exuberant, if vulgar, act. He is that no more.
He bangs the dispatch box during prime minister’s questions, as if following a stage direction. But there’s profound and growing sadness in his eyes. Speeches seem to take him by surprise now. Like he is having one of those awful dreams us actors have, where someone hands you a prop and says “you’re on”, but you don’t even know the play.
It was particularly noticeable today, during PMQs. Sallow-skinned and listless, Johnson withered under Keir Starmer’s caustic criticism of his suggestion on Monday that care workers were to blame for the shocking death toll in care homes. He cast furtive glances sideways, as if looking for someone to rescue him; as if some cheers would lift him from his slump. They never came.
Instead, he was left flailing. Plainly the leader of the opposition has got under Johnson’s skin. The wit and charm that often masks his darkness was simply not present. Just naked nastiness, panicked snarling, trying to shoehorn the irrelevant “jobs, jobs, jobs” slogan into the conversation.
His sole defence: that nobody knew covid could be asymptomatically transmitted. It is simply not true. The first widely shared research on the matter goes back to mid-March, reflected in the government’s own policy of 16th March, that if one member of the household has symptoms, the entire household must isolate.
Instead of settling into the job, Johnson seems to be deteriorating before our eyes.
What brought on this catastrophic loss of confidence, I can only speculate. The coronavirus pandemic messing up his plan for Empire 2.0, is probably at the heart of it. As Fintan O’Toole so brilliantly wrote, even as late as February, it was “merely a nasty little bluebottle on the face of his exuberant tapestry of fantasies.”
A touch of post-viral fatigue, perhaps. The demands of new fatherhood, maybe. The entire Cummings affair must have taken its toll, too. It can’t have been easy for one narcissist to admit that he depended entirely on another narcissist. What is certain is that Johnson is what we call in football “a form player”: Everything is dandy while he’s banging in the goals, but once he begins to spiral, he is very difficult to rescue.
What has been evident for the last few weeks is now, in my view, undeniable. Nobody truly fit to lead has ever had to do exercise for the Mail on Sunday to prove it. If the general aspiration at the start of Johnson’s premiership was to aim for “Churchillian”, well, doing push-ups for a tabloid is what one finds by walking several days in the opposite direction.
This is concerning for several reasons. The more he feels he has fallen behind, the bigger risks he is likely to take. He strikes me as the sort of personality that tries to get out of trouble by playing double-or-nothing. He is a small man, obsessed with projecting size. And the more he shrinks, the more audacious the stunt that will finally prove his greatness must be. And the more attractive the voices in Number 10 baying for a culture war will become.
Precisely how this ends, nobody can know, of course. Except that in my view Johnson’s relationship with his closest advisor, Dominic Cummings, will at some point break down irretrievably and that the fallout will be toxic.
Many make the mistake of seeing the two as an indivisible entity, Johnson-slash-Cummings has become shorthand for the source of policy. It isn’t so. No two such egos can ever fully merge. Their objectives differ deeply and will at some point, inevitably, diverge.
Johnson, ultimately, doesn’t want to be a great prime minister, as Marina Hyde astutely observed. He wants to have been it already. Being it is too much work. He longs for the plaudits that follow and wants the route of least resistance to that time. Cummings, on the other hand, is consumed with shaking everything up, which is often the route of most resistance.
His persistence with the “purging” of smart, experienced civil servants, at a time of national crisis, is actually counterproductive to Johnson’s objective. The time will come – and I sense it will be soon, because the quickest way to bring back a “form player” is to change the rest of the team – when one will try to fire the other.
The unspoken conflict between these two men will have to be resolved. They both draw their strength from the notion that they are the smartest person in any room. And they have been sharing a room for too long to not begin to wonder.
Alex Andreou is a writer, actor and cook living in London and Greece. 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--2020-07-08--Cut VAT on energy bills, Sunak urged

Cut VAT on energy bills, Sunak urged

Coronavirus has left the finances of many people across the UK in precarious shape , despite government interventions .
As the chancellor prepares to deliver his summer statement to parliament , their ability to afford essential staples like food and a warm home should be foremost in his mind .
Before the pandemic , the financial situation of many households already teetered on a cliff edge .
A survey by the Financial Conduct Authority , carried out in 2018 , found that 3.7 million adults could not cover living expenses for under a week if they lost their main source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy began to take a tumble , the situation worsened with Citizens Advice finding that many people faced an unprecedented income shock .
This included the seven million people with no financial savings , the five million self-employed people , many of whom weren ’ t sure of their eligibility for government support , and 1.5 million people in jobs that didn ’ t qualify for statutory sick pay .
Since lockdown , the twin threat of lower disposable cash and higher utilities bills has become very real .
With more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ household energy , Uswitch predicted that the 11 million people on poor-value standard variable tariffs for their gas and electricity would end up spending an extra £16 a month on energy – equivalent to £195 a year .
The response from the regulator , Ofgem , and energy suppliers to help struggling households should be commended , with support including pauses on debt collections , halting disconnections during the outbreak period , and the provision of discretionary credit .
However the price of household energy will still be a pain point now and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why with Rishi Sunak expected to consider tax cuts to stimulate the economy as part of his mini-budget , we ’ re calling on him to lower the price of energy for households .
Now outside of the EU and in the transition period , the UK can consider cutting VAT on the cost of household energy bills for the first time in many years .
Since 1993 , VAT has been imposed on the price of domestic energy , disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes , since these households spend around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy bills than the richest households .
Assuming energy suppliers pass on all the saving to customers , cutting 5 per cent VAT added on to energy bills would reduce their cost to all households by around £60 .
While tax cuts aren ’ t generally the optimal way to help low income households save money , this tax cut would be much more progressive .
It would be particularly beneficial to those most at risk of fuel poverty and those who end up paying a high price for their household fuel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ household bills , particularly for low income households hardest hit , including extending and expanding the Warm Home Discount scheme – a £140 rebate for low income/pensioner households who struggle to adequately heat their home .
Manifesto promises on energy efficiency measures need to be kept , as well as action to ensure homes meet minimum energy efficiency standards , as set out in the government ’ s fuel poverty strategy .
These are fundamental to saving money and lives , particularly when we enter the winter months .
The journey to recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chancellor is considering taxes as a route to reinvigorating the economy and offering a helping hand to households , especially those that have seen their financial situation worsen as a result of this global pandemic , then cutting VAT on energy should be high on his priority list .
Carl Packman is head of Corporate Engagement at Fair By Design .
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 Carl Packman
Coronavirus has left the finances of many people across the UK in precarious shape, despite government interventions.
As the chancellor prepares to deliver his summer statement to parliament, their ability to afford essential staples like food and a warm home should be foremost in his mind.
Before the pandemic, the financial situation of many households already teetered on a cliff edge. A survey by the Financial Conduct Authority, carried out in 2018, found that 3.7 million adults could cover living expenses for less than a week if they lost their main source of income.
As lockdown hit and the economy began to take a tumble the situation worsened, with Citizens Advice finding that many people faced an unprecedented income shock. This included the seven million people with no financial savings, the five million self-employed people, many of whom weren’t sure of their eligibility for government support, and 1.5 million people in jobs that didn’t qualify for statutory sick pay.
