politicscouk--2020-05-15--Week in Review: The culture war returns

Week in Review: The culture war returns

We 'd held out pretty well .
The absence of culture war has been one of the few reliefs of the covid period .
For once , we all wanted the same thing .
The applause on Thursdays was moving partly because it offered a sense of unity .
Everyone was anti-covid .
Everyone admired the NHS workers who braved it .
But this week the culture war started moving back in .
And that 's hardly surprising , because it was the first week that the government had to make policy proposals and then sell those proposals to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fast-moving situation .
Unfortunately , the only way this government - which is , after all , just the Vote Leave campaign in executive form - knows how to do that is through values-based engagement with demographic segments .
It 's Facebook advertising as a national communications strategy .
The core phrasing was 'common sense ' .
This was delivered with depressing regularity in the Commons on Monday .
`` Good , solid , British common sense , '' Johnson said , over and over again , as his response to seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by government spokespeople wherever possible .
Faced with the former chief scientific adviser to the government on Newsnight saying the end of the lockdown was coming too early , Tory MP Damian Green replied : `` I have greater faith in the common sense of the British people than Sir David King does '' .
Common sense as a phrase is really quite entirely meaningless .
Sense is n't common .
In politics , different interests have to be managed - for instance those of an employer who owns a factory and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is intuition , which common sense often implies , a particularly reliable guide to anything .
Many things in life - from physics , to biology , to national finances , to monetary policy - are profoundly counter-intuitive , because they are complex and operate at a level beyond our normal day-to-day experience .
But even if common sense did have meaning - if it translated as the autonomous reason of the individual , say - it would not describe the package of rules the government has put forward .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense '' does n't get a look in .
The rules are extremely odd .
They allow a meeting with one member of a household but not two at the same time , even though these are unified bubbles in disease control strategy .
They prioritise economic relationships with estate agents and cleaners over those with a loved one .
You can make a case for this if you like .
But it 's based on economic demand , not human intuition .
No.10 could have approached this another way .
They could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can meet who you like , where you like , as long as you are two metres apart at all times and outside .
That might have been smart or stupid - who knows ?
- but it would have corresponded to the messaging strategy , which stressed people 's individual responsibility in making those judgements .
The new rules do the precise opposite .
They work on minute details and pass verdicts on them , often in quite baffling ways .
So if it is n't a reflection of the underlying strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple .
It is a communication strategy divorced from its content , almost certainly derived from extensive public research , of the sort which typifies the Vote Leave government under Dominic Cummings .
No.10 has polled nearly every aspect of public opinion during covid , on a nearly daily basis , with messaging subject to focus group assessments .
`` The internal polling is pretty extensive every day , '' an official told Politico .
`` We get an overnight breakdown of surveys of 2,000 adults .
We get stats on how worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk , whether they feel they 're being served by government information , whether we 've got the balance right between the economy and healthcare , polling on people 's finances , thoughts on the NHS , about social distancing , businesses , workplace , face masks . ''
'Common sense ' has a specific set of cultural attributes attached to it .
People like to think they have it and they hate being told that they do not .
It implies very strongly that the right solution is easy , not complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demographic groups the government weaponised so effectively over the Brexit debate .
It is a shorthand for rejection of expertise , for an insistence that instinct and unearned confidence trump research and understanding .
That fundamentally populist appeal took centre stage in the government response this week .
And it was telling that once it did , all the old ways of doing things under the Brexit debate quickly reasserted themselves .
First of all came the basic incompetence - a prime ministerial statement on Sunday night telling people to go back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next day that it was only supposed to apply on Wednesday .
Then came the outright lying , with Johnson insisting that Keir Starmer 's description of the government health advice to care homes `` was n't true '' despite the fact that it demonstrably was .
Then the bullying tone-deaf stubbornness , with a refusal to acknowledge the lie , even when it was shown in black and white , and the assertion that the opposition should not criticise the government because `` the public expect us to work together '' .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming back once again .
They do n't know any other way of doing things .
And as the stakes become higher they are likely to double-down on it , instinctively looking for the opportunity to sell their programme on the basis of cultural dividing lines .
Right now , those who question them simply lack common sense .
Soon , they will be actively working against the country by trying to kill off the economy , or needlessly scaring people .
The way to counter it is to ensure the debate stays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We saw what happened when it did n't during Brexit .
We ca n't let it happen here .
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 .

We'd held out pretty well. The absence of culture war has been one of the few reliefs of the covid period. For once, we all wanted the same thing. The applause on Thursdays was moving partly because it offered a sense of unity. Everyone was anti-covid. Everyone admired the NHS workers who braved it.
But this week the culture war started moving back in. And that's hardly surprising, because it was the first week that the government had to make policy proposals and then sell those proposals to the public, rather than just respond to a fast-moving situation.
Unfortunately, the only way this government – which is, after all, just the Vote Leave campaign in executive form – knows how to do that is through values-based engagement with demographic segments. It's Facebook advertising as a national communications strategy.
The core phrasing was 'common sense'. This was delivered with depressing regularity in the Commons on Monday. "Good, solid, British common sense," Johnson said, over and over again, as his response to seemingly every question.
The phrase was repeated by government spokespeople wherever possible. Faced with the former chief scientific adviser to the government on Newsnight saying the end of the lockdown was coming too early, Tory MP Damian Green replied: "I have greater faith in the common sense of the British people than Sir David King does".
Common sense as a phrase is really quite entirely meaningless. Sense isn't common. In politics, different interests have to be managed – for instance those of an employer who owns a factory and the employees who work in it. Nor is intuition, which common sense often implies, a particularly reliable guide to anything. Many things in life – from physics, to biology, to national finances, to monetary policy – are profoundly counter-intuitive, because they are complex and operate at a level beyond our normal day-to-day experience.
But even if common sense did have meaning – if it translated as the autonomous reason of the individual, say – it would not describe the package of rules the government has put forward. In fact, "good, solid, British common sense" doesn't get a look in. The rules are extremely odd.
They allow a meeting with one member of a household but not two at the same time, even though these are unified bubbles in disease control strategy. They prioritise economic relationships with estate agents and cleaners over those with a loved one. You can make a case for this if you like. But it's based on economic demand, not human intuition.
No.10 could have approached this another way. They could have said to the public that you can meet who you like, where you like, as long as you are two metres apart at all times and outside. That might have been smart or stupid – who knows? – but it would have corresponded to the messaging strategy, which stressed people's individual responsibility in making those judgements. The new rules do the precise opposite. They work on minute details and pass verdicts on them, often in quite baffling ways.
So if it isn't a reflection of the underlying strategy, what is it? That's simple. It is a communication strategy divorced from its content, almost certainly derived from extensive public research, of the sort which typifies the Vote Leave government under Dominic Cummings.
No.10 has polled nearly every aspect of public opinion during covid, on a nearly daily basis, with messaging subject to focus group assessments. "The internal polling is pretty extensive every day," an official told Politico. "We get an overnight breakdown of surveys of 2,000 adults. We get stats on how worried people are, people's perceptions of risk, whether they feel they're being served by government information, whether we've got the balance right between the economy and healthcare, polling on people's finances, thoughts on the NHS, about social distancing, businesses, workplace, face masks."