Since lockdown, the twin threat of lower disposable cash and higher utilities bills has become very real. With more people now stuck at home and using more household energy, Uswitch predicted that the 11 million people on poor-value standard variable tariffs for their gas and electricity would end up spending an extra £16 a month on energy – equivalent to £195 a year.
The response from the regulator, Ofgem, and energy suppliers to help struggling households should be commended, with support including pauses on debt collections, halting disconnections during the outbreak period, and the provision of discretionary credit.
However, the price of household energy will still be a pain point now and in the near future.
That’s why, with Rishi Sunak expected to consider tax cuts to stimulate the economy as part of his mini-budget, we’re calling on him to lower the price of energy for households.
Now outside of the EU and in the transition period, the UK can consider cutting VAT on the cost of household energy bills for the first time in many years.
Since 1993, VAT has been imposed on the price of domestic energy, disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes, since these households spend around three times more of their income on energy bills than the richest households.
Assuming energy suppliers pass on all the saving to customers, cutting 5 per cent VAT added on to energy bills would reduce their cost to all households by around £60.
While tax cuts aren’t generally the optimal way to help low income households save money, this tax cut would be much more progressive. It would be particularly beneficial to those most at risk of fuel poverty and those who end up paying a high price for their household fuel.
Additionally we need targeted schemes to reduce household bills, particularly for low income households hardest hit, including extending and expanding the Warm Home Discount scheme – a £140 rebate for low income/pensioner households who struggle to adequately heat their home.
Manifesto promises on energy efficiency measures need to be kept, as well as action to ensure homes meet minimum energy efficiency standards, as set out in the government’s fuel poverty strategy. These are fundamental to saving money and lives, particularly when we enter the winter months.
The journey to recovery will not be easy. But if the chancellor is considering taxes as a route to reinvigorating the economy and offering a helping hand to households, especially those that have seen their financial situation worsen as a result of this global pandemic, then cutting VAT on energy should be high on his priority list.
Carl Packman is head of Corporate Engagement at Fair By Design.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-10--Week in Review: When lies and incompetence collide

Sometimes the smallest things can reveal the most .
Last week Boris Johnson delivered his big speech on future investment in our infrastructure , and referred to planning rules .
Specifically , he referred to the great crested newt , which has historically held back certain building projects .
With classic bombast , he declared : `` Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country . ''
But then a few days later , the BBC reported something peculiar .
Such delays had turned out to be a thing of the past .
Journalists could find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects because of newt surveys .
The Local Government Association couldn ’ t find any examples either .
Current surveys could now in fact be done rapidly .
The head of the Wildlife Trusts said the speech was `` pure fiction '' .
The prime minister had promised to eliminate a problem which did not exist .
The newts issue barely gained any attention and can almost be dismissed as a joke .
This kind of rhetoric is now fully normalised .
What it really speaks to is the total contempt with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , classic Johnson : identify a straw man or other easy target , fail to do any research , exploit it for drama or laughs , and convince your audience you know how to tackle it .
This is politics as gesture and theatre , devoid of substance or meaning – and powered , at its root , by deception .
It is harder to forgive when the target is care workers .
This week the prime minister perhaps reached a new low when he observed that `` too many care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures in the way that they could have '' .
As care workers noted , the procedures were followed exactly as they had been set out : hospitals had released patients back into care homes and staff had no option but to receive them .
Many of those workers , denied personal protective equipment , had themselves died .
Now , the prime minister was blaming them .
Sensing trouble , the government fell over itself to deny what Johnson had said .
The prime minister ’ s spokesman insisted that he `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the correct procedures were because the extent of asymptomatic transmission was not known at the time . ''
At PMQs , Johnson went even further , asserting that `` nobody knew early on '' about this form of transmission .
But that , too , was a lie .
Government scientists were pointing to evidence of it as early as January , and scientists around the world were warning about it consistently until the pandemic took hold .
The government , indeed , demonstrated that it knew asymptomatic transmission existed , because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the nationwide lockdown .
Needless to say , Johnson repeatedly refused to apologise for any of it .
This was not just routine dishonesty .
It was gaslighting people who had risked their lives , and gaslighting the wider population , not just after the event but in real time .
The government was not getting it wrong : we were .
Ministers simply can not stop misleading the public .
This week Full Fact revealed that the prime minister had again not spoken the truth with regard to testing figures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests conducted at the 199 testing centres , as well as the mobile test centres , are all done within 24 hours '' – but the charity has found that the true figure was just 19 % of tests in the first category and 5 % in the second .
Meanwhile , Sky reported yesterday that officials had `` hand-cranked '' the testing data to produce impressive numbers for the daily press conferences , and tens of thousands of tests were in fact double-counted .
Last month , the government did not publish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is not simply a question of the reliability of data , but the economic recovery .
If the public can not have faith in a widespread and accurate testing regime , they can not have the confidence to go out and return to normal life .
The problem is that the government is not merely driven by dishonesty .
It combines it with endemic incompetence .
Sometimes , as with Brexit , they meet in a vortex of self-sabotage .
Last Friday Johnson told LBC that a no-deal outcome – dubbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australian-style ’ solution – was `` very good '' .
Meanwhile , a leaked letter from trade secretary Liz Truss has revealed that the current border plans for next year could lead to increased smuggling and a legal challenge at the WTO .
Elsewhere , this voluntary rupture to our trade is ignored altogether .
In his mini-budget statement this week , Rishi Sunak outlined the measures to boost and cushion the economy and didn ’ t even see fit to mention it .
Sunak ’ s budget this week was notable mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcomed the VAT cut and stamp duty holiday , HMRC and Treasury officials expressed their reservations over the £1000 job retention bonus and half-price restaurant scheme – and Sunak directly over-ruled them .
The bonus scheme , costing up to £9bn , will in many cases pay large companies who were already planning to retain their staff , and could provide an incentive to dismiss workers who hadn ’ t already been furloughed .
As the opposition pointed out , that money could have been targeted at the sectors most in need of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at the vast numbers of the self-employed and temporary contractors who have not been able to access any government assistance .
Spending is not about blank cheques but choices .
In the end this comes down to trust .
The government is packed with ministers who either don ’ t know what they ’ re doing , or know only too well and do it anyway .
Lies and incompetence are bad enough on their own .
This government is fuelled by both .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer and commentator .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

Sometimes the smallest things can reveal the most. Last week Boris Johnson delivered his big speech on future investment in our infrastructure, and referred to planning rules. Specifically, he referred to the great crested newt, which has historically held back certain building projects. With classic bombast, he declared: “Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.”
But then a few days later, the BBC reported something peculiar. Such delays had turned out to be a thing of the past. Journalists could find no evidence of significant delays to building projects because of newt surveys. The Local Government Association couldn’t find any examples either. Current surveys could now in fact be done rapidly. The head of the Wildlife Trusts said the speech was “pure fiction”. The prime minister had promised to eliminate a problem which did not exist.
The newts issue barely gained any attention and can almost be dismissed as a joke. This kind of rhetoric is now fully normalised. What it really speaks to is the total contempt with which we are governed.
It is, of course, classic Johnson: identify a straw man or other easy target, fail to do any research, exploit it for drama or laughs, and convince your audience you know how to tackle it. This is politics as gesture and theatre, devoid of substance or meaning – and powered, at its root, by deception.
It is harder to forgive when the target is care workers. This week the prime minister perhaps reached a new low when he observed that “too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have”. As care workers noted, the procedures were followed exactly as they had been set out: hospitals had released patients back into care homes and staff had no option but to receive them. Many of those workers, denied personal protective equipment, had themselves died. Now, the prime minister was blaming them.
Sensing trouble, the government fell over itself to deny what Johnson had said. The prime minister’s spokesman insisted that he “was pointing out that nobody knew what the correct procedures were because the extent of asymptomatic transmission was not known at the time.” At PMQs, Johnson went even further, asserting that “nobody knew early on” about this form of transmission. But that, too, was a lie. Government scientists were pointing to evidence of it as early as January, and scientists around the world were warning about it consistently until the pandemic took hold. The government, indeed, demonstrated that it knew asymptomatic transmission existed, because it was the entire pretext for physical distancing and the nationwide lockdown. Needless to say, Johnson repeatedly refused to apologise for any of it.
This was not just routine dishonesty. It was gaslighting people who had risked their lives, and gaslighting the wider population, not just after the event but in real time. The government was not getting it wrong: we were.
Ministers simply cannot stop misleading the public. This week Full Fact revealed that the prime minister had again not spoken the truth with regard to testing figures. In June, Johnson declared that “tests conducted at the 199 testing centres, as well as the mobile test centres, are all done within 24 hours” – but the charity has found that the true figure was just 19% of tests in the first category and 5% in the second. Meanwhile, Sky reported yesterday that officials had “hand-cranked” the testing data to produce impressive numbers for the daily press conferences, and tens of thousands of tests were in fact double-counted. Last month, the government did not publish the numbers of people tested at all. This is not simply a question of the reliability of data, but the economic recovery. If the public cannot have faith in a widespread and accurate testing regime, they cannot have the confidence to go out and return to normal life.
The problem is that the government is not merely driven by dishonesty. It combines it with endemic incompetence. Sometimes, as with Brexit, they meet in a vortex of self-sabotage. Last Friday Johnson told LBC that a no-deal outcome – dubbed, with Orwellian cynicism, an ‘Australian-style’ solution – was “very good”. Meanwhile, a leaked letter from trade secretary Liz Truss has revealed that the current border plans for next year could lead to increased smuggling and a legal challenge at the WTO. Elsewhere, this voluntary rupture to our trade is ignored altogether. In his mini-budget statement this week, Rishi Sunak outlined the measures to boost and cushion the economy and didn’t even see fit to mention it.
Sunak’s budget this week was notable mainly for its lopsided priorities. While many welcomed the VAT cut and stamp duty holiday, HMRC and Treasury officials expressed their reservations over the £1000 job retention bonus and half-price restaurant scheme – and Sunak directly over-ruled them. The bonus scheme, costing up to £9bn, will in many cases pay large companies who were already planning to retain their staff, and could provide an incentive to dismiss workers who hadn’t already been furloughed. As the opposition pointed out, that money could have been targeted at the sectors most in need of help, or the lowest paid, or at the vast numbers of the self-employed and temporary contractors who have not been able to access any government assistance. Spending is not about blank cheques but choices.
In the end this comes down to trust. The government is packed with ministers who either don’t know what they’re doing, or know only too well and do it anyway.
Lies and incompetence are bad enough on their own. This government is fuelled by both.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-10--Vital role for business following 'ill-conceived' DFID merger

By some estimates , half a billion people globally will be pushed into poverty by COVID-19 .
For many in the international development community , therefore , the government 's decision to merge its Department or International Development ( DFID ) into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ( FCO ) is ill-conceived and poorly timed .
On 19th June , 188 NGOs called on the Prime Minister to reverse the decision .
Ten days earlier , the International Development Committee argued for DFID to be retained as a separate ministry with a Cabinet-level Minister .
Nevertheless , the merging of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant shake-up in the UK aid architecture for over 20 years - is almost certain to go ahead .
Business now has an even more important role to play in tackling challenges such as inequality and climate change , and there are three main actions all concerned businesses should consider .
1 .
Advocate to keep the focus on fighting poverty With the creation of DFID , came a laser focus on tackling poverty , as well as a deep understanding of what that entails - from building human capital to promoting good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a shift away from flagship projects to system-level change .
Aid focused on poverty reduction , and these underlying drivers , is good for business operations in developing countries and for the resilience of local and global value chains .
In the new architecture , businesses can be an important voice , alongside NGOs , for this focus to be retained : not just in terms of the UK ’ s commitment to spending 0.7 % of Gross National Income ( GNI ) on aid and what gets counted as aid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience of DFID staff , and strengthening public support for international development .
With an integrated Foreign , Commonwealth and Development Office ( FCDO ) , UK businesses have an opportunity to step up their efforts at the country-level to support nationally-defined strategies to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs ) and Paris Climate Agreement .
They should add their voice at the global level to ensure trade and investment policies support low-income countries ’ economic progress .
2 .
Restate and reinforce commitments to responsible and inclusive business Companies have increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose into business , and putting that into action - signing up to principles on human rights , using their brands to engage their customers on social issues , and developing inclusive business models and products that deliver benefits for poor people and progress on the SDGs .
The merger of DFID into the FCO presents another moment for businesses to lead by example : committing to clear principles , including on transparency , anti-bribery and corruption .
In a context where aid may become a tool of trade and diplomacy , businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should remain firmly focused on tackling poverty .
Over the years , DFID has partnered actively with businesses to support development , including recently with Unilever to reach those most at risk of COVID-19 with hand and hygiene promotion , soap and access to handwashing facilities .
Businesses should take the opportunity of the new FCDO infrastructure to extend and deepen these partnerships .
NGOs are already under severe financial pressure because of COVID-19 at the very time when their work is more critical than ever .
There is a risk that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress , given how significant a supporter DFID has been .
This issue may be particularly acute in the poorer countries and more fragile states that have been a focus for DFID , but not a priority for the FCO .
Companies and corporate foundations may become an important source of funding in these countries especially .
There is an opportunity for businesses and NGOs to be more ambitious in their partnerships - identifying social and environmental challenges critical to businesses and the societies in which they operate , drawing on the expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and taking a longer-term approach to driving system-level change together .
DFID has enjoyed a reputation as one of the leading bilateral development agencies in the world and as a `` global champion '' in driving value for money .
This has rightly been a source of pride , credibility and influence for the UK internationally , alongside its commitment , enshrined in law , to keep the focus of its aid on tackling poverty .
This is a time for UK business to show leadership by acting collaboratively across borders to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that , even if DFID may be going ( for now ) , the focus on poverty should stay .
This is good for business and the resilience of local and global value chains , good for the UK and its tax payers , and most importantly critical for many poor people in low-income countries around the world .