'Common sense' has a specific set of cultural attributes attached to it. People like to think they have it and they hate being told that they do not. It implies very strongly that the right solution is easy, not complex. It maps almost directly onto the demographic groups the government weaponised so effectively over the Brexit debate. It is a shorthand for rejection of expertise, for an insistence that instinct and unearned confidence trump research and understanding.
That fundamentally populist appeal took centre stage in the government response this week. And it was telling that once it did, all the old ways of doing things under the Brexit debate quickly reasserted themselves.
First of all came the basic incompetence – a prime ministerial statement on Sunday night telling people to go back to work, followed by an insistence the next day that it was only supposed to apply on Wednesday. Then came the outright lying, with Johnson insisting that Keir Starmer's description of the government health advice to care homes "wasn't true" despite the fact that it demonstrably was. Then the bullying tone-deaf stubbornness, with a refusal to acknowledge the lie, even when it was shown in black and white, and the assertion that the opposition should not criticise the government because "the public expect us to work together".
It's the same old ugly habits coming back once again. They don't know any other way of doing things. And as the stakes become higher they are likely to double-down on it, instinctively looking for the opportunity to sell their programme on the basis of cultural dividing lines. Right now, those who question them simply lack common sense. Soon, they will be actively working against the country by trying to kill off the economy, or needlessly scaring people.
The way to counter it is to ensure the debate stays within the realm of reason and evidence. We saw what happened when it didn't during Brexit. We can't let it happen here.
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--2020-05-18--Science and compassion defend us against covid

Invited to offer reflections from the humanist perspective on our current situation , I can think of two general headings : what is this situation telling us about ourselves and what is it telling us about our society ?
You might think it 's impossible to speak in general about what is happening to us as individuals .
Some people are having a luxurious lockdown , cocooned in their beautiful homes and gardens with good food , fine wine , adorable pets , mountains of books , and more entertainment subscriptions that they could ever exhaust .
Others have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospects , few pleasures , poor nutrition , and abusive households .
Still , however relatively pleasant one person 's situation is compared with another ’ s , there is an existential challenge which is universal .
However privileged and splendid our isolation , still it is coerced and it is unnatural .
Even those of us not feeling sad or lonely have had our thinking and our emotions altered in some way , even if unrealised .
We are thinking short term , we are clenched in a defensive mode , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our experience is shared .
In the mid 20th Century , the Dutch humanist Jaap van Praag , a survivor of the Nazi occupation , pioneered the psychological concept of 'resilience ' .
His advice that we focus on developing this strength in ourselves can do us all good .
However constrained a human being 's circumstances , there is always scope for some measure of personal control .
We are not animals to which things just happen .
We bring meaning and purpose to events , we are not simply rocked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more resilient than we are .
This humanist idea of resilience goes back to the stoics .
They counselled everyone to look deep into themselves , find that store of strength that is in each of us , and use it to build up our resilience , carve out a space for our control .
If we cultivate this in challenging circumstances , we develop and improve - and what excellent circumstances the present situation is giving us for that .
Many of us are too burdened in the present by work or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us , when we do look back after this , will find we coped with more than we knew we could cope with .
That can be a source of strength for us .
So much for the personal dimension .
What about the situation beyond our own front doors ?
I think balanced contemplation of that situation can bring a lot of comfort , in that much of UK society 's response has been positive .
It had become fashionable to see society as irredeemably atomised .
Some people welcomed this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers .
Others deplored it and took aim at the godless liberal citizens of nowhere .
For many it caused honest concern .
In fact , as the humanists among us might have expected , we have seen both a display of social bonding locally in street and village and neighbourhood as the present crisis has unfolded , and a sense of national and international bonding and community too .
Millions have volunteered formally or informally and thrown themselves into the enterprise of caring for others .
That tells us something about our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too about the sources and strengtheners of social morality .
Britain is one of the least religious societies in the world .
This has been decried by many as drying up the ( allegedly religious ) sources of our social values .
In fact I believe it does the opposite .
The advance of a liberal morality is progress compared with a past morality of rules and taboos .
It has led to a reduced opprobrium for acts which harm no one , like homosexuality , and increased disapproval of acts that harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is based , ultimately , on empathy instead of commandments , and it has come into its own in the present situation .
By and large we have shown rational self-restraint in the service not just of ourselves but of each other .
Beyond empathy , a new light has been shone for many of us on our interdependence , and the dependence of all of us on all those in the public service .
The differences will reassert themselves when the time comes - and no liberal could hope for anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also been revealed and many will remember it is there .
Another positive development may come as a result of the greater presence of death in our news and shared culture .
We are hearing about it more , talking about it more and thinking about it more .
This merely accelerates a healthy trend that was already in progress , of reducing the taboo around death and coming to terms with the realities of it in our modern situation .
It raises welcome questions about dignity at the end of life and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context of a life .
Epidemics happen .
That ca n't be helped .
All that we can do is meet them in the right spirit .
By and large , we have done that , and done it well .
This crisis , though severe , has not destroyed the benefits that have come to us from the progress of science , humanism , freedom , and social justice that have shaped our modern experience .
If anything , it has accentuated them and brought them into active service as never before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most often in blind panic in the face of epidemics , which burned through communities without mercy .
Today , even as we stay at home , unimaginable human ingenuity in the organised enterprise of medical science is being expended to contain this virus , save life , and preserve civilisation .
I am not just clutching at straws .
Past epidemics have destroyed civilisations .
The democracy of Athens , the European medieval social order , the Aztecs and the Incans .
That will not happen to us .
Given that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you might object that they do n't touch that much on politics .
I would n't agree .
The nature of our society , our beliefs about what a good life and a good death might be , our awareness of our dependence and interdependence : these are all realities that post-lockdown politics will have to adjust itself to if it aspires to be authentic to the British people .
Even the fact that we have as individuals been through a shared experience is of relevance to our political life .
Few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home front - are truly national .
But this one really is .
We will all have been through something together , it will be a permanent reference point for us all , and it will shape every aspect of our culture .
Andrew Copson is the chief executive of Humanists UK .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Andrew Copson
Invited to offer reflections from the humanist perspective on our current situation, I can think of two general headings: what is this situation telling us about ourselves and what is it telling us about our society?
You might think it's impossible to speak in general about what is happening to us as individuals. Some people are having a luxurious lockdown, cocooned in their beautiful homes and gardens with good food, fine wine, adorable pets, mountains of books, and more entertainment subscriptions that they could ever exhaust. Others have no opportunity for green space, evaporated financial prospects, few pleasures, poor nutrition, and abusive households.
Still, however relatively pleasant one person's situation is compared with another’s, there is an existential challenge which is universal. However privileged and splendid our isolation, still it is coerced and it is unnatural. Even those of us not feeling sad or lonely have had our thinking and our emotions altered in some way, even if unrealised. We are thinking short term, we are clenched in a defensive mode, we are hunkered down. That part of our experience is shared.
In the mid 20th Century, the Dutch humanist Jaap van Praag, a survivor of the Nazi occupation, pioneered the psychological concept of 'resilience'. His advice that we focus on developing this strength in ourselves can do us all good. However constrained a human being's circumstances, there is always scope for some measure of personal control.