Zahid Torres-Rahman is the CEO of Business Fights Poverty , a former DFID employee and former adviser to the International Development Committee .
DFID is a funder of Business Fights Poverty , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company supporters .
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 Zahid Torres-Rahman
By some estimates, half a billion people globally will be pushed into poverty by COVID-19. For many in the international development community, therefore, the government's decision to merge its Department for International Development (DFID) into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is ill-conceived and poorly timed.
On 19th June, 188 NGOs called on the Prime Minister to reverse the decision. Ten days earlier, the International Development Committee argued for DFID to be retained as a separate ministry with a Cabinet-level Minister.
Nevertheless, the merging of the DFID and FCO – the most significant shake-up in the UK aid architecture for over 20 years – is almost certain to go ahead.
Business now has an even more important role to play in tackling challenges such as inequality and climate change, and there are three main actions all concerned businesses should consider.
1. Advocate to keep the focus on fighting poverty
With the creation of DFID came a laser focus on tackling poverty, as well as a deep understanding of what that entails – from building human capital to promoting good governance; and, on top of that, a shift away from flagship projects to system-level change. Aid focused on poverty reduction, and these underlying drivers, is good for business operations in developing countries and for the resilience of local and global value chains.
In the new architecture, businesses can be an important voice, alongside NGOs, for this focus to be retained: not just in terms of the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on aid and what gets counted as aid, but also in terms of retaining the experience of DFID staff, and strengthening public support for international development.
With an integrated Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), UK businesses have an opportunity to step up their efforts at the country-level to support nationally-defined strategies to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Paris Climate Agreement. They should add their voice at the global level to ensure trade and investment policies support low-income countries’ economic progress.
2. Restate and reinforce commitments to responsible and inclusive business
Companies have increasingly been talking about the importance of embedding purpose into business, and putting that into action – signing up to principles on human rights, using their brands to engage their customers on social issues, and developing inclusive business models and products that deliver benefits for poor people and progress on the SDGs.
The merger of DFID into the FCO presents another moment for businesses to lead by example: committing to clear principles, including on transparency, anti-bribery and corruption. In a context where aid may become a tool of trade and diplomacy, businesses should stick to the principle that aid should remain firmly focused on tackling poverty.
Over the years, DFID has partnered actively with businesses to support development, including recently with Unilever to reach those most at risk of COVID-19 with hand and hygiene promotion, soap and access to handwashing facilities. Businesses should take the opportunity of the new FCDO infrastructure to extend and deepen these partnerships.
3. Step up support to NGO partners
NGOs are already under severe financial pressure because of COVID-19 at the very time when their work is more critical than ever. There is a risk that the DFID-FCO merger will place them under further stress, given how significant a supporter DFID has been.
This issue may be particularly acute in the poorer countries and more fragile states that have been a focus for DFID, but not a priority for the FCO. Companies and corporate foundations may become an important source of funding in these countries especially.
There is an opportunity for businesses and NGOs to be more ambitious in their partnerships – identifying social and environmental challenges critical to businesses and the societies in which they operate, drawing on the expertise and competencies of NGOs for tackling them, and taking a longer-term approach to driving system-level change together.
DFID has enjoyed a reputation as one of the leading bilateral development agencies in the world and as a "global champion" in driving value for money. This has rightly been a source of pride, credibility and influence for the UK internationally, alongside its commitment, enshrined in law, to keep the focus of its aid on tackling poverty.
This is a time for UK business to show leadership by acting collaboratively across borders to tackle global challenges, and by making clear that, even if DFID may be going (for now), the focus on poverty should stay. This is good for business and the resilience of local and global value chains, good for the UK and its taxpayers, and most importantly critical for many poor people in low-income countries around the world.
Zahid Torres-Rahman is the CEO of Business Fights Poverty, a former DFID employee and former adviser to the International Development Committee. DFID is a funder of Business Fights Poverty, and a partner to a number of its company supporters.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-14--The domestic abuse bill that sacrifices migrant women

Last week the UK government 's domestic abuse bill went through the Commons on the way to the Lords .
There is a lot to praise in it .
Children are now included as victims of domestic abuse , and a domestic abuse commissioner has been appointed .
Attempts by Conservative MP Philip Davies to include a gender neutral definition of domestic abuse failed to pass – a welcome defeat which recognises how women make up the majority of victims and men make up the majority of perpetrators .
But there was one crucial area where the bill failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support to some of the most vulnerable victims in society : migrant women .
MPs voted 330 to 207 against New Clause 22 to lift the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule for migrant women experiencing domestic abuse .
This was in spite of campaigning from specialist domestic abuse organisations including Southall Black Sisters , Latin American Women 's Rights Service , and Step Up Migrant Women , as well as opposition MPs and mainstream charities .
The no recourse to public funds policy forms part of the government 's Hostile Environment approach to immigration .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to immigration control '' have no right to access publicly funded help , including some welfare like housing benefit .
For migrant women who are subject to immigration control , having no recourse to public funds makes it incredibly difficult to escape a violent relationship .
Refuges funded by housing benefit are closed to them .
They can not access Universal Credit or local authority housing , making it harder to start a new life and to support themselves and their children .
The result is that women face an impossible choice : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without having access to support .
Sandhya Sharma , from the migrant women 's rights charity Safety4Sisters told a Fabian Women ’ s Network event the day after the vote : `` Women are starving , they 're destitute .
What do you think is going to happen when you take away women 's access to safety ?
You ca n't use immigration as a way to determine women 's safety '' But that is just what the government has opted to do .
The bill has created a tiered system where only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Pragna Patel , the director of Southall Black Sisters , explained : `` The decision to leave migrant women out of this bill sends the message that their lives are not valued , they are disposable , they are second-class people , they are invisible . ''
Even the government 's own draft guidance essentially admits that no-recourse-to-public-funds is a barrier to women getting out of abusive situations .
And yet , despite that acknowledgement , they still chose to vote against helping women escape violent homes .
The situation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman 's immigration status is often weaponised by her abuser .
This can include an abuser withholding their victim 's documents , so she does n't know what kind of visa she has and therefore if she is entitled to help .
It can also include threats of deportation , in order to frighten their victim into silence .
By denying women in this situation access to public funds , the government is sending a message to women that the state is happy to join their abuser .
The government will now run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims pilot scheme '' which seeks `` to determine how we can ensure that victims can obtain immediate access to support '' .
This indicates that we could finally be about to see a change of course on this issue .
But as Labour MP Yvette Cooper pointed out in the debate , the government could simply lift the requirements during the pilot .
`` It is not enough to respond to pilots , '' she said .
`` We should be taking some action while we wait for those pilots to conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pilot trundles on , how many more women will be trapped in abusive homes ?
How many more women will be struggling to escape – unable to access life-saving funds ?
How many more women will stay , fearful that leaving will lead to deportation ?
How many more women will die ?
This is n't the only issue with the domestic abuse bill , but it is a major one , and it tells us something deeply worrying about the government 's attitude towards migrant women .