We are not animals to which things just happen. We bring meaning and purpose to events, we are not simply rocked by them. And we can all become more resilient than we are. This humanist idea of resilience goes back to the stoics. They counselled everyone to look deep into themselves, find that store of strength that is in each of us, and use it to build up our resilience, carve out a space for our control. If we cultivate this in challenging circumstances, we develop and improve – and what excellent circumstances the present situation is giving us for that.
Many of us are too burdened in the present by work or worry to notice this, but most of us, when we do look back after this, will find we coped with more than we knew we could cope with. That can be a source of strength for us.
So much for the personal dimension. What about the situation beyond our own front doors? I think balanced contemplation of that situation can bring a lot of comfort, in that much of UK society's response has been positive.
It had become fashionable to see society as irredeemably atomised. Some people welcomed this, longing for a world of individual consumers. Others deplored it and took aim at the godless liberal citizens of nowhere. For many it caused honest concern. In fact, as the humanists among us might have expected, we have seen both a display of social bonding locally in street and village and neighbourhood as the present crisis has unfolded, and a sense of national and international bonding and community too. Millions have volunteered formally or informally and thrown themselves into the enterprise of caring for others. That tells us something about our society.
There is a lesson here too about the sources and strengtheners of social morality. Britain is one of the least religious societies in the world. This has been decried by many as drying up the (allegedly religious) sources of our social values. In fact I believe it does the opposite. The advance of a liberal morality is progress compared with a past morality of rules and taboos. It has led to a reduced opprobrium for acts which harm no one, like homosexuality, and increased disapproval of acts that harm others, like drinking and driving. It is based, ultimately, on empathy instead of commandments, and it has come into its own in the present situation. By and large we have shown rational self-restraint in the service not just of ourselves but of each other.
Beyond empathy, a new light has been shone for many of us on our interdependence, and the dependence of all of us on all those in the public service. The differences will reassert themselves when the time comes – and no liberal could hope for anything else – but a great commonality has also been revealed and many will remember it is there.
Another positive development may come as a result of the greater presence of death in our news and shared culture. We are hearing about it more, talking about it more and thinking about it more. This merely accelerates a healthy trend that was already in progress, of reducing the taboo around death and coming to terms with the realities of it in our modern situation. It raises welcome questions about dignity at the end of life and what is of real value in the context of a life.
Epidemics happen. That can't be helped. All that we can do is meet them in the right spirit. By and large, we have done that, and done it well.
This crisis, though severe, has not destroyed the benefits that have come to us from the progress of science, humanism, freedom, and social justice that have shaped our modern experience. If anything, it has accentuated them and brought them into active service as never before. In past millenia, humanity was most often in blind panic in the face of epidemics, which burned through communities without mercy. Today, even as we stay at home, unimaginable human ingenuity in the organised enterprise of medical science is being expended to contain this virus, save life, and preserve civilisation.
I am not just clutching at straws. Past epidemics have destroyed civilisations. The democracy of Athens, the European medieval social order, the Aztecs and the Incans. That will not happen to us.
Given that these are words written for a political outlet, you might object that they don't touch that much on politics. I wouldn't agree. The nature of our society, our beliefs about what a good life and a good death might be, our awareness of our dependence and interdependence: these are all realities that post-lockdown politics will have to adjust itself to if it aspires to be authentic to the British people. Even the fact that we have as individuals been through a shared experience is of relevance to our political life. Few experiences – apart from wars with a home front – are truly national. But this one really is. We will all have been through something together, it will be a permanent reference point for us all, and it will shape every aspect of our culture.
Andrew Copson is the chief executive of Humanists UK. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-05-19--Government immigration plans risk increase in modern slavery

Yesterday , after the second reading of the immigration bill , the most radical overhaul of our immigration system in decades came one step closer .
Despite how crucial low paid jobs are for our economy and our public health , as the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates , this new system includes no general route for migration into low-paid work .
Under current plans , people wanting to come to the UK for jobs paying less than £25,600 a year – many of which have recently been upgraded in public rhetoric from 'low-skilled ' to 'essential ' – will no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they qualify for one of the UK 's three short-term work visas ( agriculture , youth and domestic work ) or are on the shortage occupation list .
It is right that Covid-19 is taking political and public attention , but there is a significant risk that the momentous changes to our immigration policy do not receive the scrutiny needed , particularly as the pandemic has disrupted the legislative timetable .
This will have serious implications for businesses , as well as the migrant workers whose value and importance the coronavirus crisis is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of blindly pushing ahead with the government 's immigration plans – announced pre-crisis in February this year – the UK needs to pause and reflect on what policies make the most sense going forward .
Diverse stakeholders , including businesses and civil society , agreed that this was necessary at the latest all-party parliamentary group on migration meeting , hosted at the end of April with Focus on Labour Exploitation ( Flex ) , a UK research and policy organisation working to end trafficking for labour exploitation .
The government must introduce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – one that embeds rights and protections .
This would meet three crucial needs of the UK .
First , it would pay heed to the importance of migrant workers , as exposed by the pandemic .
On average , 35 % of cleaners , 39 % of logistics and wholesale workers , and 50 % of workers in the food supply chain are migrants .
Migrants are literally helping keep the country running , from stocking shelves and preparing food to cleaning hospitals .
Second , it would ensure the UK has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors which are not covered by the new points-based system .
The current plans will harm businesses , a serious issue as they grapple with the harm already done by the pandemic .
Third , reducing legal migration options will increase modern slavery offences : having no route does not mean that people will not migrate , just that they will migrate ( and work ) with fewer rights and protections .
As the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have noted , other countries who have suddenly introduced such restrictions have seen a considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are among the most vulnerable to exploitation , especially in countries like the UK that criminalise , and severely punish , undocumented work .
People caught working without authorisation can be subject to an unlimited fine , a six-month prison sentence and the confiscation of their earnings , in addition to being deported .
The illegal working offence , which creates these punishments , hands traffickers and unscrupulous employers an unparalleled tool for exploiting workers : the threat of reporting them to immigration authorities .
This created vulnerability prevents workers from leaving or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identifying in research with workers in sectors like cleaning and hospitality .
It is not , however , just people being pushed to use irregular routes that creates an increased risk of modern slavery offences .
It is also the introduction of new migration programmes without proper scrutiny , which is precisely what may happen next .
The immigration and social security coordination bill , currently awaiting its second reading in parliament , includes a Henry VIII clause that provides the secretary of state with powers to make immigration rules through secondary legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit from the levels of scrutiny afforded to primary legislation .
We are particularly concerned by this in the light of recent developments in immigration policy .
In 2018 , the government introduced a seasonal workers pilot to bring 2,500 workers from outside the EU to work in edible horticulture on six-month visas .
The pilot scheme was intended as a test , to be `` reviewed before any decisions are taken on running a future scheme '' .
Yet , in early 2020 , the government quadrupled the number of workers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so with no parliamentary scrutiny and without publishing any form of evaluation of the scheme , nor confirming that one had been carried out .
Our concern is that the pilot scheme will be further expanded , without evaluation , to meet the estimated 70,000 vacancies in agriculture , or that new short-term visa schemes will be introduced in a similarly opaque way .
Research by Flex has highlighted how temporary migration programmes such as the seasonal workers pilot can increase the risk of modern slavery offences , especially if the right safeguards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created by factors such as short visa timeframes and long cooling-off periods that keep workers temporary and less knowledgeable of their rights or where to get help .
It 's exacerbated by the pressure workers are under to earn back , in a limited timeframe , on the investment they have made - and potential debt they have accrued - to migrate and secure a job in the UK .
Significant changes to immigration policy should not be made through secondary legislation .
Instead , the government ought to put forward a comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parliament to perform its crucial democratic role in scrutinising , amending and enhancing those changes .
Finally , if we are to ensure that the UK 's immigration policy does not lead to an increase in modern slavery , we need to look not only at the visas that migrant workers are on , but also the context into which they are migrating .
Low paid workers are at greater risk of exploitation than those on higher pay .
Those who are classed as 'workers ' ( for instance those on agency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 'employees ' have fewer protections .
They can legally have their employment terminated at a moment 's notice , have no guaranteed hours and are ineligible for certain rights , including protection against unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay .
They are at higher risk of experiencing violations of the few rights they do have , such as health and safety provisions , as the fear of losing their precarious income prevents them from complaining about bad treatment .
The government ’ s rationale is that , by restricting migration to low-paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve , thereby attracting UK workers .
There is no evidence to suggest that this is what will occur .
Yet there is ample evidence that migrant workers are an essential part of our economy and society , that businesses need and want them here , and that prevention of modern slavery means ensuring workers have rights and entitlements , regardless of where they are from .
The current immigration plans risk overlooking all these facts and blindly stumbling into a scenario where Britain lacks its essential workforce , just as we hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heed the calls of business , civil society and parliamentarians to press pause on its plans and find a better way forward .
Tim Farron is the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration .
Lucila Granada is the chief executive officer of Focus on Labour Exploitation .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Tim Farron and Lucila Granada
Yesterday, after the second reading of the immigration bill, the most radical overhaul of our immigration system in decades came one step closer.
Despite how crucial low paid jobs are for our economy and our public health, as the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates, this new system includes no general route for migration into low-paid work. Under current plans, people wanting to come to the UK for jobs paying less than £25,600 a year – many of which have recently been upgraded in public rhetoric from 'low-skilled' to 'essential' – will no longer be able to do so, unless they qualify for one of the UK's three short-term work visas (agriculture, youth and domestic work) or are on the shortage occupation list.
It is right that Covid-19 is taking political and public attention, but there is a significant risk that the momentous changes to our immigration policy do not receive the scrutiny needed, particularly as the pandemic has disrupted the legislative timetable. This will have serious implications for businesses, as well as the migrant workers whose value and importance the coronavirus crisis is finally forcing us to recognise.
Instead of blindly pushing ahead with the government's immigration plans – announced pre-crisis in February this year – the UK needs to pause and reflect on what policies make the most sense going forward. Diverse stakeholders, including businesses and civil society, agreed that this was necessary at the latest all-party parliamentary group on migration meeting, hosted at the end of April with Focus on Labour Exploitation (Flex), a UK research and policy organisation working to end trafficking for labour exploitation.
The government must introduce a general route for migration into low-paid work – one that embeds rights and protections. This would meet three crucial needs of the UK.
First, it would pay heed to the importance of migrant workers, as exposed by the pandemic. On average, 35% of cleaners, 39% of logistics and wholesale workers, and 50% of workers in the food supply chain are migrants. Migrants are literally helping keep the country running, from stocking shelves and preparing food to cleaning hospitals.
Second, it would ensure the UK has enough workers in future, particularly in sectors which are not covered by the new points-based system. The current plans will harm businesses, a serious issue as they grapple with the harm already done by the pandemic.
Third, reducing legal migration options will increase modern slavery offences: having no route does not mean that people will not migrate, just that they will migrate (and work) with fewer rights and protections. As the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have noted, other countries who have suddenly introduced such restrictions have seen a considerable rise in undocumented work.
Undocumented workers are among the most vulnerable to exploitation, especially in countries like the UK that criminalise, and severely punish, undocumented work. People caught working without authorisation can be subject to an unlimited fine, a six-month prison sentence and the confiscation of their earnings, in addition to being deported.
The illegal working offence, which creates these punishments, hands traffickers and unscrupulous employers an unparalleled tool for exploiting workers: the threat of reporting them to immigration authorities. This created vulnerability prevents workers from leaving or reporting exploitative situations, something Flex is identifying in research with workers in sectors like cleaning and hospitality.
It is not, however, just people being pushed to use irregular routes that creates an increased risk of modern slavery offences. It is also the introduction of new migration programmes without proper scrutiny, which is precisely what may happen next.
The immigration and social security coordination bill, currently awaiting its second reading in parliament, includes a Henry VIII clause that provides the secretary of state with powers to make immigration rules through secondary legislation. This form of law-making does not benefit from the levels of scrutiny afforded to primary legislation.
We are particularly concerned by this in the light of recent developments in immigration policy. In 2018, the government introduced a seasonal workers pilot to bring 2,500 workers from outside the EU to work in edible horticulture on six-month visas. The pilot scheme was intended as a test, to be "reviewed before any decisions are taken on running a future scheme". Yet, in early 2020, the government quadrupled the number of workers on the scheme to 10,000. It did so with no parliamentary scrutiny and without publishing any form of evaluation of the scheme, nor confirming that one had been carried out.
Our concern is that the pilot scheme will be further expanded, without evaluation, to meet the estimated 70,000 vacancies in agriculture, or that new short-term visa schemes will be introduced in a similarly opaque way. Research by Flex has highlighted how temporary migration programmes such as the seasonal workers pilot can increase the risk of modern slavery offences, especially if the right safeguards are not in place.
Risk is created by factors such as short visa timeframes and long cooling-off periods that keep workers temporary and less knowledgeable of their rights or where to get help. It's exacerbated by the pressure workers are under to earn back, in a limited timeframe, on the investment they have made – and potential debt they have accrued – to migrate and secure a job in the UK.
Significant changes to immigration policy should not be made through secondary legislation. Instead, the government ought to put forward a comprehensive package of immigration policy changes and allow parliament to perform its crucial democratic role in scrutinising, amending and enhancing those changes.
Finally, if we are to ensure that the UK's immigration policy does not lead to an increase in modern slavery, we need to look not only at the visas that migrant workers are on, but also the context into which they are migrating.
Low paid workers are at greater risk of exploitation than those on higher pay. Those who are classed as 'workers' (for instance those on agency, temporary and zero-hours contracts) as opposed to 'employees' have fewer protections. They can legally have their employment terminated at a moment's notice, have no guaranteed hours and are ineligible for certain rights, including protection against unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay. They are at higher risk of experiencing violations of the few rights they do have, such as health and safety provisions, as the fear of losing their precarious income prevents them from complaining about bad treatment.