`` We are talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phillips said , `` humans , who , when they have been raped , beaten , controlled and abused , before we ask them how we can help , first we ask what stamp is in their passport . ''
That can not be right .
As Rosie Lewis from the Angelou Centre told the Fabian Women 's Network : `` If the domestic abuse bill is n't for all women , it 's not a bill at all . ''
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist .
She is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Literature Festival .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Sian Norris
Last week the UK government's domestic abuse bill went through the Commons on the way to the Lords. There is a lot to praise in it. Children are now included as victims of domestic abuse, and a domestic abuse commissioner has been appointed. Attempts by Conservative MP Philip Davies to include a gender neutral definition of domestic abuse failed to pass – a welcome defeat which recognises how women make up the majority of victims and men make up the majority of perpetrators.
But there was one crucial area where the bill failed to deliver. And that failure will deny support to some of the most vulnerable victims in society: migrant women.
MPs voted 330 to 207 against New Clause 22 to lift the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule for migrant women experiencing domestic abuse. This was in spite of campaigning from specialist domestic abuse organisations including Southall Black Sisters, Latin American Women's Rights Service, and Step Up Migrant Women, as well as opposition MPs and mainstream charities.
The no recourse to public funds policy forms part of the government's Hostile Environment approach to immigration. It means that people who are "subject to immigration control" have no right to access publicly funded help, including some welfare like housing benefit.
For migrant women who are subject to immigration control, having no recourse to public funds makes it incredibly difficult to escape a violent relationship. Refuges funded by housing benefit are closed to them. They cannot access Universal Credit or local authority housing, making it harder to start a new life and to support themselves and their children.
The result is that women face an impossible choice: stay with an abuser, or leave without having access to support. Sandhya Sharma, from the migrant women's rights charity Safety4Sisters told a Fabian Women’s Network event the day after the vote: "Women are starving, they're destitute. What do you think is going to happen when you take away women's access to safety? You can't use immigration as a way to determine women's safety" But that is just what the government has opted to do.
The bill has created a tiered system where only certain victims are considered deserving of help. As Pragna Patel, the director of Southall Black Sisters, explained: "The decision to leave migrant women out of this bill sends the message that their lives are not valued, they are disposable, they are second-class people, they are invisible."
Even the government's own draft guidance essentially admits that no-recourse-to-public-funds is a barrier to women getting out of abusive situations. And yet, despite that acknowledgement, they still chose to vote against helping women escape violent homes.
The situation is exacerbated by the ways in which a woman's immigration status is often weaponised by her abuser. This can include an abuser withholding their victim's documents, so she doesn't know what kind of visa she has and therefore if she is entitled to help. It can also include threats of deportation, in order to frighten their victim into silence.
By denying women in this situation access to public funds, the government is sending a message to women that the state is happy to join their abuser.
The government will now run a £1.5 million "support for migrant victims pilot scheme" which seeks "to determine how we can ensure that victims can obtain immediate access to support". This indicates that we could finally be about to see a change of course on this issue.
But as Labour MP Yvette Cooper pointed out in the debate, the government could simply lift the requirements during the pilot. "It is not enough to respond to pilots," she said. "We should be taking some action while we wait for those pilots to conclude."
Cooper is correct. While this pilot trundles on, how many more women will be trapped in abusive homes? How many more women will be struggling to escape – unable to access life-saving funds? How many more women will stay, fearful that leaving will lead to deportation? How many more women will die?
This isn't the only issue with the domestic abuse bill, but it is a major one, and it tells us something deeply worrying about the government's attitude towards migrant women. "We are talking about people," Labour's Jess Phillips said, "humans, who, when they have been raped, beaten, controlled and abused, before we ask them how we can help, first we ask what stamp is in their passport."
That cannot be right. As Rosie Lewis from the Angelou Centre told the Fabian Women's Network: "If the domestic abuse bill isn't for all women, it's not a bill at all."
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-15--Chronic Conservative indecision over Huawei has hurt us all

In January , the Conservative government announced that UK telecoms companies would be permitted to use Huawei technology in around 35 % of their new 5G networks .
It seems the motivation was to allow Boris Johnson to deliver on his campaign promise to install high-speed internet throughout the UK by 2025 .
Now , just half a year later , the government has done a complete U-turn and Huawei has been banned from providing any future equipment to UK networks .
By the end of 2020 , a new telecoms security bill will make it illegal for telecoms providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will force them to remove previously installed Huawei components from UK networks by 2027 .
According to the secretary of state , the Huawei ban will set back the UK 's roll-out of high-speed internet by two to three years - and will add up to £2 billion to the final bill .
Those are substantial delays , and hefty costs for both the telecoms industry and the taxpayer to bear .
So , why has the government suddenly decided to exclude Huawei ?
Back in January , the government claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment and components could safely be installed on the `` periphery '' of UK networks .
Even while making those claims , the government reminded us that Huawei would need to be excluded from sensitive parts of the UK 's network - the core - as well as from critical areas close to military bases and nuclear sites .
For many security and privacy advocates , the concept that the technology was fit for purpose in some parts of the network but not others was met with suspicion .
Now it would seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question remains - has the UK government actually received new information regarding the dangers that Huawei poses to national security ?
Or has it caved to pressure from the Trump administration and Tory backbenchers who are opposed to Huawei ?
First , it seems important to recognise that espionage concerns surrounding Huawei and the Chinese government are legitimate .
China is known to engage in cyber-espionage and intelligence gathering .
It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that China does have an interest in generating a foothold within Western networks .
The potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish this kind of power within UK networks is no trivial concern and the fact that the government initially insisted Huawei 's infrastructure be kept at the edge of the network certainly attests to the fact that surveillance was already a worry .
What 's more , in the past few years there have been numerous cases of governments complaining of finding backdoors in their systems following the installation of Huawei equipment .
There is no question that large Chinese tech companies are expected to work closely with the ruling Communist party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Huawei from UK telecoms infrastructure can be understood to be a win for digital privacy , at least on some level .
Although banning Huawei from UK networks could remove the potential for Chinese espionage , it is also worth noting that the decision was almost certainly politically motivated .
For the last two years , the US has been at loggerheads with China due to the ongoing trade war - and the UK has been caught firmly between a rock and a hard place .
With the UK facing a tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow keep relations with both China and the US in good shape .
This was almost certainly a primary motivation behind giving Huawei limited access to UK networks in the first place .
Unfortunately for Johnson , the US made it clear that allowing Huawei into UK networks would result in the UK and the US no longer being able to share key intelligence information .
These threats , it would appear , ultimately allowed Trump to checkmate Johnson .
The outcome of caving to US pressure , however , is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to negotiate future trade and investment deals with China , which means that the UK is tumbling headfirst towards a Brexit where it has no deal with the EU , no deal with the US , and poor relations with the world 's largest manufacturing economy and exporter of goods .
Even with all of these economic and political factors in mind , the question remains - did the UK government know all along that allowing Huawei into its networks could potentially lead to espionage ?
The UK government claims that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacture reliable 5G equipment , due to the US sanctions that eliminate the company 's ability to access advanced US-made chips .