The government’s rationale is that, by restricting migration to low-paid sectors, wages and working conditions will improve, thereby attracting UK workers. There is no evidence to suggest that this is what will occur. Yet there is ample evidence that migrant workers are an essential part of our economy and society, that businesses need and want them here, and that prevention of modern slavery means ensuring workers have rights and entitlements, regardless of where they are from.
The current immigration plans risk overlooking all these facts and blindly stumbling into a scenario where Britain lacks its essential workforce, just as we hit a post-pandemic recession. The government must heed the calls of business, civil society and parliamentarians to press pause on its plans and find a better way forward.
Tim Farron is the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. Lucila Granada is the chief executive officer of Focus on Labour Exploitation.
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--2020-05-20--Coming storm: Poor housing and fuel poverty raise fears over second covid wave

Should the rate of spread of coronavirus increase following the recent easing of lockdown measures , the government may have to impose a second lockdown later this year .
But while the move may be necessary to control the virus , forcing people to stay home over winter will put huge strain on households in damp or draughty housing and those struggling with heating bills .
`` People 's finances are going to be significantly compromised , so I expect we 'll see far more cold homes and people unable to heat their homes properly , '' says Jessica Allen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Equity ( IHE ) .
`` They 'll have to stay in constantly .
People are skint .
So both those things are going to mean that they 're not going to be able to heat their houses adequately . ''
James Clarke of Severn Wye Energy Agency , which helps tackle fuel poverty , says : `` Coming up this winter we are as a country going to be experiencing a recovery period from a respiratory disease .
So the very last thing you want ... is a poor environment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is famous for exacerbating respiratory illness .
`` So what I think we 've seen in recent weeks with the outcry about care homes - 'what are we doing , what is the political response to the care homes situation ? '
- we 're concerned that we might see a very similar sort of thing come the winter with areas of deprivation , where cold homes are n't addressed properly . ''
Even in normal times , at least a fifth of excess winter deaths in the UK can be attributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold housing , unaffordable fuel bills , or both .
The list of consequences of cold housing is vast : increased chances of respiratory infections , cardiovascular disease , gastro infections , asthma , allergy symptoms , worse mental health , arthritis , rheumatism , and a higher number of falls - a major safety risk for the elderly .
`` There is a deep concern for many of us that whilst we deal with this crisis whilst it 's 25 degrees outside and the sun is shining ... we 're potentially blind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a resurgence once lockdown measures are lifted a little bit , '' Clarke says .
Peter Smith of advocacy group National Energy Action ( NEA ) says : `` What we 're concerned about is an overlap between another significant outbreak of covid , potentially flu , and cold weather , which would be a toxic cocktail and would sadly see premature deaths spike . ''
The nightmare scenario is people forced to stay at home during a winter lockdown , unable to earn , relying on central heating more when they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly living in damp , draughty , or uninsulated housing .
`` What people tend to do if they ca n't heat their homes properly is to live in one or two rooms which they do heat - so then there 's impacts on family conflict , '' Allen notes , adding that teenagers living in cold housing are up to four times more likely to have mental health problems .
`` We 're not saying that cold homes cause covid , '' Smith says , `` but those people with underlying respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by living in a cold , damp home .
Broadly there 's a 30 % to 50 % increase in respiratory problems , particularly from asthma , for people who do live in cold and damp homes . ''
As so often during the pandemic , Britain would enter a winter lockdown from a particularly vulnerable starting point - in this case , the state of its housing stock .
`` We have in this country , well documented , some of the worst quality housing in Europe , '' Clarke says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the oldest in Europe - and its lax energy efficiency regulations as the drivers .
`` Certainly in Western Europe we fare very , very poorly .
Just in general we have inefficient housing that lends itself quite well to creating a state of fuel poverty for a lot of low-income people . ''
While social housing tends to perform better thanks to investment by government and social landlords , privately owned and privately rented housing often lags behind .
Central government funding for private sector housing renewal - much of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was axed as an austerity measure in 2011 .
Progress on improving fuel efficiency in private homes flatlined after 2014 .
Most inefficient of all are houses of multiple occupation - poorly converted buildings split into individual flats to maximise rental income , often stuffed full of low-income or vulnerable occupants .
`` There is a huge overlap between the people that are living on the lowest incomes and the people that live in the least efficient housing , '' says Smith .
`` And that 's really what the definition of 'fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overlap between those people that are living below the poverty line , and also have energy costs which are far higher than average . ''
And while private tenants are particularly exposed , even homeowners can face similar problems .
`` For some people on limited incomes , if they 're owner-occupied they 're still not actually able to afford to do things to tackle that , '' Sarah Davis of the Chartered Institute of Housing says .
`` Often in that age bracket they may have been people who 've exercised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on significantly limited incomes . ''
The current lockdown means that a lot of the work inside people 's homes to improve warmth and efficiency for the winter is simply not happening .
`` I think we will find that this coming winter , we will over the course of 2020 have made little to no inroads into insulating our housing stock , '' Smith warns .
`` That will bear out in the statistics next year and it will bear out in our death toll as well . ''
Fuel poverty rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact of benefit cuts countered by an energy price cap and recent rises in the minimum wage .
But even in a normal year , around one in ten people struggle to pay their heating bills or heat their homes effectively .
`` Often this might mean just using the one room , or it might mean taking a massive hit on your finances over the winter and not eating properly , '' Clarke says .
A winter lockdown could therefore lead to `` more people in poverty ... in more vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perennially in an unhealthy environment '' .
Allen agrees that the point about finances is crucial .
`` People who used to heat their homes adequately wo n't be able to probably this winter because of the economic impact . ''
Given that there 's not enough time before a winter lockdown to address long term issues with the structure of Britain 's housing stock , action to ensure heating is affordable is essential .
National Energy Action has welcomed a package of support agreed by energy suppliers that will help customers short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist those struggling with monthly bills .
But there are concerns that people do n't know what help is available - exacerbated by different suppliers using different criteria to provide different support to different customers .
A winter lockdown would present an even bigger challenge .
`` If we find ourselves in a winter of struggling with lockdown and with higher energy bills and lower incomes , and all of the things that contribute to fuel poverty , then we are going to need some pretty high level strategic decisions being made to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He suggested debt caps and financial help for those who are struggling .
The NEA 's Smith says there would need to be a shift from the current , supplier-funded coping measures to a government-funded response .
He suggests a matched funding scheme so that when customers repay some of their fuel debt , the government and supplier each put money in as well to speed up the process , plus a government fund to support low-income customers who prepay for their fuel .
Industry group Energy UK said that suppliers have introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started , but that `` in a low margin business , with potentially many more customers than usual facing difficulties paying bills , suppliers are only going to be able to write off debts in limited circumstances '' .
Vulnerable people and those in financial distress are advised to talk to their energy supplier , who will be able to discuss options including reassessing , cutting or pausing payments .
Come winter , the stakes could not be higher .
`` Cold homes place needless stress on the health service itself , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping people away from hospitals '' - particularly given the risk of catching covid while there .
`` The second wave , if it comes in October , November , would be particularly bad because that 's when the flu starts - so you 've got a double whammy , '' warns Allen .