This would be a reasonable claim if it were n't for the fact that the UK was concerned about surveillance in its network core even when Huawei was running at full steam .
We already know that 5G networks result in unprecedented levels of data collection .
This means that no matter who installs those networks , there exists an elevated potential for mass surveillance .
The general consensus is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance and corporate espionage .
On the one hand , it seems preferable to ensure that surveillance does n't occur at the hands of the totalitarian Chinese government .
On the other , the UK must remain vigilant over who potentially establishes a foothold instead .
Ultimately , the government 's explanation as to why it has now banned Huawei seems more than a little bit dubious .
What we can say with some certainty , is that the decision to ban Huawei is going to slow down the UK ’ s progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evolution of mobile technology .
This will result in an innovation vacuum for the country for decades to come .
The costs to undo the mess that the Conservatives have created by yo-yo-ing back and forth will inevitably be passed on to consumers - which means that the UK will likely end up with the most expensive legacy network on the planet .
Yes , the ban can be considered a win for privacy .
But overall consumers are going to lose out , businesses are going to lose out , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , it seems that the only real winner is Trump .
Ray Walsh is digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy .
You can follow them on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Ray Walsh
In January, the Conservative government announced that UK telecoms companies would be permitted to use Huawei technology in around 35% of their new 5G networks. It seems the motivation was to allow Boris Johnson to deliver on his campaign promise to install high-speed internet throughout the UK by 2025.
Now, just half a year later, the government has done a complete U-turn and Huawei has been banned from providing any future equipment to UK networks. By the end of 2020, a new telecoms security bill will make it illegal for telecoms providers to buy any new Huawei equipment – and will force them to remove previously installed Huawei components from UK networks by 2027.
According to the secretary of state, the Huawei ban will set back the UK's roll-out of high-speed internet by two to three years – and will add up to £2 billion to the final bill. Those are substantial delays, and hefty costs for both the telecoms industry and the taxpayer to bear. So, why has the government suddenly decided to exclude Huawei?
Back in January, the government claimed that experts had concluded that Huawei's 5G equipment and components could safely be installed on the "periphery" of UK networks. Even while making those claims, the government reminded us that Huawei would need to be excluded from sensitive parts of the UK's network – the core – as well as from critical areas close to military bases and nuclear sites.
For many security and privacy advocates, the concept that the technology was fit for purpose in some parts of the network but not others was met with suspicion. Now it would seem that those suspicions were justified, but the question remains – has the UK government actually received new information regarding the dangers that Huawei poses to national security? Or has it caved to pressure from the Trump administration and Tory backbenchers who are opposed to Huawei?
First, it seems important to recognise that espionage concerns surrounding Huawei and the Chinese government are legitimate. China is known to engage in cyber-espionage and intelligence gathering. It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that China does have an interest in generating a foothold within Western networks.
The potential dangers of allowing a totalitarian government to establish this kind of power within UK networks is no trivial concern and the fact that the government initially insisted Huawei's infrastructure be kept at the edge of the network certainly attests to the fact that surveillance was already a worry.
What's more, in the past few years there have been numerous cases of governments complaining of finding backdoors in their systems following the installation of Huawei equipment. There is no question that large Chinese tech companies are expected to work closely with the ruling Communist party. With that in mind, the exclusion of Huawei from UK telecoms infrastructure can be understood to be a win for digital privacy, at least on some level.
Although banning Huawei from UK networks could remove the potential for Chinese espionage, it is also worth noting that the decision was almost certainly politically motivated. For the last two years, the US has been at loggerheads with China due to the ongoing trade war – and the UK has been caught firmly between a rock and a hard place.
With the UK facing a tough Brexit, the government had hoped to somehow keep relations with both China and the US in good shape. This was almost certainly a primary motivation behind giving Huawei limited access to UK networks in the first place.
Unfortunately for Johnson, the US made it clear that allowing Huawei into UK networks would result in the UK and the US no longer being able to share key intelligence information. These threats, it would appear, ultimately allowed Trump to checkmate Johnson.
The outcome of caving to US pressure, however, is that it now becomes much harder for the UK to negotiate future trade and investment deals with China, which means that the UK is tumbling headfirst towards a Brexit where it has no deal with the EU, no deal with the US, and poor relations with the world's largest manufacturing economy and exporter of goods.
Even with all of these economic and political factors in mind, the question remains – did the UK government know all along that allowing Huawei into its networks could potentially lead to espionage?
The UK government claims that it is now suspicious of Huawei's ability to manufacture reliable 5G equipment, due to the US sanctions that eliminate the company's ability to access advanced US-made chips. This would be a reasonable claim if it weren't for the fact that the UK was concerned about surveillance in its network core even when Huawei was running at full steam.
We already know that 5G networks result in unprecedented levels of data collection. This means that no matter who installs those networks, there exists an elevated potential for mass surveillance. The general consensus is that 5G will facilitate higher levels of government surveillance and corporate espionage.
On the one hand, it seems preferable to ensure that surveillance doesn't occur at the hands of the totalitarian Chinese government. On the other, the UK must remain vigilant over who potentially establishes a foothold instead. Ultimately, the government's explanation as to why it has now banned Huawei seems more than a little bit dubious.
What we can say with some certainty, is that the decision to ban Huawei is going to slow down the UK’s progress, putting the UK significantly behind in the evolution of mobile technology. This will result in an innovation vacuum for the country for decades to come. The costs to undo the mess that the Conservatives have created by yo-yo-ing back and forth will inevitably be passed on to consumers – which means that the UK will likely end up with the most expensive legacy network on the planet.
Yes, the ban can be considered a win for privacy. But overall consumers are going to lose out, businesses are going to lose out, and the country is going to lose out. In fact, it seems that the only real winner is Trump.
Ray Walsh is digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy. You can follow them on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-16--Brutal but inept: What the Grayling shambles tells us about Downing Street

It was an encapsulation of how shoddy and self-harming Downing Street has become .
Last night 's comedic series of pratfalls over the chairmanship of the intelligence and security committee cast a sharp light over how No.10 operates and its weaknesses .
It started with Chris Grayling , because of course it would .
Even in an administration known for its ineptitude , Grayling has stood out as a uniquely incompetent figure .
The charge sheet is now well known .
He banned the posting of books to prisoners until it was reversed by the courts .
He part-privatised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved so disastrous it had to be brought back into public ownership .
He tried to reform judicial review in such a cack-handed way he ended up misleading the Commons .
He granted a no-deal Brexit ferry contract to a company with no ships .
This paragraph could go on for several more lines , but we all have places to be .
Nevertheless , the government decided this man was the right fit to chair the intelligence committee - the one parliamentary scrutiny mechanism available for the shadowy behaviour of the security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualify him for this position .
He was selected because he is a loyalist and Brexit true believer .
Faith in the central tenets of the Vote Leave government is the sole criteria of success in this administration , not competence , or suitability , or basic cognitive function .
That tendency has a weakness though : if you keep pushing profoundly dimwitted people forward for senior roles , do not be surprised when they are incapable of grasping what is put in their hands .
So last night , just before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grayling was outmanoeuvred by fellow Conservative Julian Lewis .
Lewis knew that if he put himself forward he 'd get the votes of the non-Conservatives on the committee - three Labour and one SNP MP .
So he did .
And just like that , Grayling was undone .
A robot vacuum cleaner bumping incessantly into a wall .
Downing Street 's reaction was brutal and predictable .
Lewis was booted out the parliamentary party .
It has insisted during the Grayling row that the committee selects its own chair .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept No.10 's man .
When that plan went awry , No.10 lashed out .
But that act of brutality did not serve to empower Downing Street and in fact made it weaker .
It served to further alienate already agitated backbench MPs .
And it meant it lost all say over the committee .
The chair is now not even a Tory MP .
He is independent .
The only option open to the government is to table a Commons motion of selection to remove Lewis from the committee , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government over the process .
So , barring that eventuality , they have now lost control .
And as night follows day , the committee has this morning confirmed that it will publish the long-delayed Russia report .
You can see this pattern of behaviour across the government 's actions : Brutal demands for loyalty to Dominic Cummings , Boris Johnson and the Vote Leave administration .
A desperate desire to control , whether it be by attacking courts , parliament , the civil service and the press , or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretaries .
The promotion of mediocrity on the basis of ideological suitability .
And then the downside : Poor levels of competence , due to the selection criteria .
Strategic inadequacy , due to the ineptitude of the people involved .
Self-harming actions , due to incoherent rage at anyone refusing to obey .
In a bleak period , it 's one of the few things that offers any degree of moral reassurance .
They keep coming undone by virtue of their own sins .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberal , is out later this year .
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 .

It was an encapsulation of how shoddy and self-harming Downing Street has become. Last night’s comedic series of pratfalls over the chairmanship of the intelligence and security committee cast a sharp light over how No.10 operates and its weaknesses.
It started with Chris Grayling, because of course it would. Even in an administration known for its ineptitude, Grayling has stood out as a uniquely incompetent figure.
The charge sheet is now well known. He banned the posting of books to prisoners until it was reversed by the courts. He part-privatised the probation service, in a move which proved so disastrous it had to be brought back into public ownership. He tried to reform judicial review in such a cack-handed way he ended up misleading the Commons. He granted a no-deal Brexit ferry contract to a company with no ships. This paragraph could go on for several more lines, but we all have places to be.
Nevertheless, the government decided this man was the right fit to chair the intelligence committee – the one parliamentary scrutiny mechanism available for the shadowy behaviour of the security agencies. He had no experience to qualify him for this position. He was selected because he is a loyalist and Brexit true believer. Faith in the central tenets of the Vote Leave government is the sole criteria of success in this administration, not competence, or suitability, or basic cognitive function.
That tendency has a weakness though: if you keep pushing profoundly dimwitted people forward for senior roles, do not be surprised when they are incapable of grasping what is put in their hands. So last night, just before the move was due to go ahead, Grayling was outmanoeuvred by fellow Conservative Julian Lewis.
Lewis knew that if he put himself forward he’d get the votes of the non-Conservatives on the committee – three Labour and one SNP MP. So he did. And just like that, Grayling was undone. A robot vacuum cleaner bumping incessantly into a wall.
Downing Street’s reaction was brutal and predictable. Lewis was booted out the parliamentary party. It has insisted during the Grayling row that the committee selects its own chair. That is clearly fictitious. Its membership was arranged to accept No.10’s man. When that plan went awry, No.10 lashed out.
But that act of brutality did not serve to empower Downing Street and in fact made it weaker. It served to further alienate already agitated backbench MPs. And it meant it lost all say over the committee. The chair is now not even a Tory MP. He is independent.
The only option open to the government is to table a Commons motion of selection to remove Lewis from the committee, but doing so would explicitly reveal the power of the government over the process. So, barring that eventuality, they have now lost control. And as night follows day, the committee has this morning confirmed that it will publish the long-delayed Russia report.
You can see this pattern of behaviour across the government’s actions: Brutal demands for loyalty to Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson and the Vote Leave administration. A desperate desire to control, whether it be by attacking courts, parliament, the civil service and the press, or by trying to ensure the compliance of Cabinet secretaries. The promotion of mediocrity on the basis of ideological suitability.
And then the downside: Poor levels of competence, due to the selection criteria. Strategic inadequacy, due to the ineptitude of the people involved. Self-harming actions, due to incoherent rage at anyone refusing to obey.
In a bleak period, it’s one of the few things that offers any degree of moral reassurance. They keep coming undone by virtue of their own sins.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-21--Russia report: The government left us completely exposed to Kremlin interference

You 'll hear a lot over the next few days about there not being a smoking gun in the Russia report .
In fact , it 's much worse than that .
The discovery of a smoking gun suggests someone was tasked with looking for it .
Our situation is more grave .
No-one was .
Even that most basic of activities - the most elementary attempt to defend British democracy - was ignored .
The intelligence committee report is full of redactions , but the central message on interference in British politics is quite clear .
`` Since 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity in order to assert itself aggressively in a number of spheres , '' it says .
This `` poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security '' .
The UK is `` clearly a target for Russia 's disinformation campaigns and political influence operations '' .
The attacks take the form of large-scale disinformation campaigns - state-owned traditional media like RT , bot and troll farms , hack-and-leak , and real life interference , such as Kremlin soft-loans to the National Front in France in exchange for support of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims : spreading specific pro-Kremlin narratives , creating a broader sense of people not knowing who or what to believe , and `` poisoning of the political narrative in the West by fomenting political extremism and 'wedge issues ' . ''
In other words , it works to exacerbate social , cultural and political division in target countries .
The first operation of this sort on British soil , it seems , was the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 .
This tallies with Russian use of disinformation after the MH-17 incident over Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US , Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election led to an intelligence community assessment within two months of the vote , with an unclassified summary made public .
In the UK , the government did nothing .
That then left it completely open during the Brexit campaign in 2016 .
The committee noted that there was evidence of the use of traditional media and bot and troll Russian interference work in favour of Leave during the referendum .
But when it inquired about this , it received just six lines of text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to academic studies .
`` The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that [ the government ] had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes or any activity that has had a material impact on an election , for example influencing results , '' the committee found .
`` We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference . ''
Committee member Stewart Hosie went further .
The government did not know about Russian interference in the Brexit referendum `` because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The security services were wary of getting involved in British democratic processes .
That attitude , the committee found , was foolhardy .
This is about protecting the democratic process , not interfering in it .
But what was telling was that the government did nothing to protect against this problem before it emerged nor made any effort to find out what happened in the wake of it .
In fact , quite the opposite .
This report was completed a year-and-a-half ago .
It has sat gathering dust .
Why ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it contained details of Russian donations to the Tory party .
That appears to be wrong - the report does n't go into that issue .
Instead it seems to have been the result of Dominic Cummings , the prime minister 's senior adviser , trying to kill it because it would have given a platform to Dominic Grieve , the former chair of the intelligence committee - the battle of the Dominics .
Cummings led the Vote Leave Brexit campaign , which is now installed as the organisational mechanism of British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brexit loyalty did n't just stop the government looking into what happened .