Government scientists are so concerned about the annual winter flu outbreak coinciding with a second spike in coronavirus that they are reportedly suggesting giving everyone the flu jab .
Throw in the effects of increased fuel poverty , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in poor homes are relying on healthcare far more , '' Clarke says .
`` They 're not recovering from the virus , they may be contracting the virus and getting much worse symptoms as a result of the weather outside and the exposure to the elements they have even inside .
`` So there could be some really serious health repercussions of not taking steps at this point to protect those who often choose between heating and eating . ''
The Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own home and this is especially the case while people are staying home to control the spread of coronavirus .
`` We have struck a deal with energy suppliers to support those most in need during the outbreak .
On top of that , we are protecting households from rip-off deals with our energy price cap , improving the energy efficiency of low-income households and giving extra money to pensioners during colder times of year . ''
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Chaminda Jayanetti
Should the rate of spread of coronavirus increase following the recent easing of lockdown measures, the government may have to impose a second lockdown later this year.
But while the move may be necessary to control the virus, forcing people to stay home over winter will put huge strain on households in damp or draughty housing and those struggling with heating bills.
"People's finances are going to be significantly compromised, so I expect we'll see far more cold homes and people unable to heat their homes properly," says Jessica Allen, deputy director at the Institute of Health Equity (IHE).
"They'll have to stay in constantly. People are skint. So both those things are going to mean that they're not going to be able to heat their houses adequately."
James Clarke of Severn Wye Energy Agency, which helps tackle fuel poverty, says: "Coming up this winter we are as a country going to be experiencing a recovery period from a respiratory disease. So the very last thing you want … is a poor environment to be recovering in, certainly not one that is famous for exacerbating respiratory illness.
"So what I think we've seen in recent weeks with the outcry about care homes – 'what are we doing, what is the political response to the care homes situation?' – we're concerned that we might see a very similar sort of thing come the winter with areas of deprivation, where cold homes aren't addressed properly."
Health impact
Even in normal times, at least a fifth of excess winter deaths in the UK can be attributed to cold homes, either because of cold housing, unaffordable fuel bills, or both.
The list of consequences of cold housing is vast: increased chances of respiratory infections, cardiovascular disease, gastro infections, asthma, allergy symptoms, worse mental health, arthritis, rheumatism, and a higher number of falls – a major safety risk for the elderly.
"There is a deep concern for many of us that whilst we deal with this crisis whilst it's 25 degrees outside and the sun is shining … we're potentially blind to what could occur if there was a resurgence once lockdown measures are lifted a little bit," Clarke says.
Peter Smith of advocacy group National Energy Action (NEA) says: "What we're concerned about is an overlap between another significant outbreak of covid, potentially flu, and cold weather, which would be a toxic cocktail and would sadly see premature deaths spike."
The nightmare scenario is people forced to stay at home during a winter lockdown, unable to earn, relying on central heating more when they are least able to afford it – and possibly living in damp, draughty, or uninsulated housing.
"What people tend to do if they can't heat their homes properly is to live in one or two rooms which they do heat – so then there's impacts on family conflict," Allen notes, adding that teenagers living in cold housing are up to four times more likely to have mental health problems.
"We're not saying that cold homes cause covid," Smith says, "but those people with underlying respiratory conditions … will have their situation exacerbated by living in a cold, damp home. Broadly there's a 30% to 50% increase in respiratory problems, particularly from asthma, for people who do live in cold and damp homes."
Poor housing
As so often during the pandemic, Britain would enter a winter lockdown from a particularly vulnerable starting point – in this case, the state of its housing stock.
"We have in this country, well documented, some of the worst quality housing in Europe," Clarke says, pinpointing Britain's ageing housing stock – among the oldest in Europe – and its lax energy efficiency regulations as the drivers. "Certainly in Western Europe we fare very, very poorly. Just in general we have inefficient housing that lends itself quite well to creating a state of fuel poverty for a lot of low-income people."
While social housing tends to perform better thanks to investment by government and social landlords, privately owned and privately rented housing often lags behind.
Central government funding for private sector housing renewal – much of which was spent on improving energy efficiency – was axed as an austerity measure in 2011. Progress on improving fuel efficiency in private homes flatlined after 2014.
Most inefficient of all are houses of multiple occupation – poorly converted buildings split into individual flats to maximise rental income, often stuffed full of low-income or vulnerable occupants.
"There is a huge overlap between the people that are living on the lowest incomes and the people that live in the least efficient housing," says Smith. "And that's really what the definition of 'fuel poverty' in England captures – the overlap between those people that are living below the poverty line, and also have energy costs which are far higher than average."
And while private tenants are particularly exposed, even homeowners can face similar problems.
"For some people on limited incomes, if they're owner-occupied they're still not actually able to afford to do things to tackle that," Sarah Davis of the Chartered Institute of Housing says.
"Often in that age bracket they may have been people who've exercised the right to buy, and they're on significantly limited incomes."
The current lockdown means that a lot of the work inside people's homes to improve warmth and efficiency for the winter is simply not happening.
"I think we will find that this coming winter, we will over the course of 2020 have made little to no inroads into insulating our housing stock," Smith warns. "That will bear out in the statistics next year and it will bear out in our death toll as well."
Action on fuel poverty
Fuel poverty rates have changed little since 2003, with the impact of benefit cuts countered by an energy price cap and recent rises in the minimum wage. But even in a normal year, around one in ten people struggle to pay their heating bills or heat their homes effectively.
"Often this might mean just using the one room, or it might mean taking a massive hit on your finances over the winter and not eating properly," Clarke says. A winter lockdown could therefore lead to "more people in poverty … in more vulnerable situations, more isolated, and more perennially in an unhealthy environment".
Allen agrees that the point about finances is crucial. "People who used to heat their homes adequately won't be able to probably this winter because of the economic impact."
Given that there's not enough time before a winter lockdown to address long term issues with the structure of Britain's housing stock, action to ensure heating is affordable is essential.
National Energy Action has welcomed a package of support agreed by energy suppliers that will help customers short of money to top-up prepayment cards and assist those struggling with monthly bills.
But there are concerns that people don't know what help is available – exacerbated by different suppliers using different criteria to provide different support to different customers. A winter lockdown would present an even bigger challenge.
"If we find ourselves in a winter of struggling with lockdown and with higher energy bills and lower incomes, and all of the things that contribute to fuel poverty, then we are going to need some pretty high level strategic decisions being made to address those," Clarke explains. He suggested debt caps and financial help for those who are struggling.
The NEA's Smith says there would need to be a shift from the current, supplier-funded coping measures to a government-funded response. He suggests a matched funding scheme so that when customers repay some of their fuel debt, the government and supplier each put money in as well to speed up the process, plus a government fund to support low-income customers who prepay for their fuel.
Industry group Energy UK said that suppliers have introduced payment holidays and emergency credit since lockdown started, but that "in a low margin business, with potentially many more customers than usual facing difficulties paying bills, suppliers are only going to be able to write off debts in limited circumstances".
Vulnerable people and those in financial distress are advised to talk to their energy supplier, who will be able to discuss options including reassessing, cutting or pausing payments.
Clouds on the horizon
Come winter, the stakes could not be higher.
"Cold homes place needless stress on the health service itself," Smith says. "What matters is keeping people away from hospitals" – particularly given the risk of catching covid while there.
"The second wave, if it comes in October, November, would be particularly bad because that's when the flu starts – so you've got a double whammy," warns Allen.
Government scientists are so concerned about the annual winter flu outbreak coinciding with a second spike in coronavirus that they are reportedly suggesting giving everyone the flu jab.
Throw in the effects of increased fuel poverty, and "all of a sudden those that are in poor homes are relying on healthcare far more," Clarke says. "They're not recovering from the virus, they may be contracting the virus and getting much worse symptoms as a result of the weather outside and the exposure to the elements they have even inside.
"So there could be some really serious health repercussions of not taking steps at this point to protect those who often choose between heating and eating."
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: "No one should be cold in their own home and this is especially the case while people are staying home to control the spread of coronavirus.
"We have struck a deal with energy suppliers to support those most in need during the outbreak. On top of that, we are protecting households from rip-off deals with our energy price cap, improving the energy efficiency of low-income households and giving extra money to pensioners during colder times of year."
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-05-20--New immigration plans make the same old mistakes for a new world

This week the government 's immigration bill was voted through the House of Commons , essentially repealing EU citizens ' rights in the UK and bringing the country one step closer to its new immigration system .
What it did not do is detail that system , leaving that to be introduced by secondary legislation , with far less parliamentary scrutiny , at a time when that scrutiny is desperately needed .
This means parliament wo n't fully debate or even vote on the detail of the new arrangements .
It also has the consequence that the Home Office will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with little notice , making it harder for businesses to stay on top of the rules .
The current immigration rule book is over 1,000 pages long , as the government has introduced multiple changes to try and remedy operational problems .
Given the last system was rendered virtually unusable , the new system should have been an opportunity to move major changes into primary legislation .
Covid-19 has highlighted the serious shortcomings in the government 's proposed points-based system and how it would detrimentally impact the UK economy .
Although the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns across the political spectrum that the legislation is not fit for the economic needs of the country – not now , and not for the future .
The UK 's move to fly-in Eastern European workers to feed British families has already exposed its dependency on typically low-paid immigrants to prop up the sectors we all rely on .
And that 's not to mention the thousands of often lower-paid immigrant workers on the front lines across the NHS , social care and food production who keep these sectors running – precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Britain 's future immigration system lacks a migration route for those who are lower-paid and deemed lower-skilled by the government – the same kinds of jobs that are now being heralded as the backbone of our economy during the crisis .
And for those UK businesses already under extreme pressure in social care ( with 140,000 jobs under the threshold ) and hospitality ( with 93,000 under ) , they will need time to adapt – time that the proposed system does not give them .
Businesses can not survive facing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
What we need is a phased approach , allowing them more time to prepare in already challenging circumstances , so that their hands are not further tied as they work to return the economy to full strength .
Many of these essential workers will not only fail the salary threshold , but more critically the skills threshold of the proposed skilled worker route , no matter how highly they are educated .
This is deeply concerning , as many of these sectors have historically struggled to attract sufficient numbers of UK-born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to play here , but in the short-term , a temporary work visa is crucial across all sectors and especially for social care , food processing and logistics .
The government 's immigration policy must not be a further drag on the economy - it should support business in rebuilding and recovering from the crisis .
The case for a reassessment of the direction of travel is clear – and our weekly clapping tradition , albeit good for community spirit , will be an empty gesture if the harsh new rules are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director immigration and Laurel Hart is policy and relationship manager at London First .
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 Sophia Wolpers and Laurel Hart
This week the government’s immigration bill was voted through the House of Commons, essentially repealing EU citizens’ rights in the UK and bringing the country one step closer to its new immigration system. What it did not do is detail that system, leaving that to be introduced by secondary legislation, with far less parliamentary scrutiny, at a time when that scrutiny is desperately needed.
This means parliament won’t fully debate or even vote on the detail of the new arrangements. It also has the consequence that the Home Office will be able to change the immigration rules with little notice, making it harder for businesses to stay on top of the rules. The current immigration rule book is over 1,000 pages long, as the government has introduced multiple changes to try and remedy operational problems. Given the last system was rendered virtually unusable, the new system should have been an opportunity to move major changes into primary legislation.
Covid-19 has highlighted the serious shortcomings in the government’s proposed points-based system and how it would detrimentally impact the UK economy. Although the bill survived the vote, there are growing concerns across the political spectrum that the legislation is not fit for the economic needs of the country – not now, and not for the future.
The UK’s move to fly-in Eastern European workers to feed British families has already exposed its dependency on typically low-paid immigrants to prop up the sectors we all rely on. And that’s not to mention the thousands of often lower-paid immigrant workers on the front lines across the NHS, social care and food production who keep these sectors running – precisely those that the new system will restrict.
Britain’s future immigration system lacks a migration route for those who are lower-paid and deemed lower-skilled by the government – the same kinds of jobs that are now being heralded as the backbone of our economy during the crisis. And for those UK businesses already under extreme pressure in social care (with 140,000 jobs under the threshold) and hospitality (with 93,000 under), they will need time to adapt – time that the proposed system does not give them.
Businesses cannot survive facing a cliff edge at the end of this year. What we need is a phased approach, allowing them more time to prepare in already challenging circumstances, so that their hands are not further tied as they work to return the economy to full strength.
Many of these essential workers will not only fail the salary threshold, but more critically the skills threshold of the proposed skilled worker route, no matter how highly they are educated.
This is deeply concerning, as many of these sectors have historically struggled to attract sufficient numbers of UK-born applicants. Overtime, reskilling has a part to play here, but in the short-term, a temporary work visa is crucial across all sectors and especially for social care, food processing and logistics.
The government’s immigration policy must not be a further drag on the economy – it should support business in rebuilding and recovering from the crisis.
The case for a reassessment of the direction of travel is clear – and our weekly clapping tradition, albeit good for community spirit, will be an empty gesture if the harsh new rules are not revised.
Sophia Wolpers is programme director immigration and Laurel Hart is policy and relationship manager at London First.
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--2020-05-22--NHS surcharge: No migrant should face this double-taxation

Migrant NHS workers will no longer have to pay an extortionate surcharge to use the healthcare system that they help to sustain .
Yesterday 's U-turn by the government on this was both welcome and unexpected .
But it does n't go far enough .
Just like Brits , migrants contribute to the NHS through taxes .
Demanding £400 extra per year - rising to £624 from October - is a form of double taxation .
It also adds to the extortionate cost of visas themselves , which are crippling for many .
Because of these costs , teachers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country will continue to drown in debt and struggle to feed their children .
From October , a family of four renewing their 2.5 year visas will have to pay £6,240 just for the NHS surcharge – on top of the £4,000 cost of the visas .
Migrant Voice member Shantel Murray is one of those who will benefit from yesterday 's U-turn .
The 27-year-old works in a care home in Birmingham and already struggles to afford the surcharge .
Once it rose again in October , it would have been completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , caught on camera by Channel 4 News , is beautiful to watch – her relief is palpable and her happiness infectious .
Her sister Aniska is happy for her , but also frustrated .