It led it to try to stop people reporting that it was n't looking into what happened .
In the build up to today 's publication , the government went out of its way to try to limit the impact of the report by releasing material which took the focus away from Brexit .
Confirmation of publication came last week after No.10 failed in an attempt to rig the chairmanship of the intelligence committee .
As soon as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time that Russia interfered in British democracy through the `` online amplification '' of leaked documents in the 2019 election .
That related to then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn 's use of leaked documents about UK-US trade deals and the effect on the NHS .
This was telling for two reasons .
First , he sought to portray it as a Labour issue , rather than one which operates in British politics in general .
Second , unless the timing was completely coincidental - which not even the most generous commentator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting to reduce the impact of the report .
In other words , the government was using Russian interference in British politics for its own domestic political agenda .
Briefings to journalists overnight seemed to follow a similar pattern .
`` Kremlin 'tried to meddle in Scottish independence vote ' - but did not target Brexit , '' the Telegraph splashed yesterday - a finding which does not tally at all with what is contained in the report .
This is a complete failure of basic patriotic and democratic responsibility .
The Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on exacerbating 'wedge ' divisions in the domestic political debate .
To our considerable shame , we have ended up with a government which operates by doing precisely the same thing .
Vote Leave won the referendum by inciting and sustaining cultural division .
It operates in government in precisely the same way .
Instead of acting on the committee 's demand that more be done to assess Russian interference and prevent it , the government tried to delay the report .
Instead of taking its recommendations on board , it tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weapon against the SNP , Labour and Remainers .
We do n't know what an inquiry into Russian interference in the Brexit referendum would find , but there is good reason to assume that it would have two chief conclusions .
The first is that it did interfere .
This is in line with its well-documented tactics and priorities .
The second is that it is impossible to know whether that interference swung the result .
And yet even a report of that type would help give people confidence .
It would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was trying to protect British democratic processes .
It would offer some degree of reassurance about the validity of the results .
Instead we are left with complete absence - an utter failure of governmental duty .
And that corresponds to Russia 's broader long-term aim : of creating a world in which no-one knows what is true , in which nothing can be completely trusted .
They could n't ask for a more useful British government than the one they have now .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is out later this year .
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 .

You'll hear a lot over the next few days about there not being a smoking gun in the Russia report. In fact, it's much worse than that. The discovery of a smoking gun suggests someone was tasked with looking for it. Our situation is more grave. No-one was. Even that most basic of activities – the most elementary attempt to defend British democracy – was ignored.
The intelligence committee report is full of redactions, but the central message on interference in British politics is quite clear. "Since 2014, Russia has carried out malicious cyber activity in order to assert itself aggressively in a number of spheres," it says. This "poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security". The UK is "clearly a target for Russia's disinformation campaigns and political influence operations".
The attacks take the form of large-scale disinformation campaigns – state-owned traditional media like RT, bot and troll farms, hack-and-leak, and real life interference, such as Kremlin soft-loans to the National Front in France in exchange for support of its annexation of Crimea. There are several aims: spreading specific pro-Kremlin narratives, creating a broader sense of people not knowing who or what to believe, and "poisoning of the political narrative in the West by fomenting political extremism and 'wedge issues'." In other words, it works to exacerbate social, cultural and political division in target countries.
The first operation of this sort on British soil, it seems, was the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. This tallies with Russian use of disinformation after the MH-17 incident over Ukraine in the same year.
In the US, Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election led to an intelligence community assessment within two months of the vote, with an unclassified summary made public. In the UK, the government did nothing.
That then left it completely open during the Brexit campaign in 2016. The committee noted that there was evidence of the use of traditional media and bot and troll Russian interference work in favour of Leave during the referendum. But when it inquired about this, it received just six lines of text from MI5, most of which referred to academic studies.
"The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that [the government] had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes or any activity that has had a material impact on an election, for example influencing results," the committee found. "We have not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference." Committee member Stewart Hosie went further. The government did not know about Russian interference in the Brexit referendum "because they did not want to know".
The security services were wary of getting involved in British democratic processes. That attitude, the committee found, was foolhardy. This is about protecting the democratic process, not interfering in it. But what was telling was that the government did nothing to protect against this problem before it emerged and then made no effort to find out what happened in the wake of it.
In fact, quite the opposite. This report was completed a year-and-a-half ago. It has sat gathering dust. Why? We thought for a while it was because it contained details of Russian donations to the Tory party. That appears to be wrong – the report doesn't go into that issue. Instead it seems to have been the result of Dominic Cummings, the prime minister's senior adviser, trying to kill it because it would have given a platform to Dominic Grieve, the former chair of the intelligence committee – the battle of the Dominics.
Cummings led the Vote Leave Brexit campaign, which is now installed as the organisational mechanism of British government. Grieve was a prominent Remainer. Brexit loyalty didn't just stop the government looking into what happened. It led it to try to stop people reporting that it wasn't looking into what happened.
In the build up to today's publication, the government went out of its way to try to limit the impact of the report by releasing material which took the focus away from Brexit. Confirmation of publication came last week after No.10 failed in an attempt to rig the chairmanship of the intelligence committee. As soon as it came, foreign secretary Dominic Raab confirmed for the first time that Russia interfered in British democracy through the "online amplification" of leaked documents in the 2019 election. That related to then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's use of leaked documents about UK-US trade deals and the effect on the NHS.
This was telling for two reasons. First, he sought to portray it as a Labour issue, rather than one which operates in British politics in general. Second, unless the timing was completely coincidental – which not even the most generous commentator could credibly claim – he was clearly acting to reduce the impact of the report. In other words, the government was using Russian interference in British politics for its own domestic political agenda.
Briefings to journalists overnight seemed to follow a similar pattern. "Kremlin 'tried to meddle in Scottish independence vote' – but did not target Brexit," the Telegraph splashed yesterday – a finding which does not tally at all with what is contained in the report.
This is a complete failure of basic patriotic and democratic responsibility. The Russian attempt to undermine the UK is based on exacerbating 'wedge' divisions in the domestic political debate. To our considerable shame, we have ended up with a government which operates by doing precisely the same thing. Vote Leave won the referendum by inciting and sustaining cultural division. It operates in government in precisely the same way. Instead of acting on the committee's demand that more be done to assess Russian interference and prevent it, the government tried to delay the report. Instead of taking its recommendations on board, it tried to use the issue of Russian interference as a weapon against the SNP, Labour and Remainers.
We don't know what an inquiry into Russian interference in the Brexit referendum would find, but there is good reason to assume that it would have two chief conclusions. The first is that it did interfere. This is in line with its well-documented tactics and priorities. The second is that it is impossible to know whether that interference swung the result. And yet even a report of that type would help give people confidence. It would show that the government cared about and was trying to protect British democratic processes. It would offer some degree of reassurance about the validity of the results.
Instead we are left with complete absence – an utter dereliction of governmental duty. And that corresponds to Russia's broader long-term aim: of creating a world in which no-one knows what is true, in which nothing can be completely trusted. They couldn't ask for a more useful British government than the one they have now.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
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.