Like Shantel , she 's been in the UK for 20 years and had to fight to get her status .
And like Shantel , she works and pays taxes .
But the new rules do n't apply to her .
When she renews her visa next time , she 'll need to find £1,560 just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa .
`` I 've been paying taxes for years and I do n't understand why I need to suffer , '' she says .
She 's worried that the costs – of the surcharge , the visa , of scanning and uploading documents – will keep on increasing .
`` They 're doing this because we 're easy targets . ''
To abolish the charge for Shantel but not Aniska is cruel and indefensible .
It feeds a poisonous narrative – one that has flourished during the Covid-19 pandemic – that says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that only those who risk their lives on the frontline deserve a semblance of fair treatment , while the rest are left to drown in stress and debt .
The government argues that the surcharge raises necessary income for the NHS .
The reality is that this income is a tiny fraction – far less than 0.5 % - of the NHS budget , but an unjustifiably huge proportion of the income of those forced to pay it .
We believe instead that the ballooning NHS surcharge and the extortionate cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times that of other European countries – are an insidious way to force migrants in lower paid jobs out of the UK , and keep and attract only those with wealth .
This toxic hierarchy values wealth above all , then NHS workers – but only when they 're saving our lives .
It shunts everyone else to the bottom .
It must be dismantled .
The NHS surcharge should be abolished for everyone .
`` What did I do to deserve this ? ''
Aniska asks .
We have no good answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramadan is director of Migrant Voice .
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 Nazek Ramadan
Migrant NHS workers will no longer have to pay an extortionate surcharge to use the healthcare system that they help to sustain. Yesterday's U-turn by the government on this was both welcome and unexpected.
But it doesn't go far enough. Just like Brits, migrants contribute to the NHS through taxes. Demanding £400 extra per year – rising to £624 from October – is a form of double taxation. It also adds to the extortionate cost of visas themselves, which are crippling for many.
Because of these costs, teachers, bus drivers and other workers across the country will continue to drown in debt and struggle to feed their children. From October, a family of four renewing their 2.5 year visas will have to pay £6,240 just for the NHS surcharge – on top of the £4,000 cost of the visas.
Migrant Voice member Shantel Murray is one of those who will benefit from yesterday's U-turn. The 27-year-old works in a care home in Birmingham and already struggles to afford the surcharge. Once it rose again in October, it would have been completely impossible. Her reaction to hearing the news, caught on camera by Channel 4 News, is beautiful to watch – her relief is palpable and her happiness infectious.
Her sister Aniska is happy for her, but also frustrated. Like Shantel, she's been in the UK for 20 years and had to fight to get her status. And like Shantel, she works and pays taxes. But the new rules don't apply to her. When she renews her visa next time, she'll need to find £1,560 just to cover the surcharge for her 2.5 year visa.
"I've been paying taxes for years and I don't understand why I need to suffer," she says. She's worried that the costs – of the surcharge, the visa, of scanning and uploading documents – will keep on increasing. "They're doing this because we're easy targets."
To abolish the charge for Shantel but not Aniska is cruel and indefensible. It feeds a poisonous narrative – one that has flourished during the Covid-19 pandemic – that says some migrants are worth more than others, that only those who risk their lives on the frontline deserve a semblance of fair treatment, while the rest are left to drown in stress and debt.
The government argues that the surcharge raises necessary income for the NHS. The reality is that this income is a tiny fraction – far less than 0.5% – of the NHS budget, but an unjustifiably huge proportion of the income of those forced to pay it.
We believe instead that the ballooning NHS surcharge and the extortionate cost of visas in this country – often ten times that of other European countries – are an insidious way to force migrants in lower paid jobs out of the UK, and keep and attract only those with wealth.
This toxic hierarchy values wealth above all, then NHS workers – but only when they're saving our lives. It shunts everyone else to the bottom. It must be dismantled. The NHS surcharge should be abolished for everyone.
"What did I do to deserve this?" Aniska asks. We have no good answer and nor does the government.
Nazek Ramadan is director of Migrant Voice. 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--2020-05-25--Cummings press conference: The emperor has no clothes

The first thing you noticed was the gulf between the image of Dominic Cummings and the reality of him .
It 's rare that we get some proper time with him .
All we 're usually exposed to are his angry recrimination when leaving his home about how out-of-touch the media are .
But today , we got the full show .
He sat in the Downing Street rose garden for around three quarters of an hour , offering an increasingly contorted account of his movements during the covid emergency .
The arrogant , sneering culture war populist , banging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , he seemed nervous , shifty , like a schoolboy who 'd been caught smoking in the bike sheds .
Cummings did not apologise or show any contrition .
Instead , he went for the standard Trump strategy : blame the media .
Were people right to be angry at what he had done ?
`` A lot of that anger is based on reports in the media that have not been true , '' he said .
Would his actions lead people to break lock-down ?
`` The coverage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people believe they can behave in certain ways . ''
So in other words he 'd done nothing wrong .
It was the media 's fault .
As for the story itself , it was incredibly bizarre , like the plot of some kind of straight-to-DVD midmarket American comedy .
After attacking the media for telling lies , he proceeded to accept the two main stories they had uncovered about him - firstly that he had driven to Durham and secondly that he had then gone to Barnard Castle .
His excuse for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsure if his eyesight was working , so to test it out he took a half hour trip to a beauty spot with his wife and child in the car .
It 's hard to know what to do with this .
Let 's say it 's false , which you kind of have to hope it is .
In that case he should resign for lying and breaking the rules which he himself set , as well as damaging public acceptance of the lock-down .
He should also resign on the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis that , as a political adviser , he does not understand that this story is inadequate to stop the coverage .
But what if he is n't ?
What if this is a thing he actually did ?
Then surely it is also the case that he should resign , on the basis that his judgment is hopelessly impaired .
Testing your capacity to drive by driving is not a sensible thing to do .
If you are going to do it , it is even less sensible to take a half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the block .
And if this really is something you insist on doing regardless , then do not put your child in the car , especially if their safety is ostensibly the reason you went to Durham in the first place .
In the end though , the real story today was n't his strange timeline .
That , by the end of the press conference , was more of a comedy subplot than anything else .
The real story was the state of him .
He was stripped of all the culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few years - weaponising the right-wing press over Brexit and firing off constant salvos of 'will of the people ' gibberish .
So what we saw was a slight and helpless figure .
Once the lights were turned in on him , it was clear he was n't up to it .
Boris Johnson has staked his reputation on this man .
He put his government on the line and risked his public health strategy in order to preserve him .
Given the performance today , it 's hard to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

The first thing you noticed was the gulf between the image of Dominic Cummings and the reality of him.
It's rare that we get some proper time with him. All we're usually exposed to are his angry recrimination when leaving his home about how out-of-touch the media are. But today, we got the full show. He sat in the Downing Street rose garden for around three quarters of an hour, offering an increasingly contorted account of his movements during the covid emergency.
The arrogant, sneering culture war populist, banging on incessantly about Brexit, was gone. Instead, he seemed nervous, shifty, like a schoolboy who'd been caught smoking in the bike sheds.
Cummings did not apologise or show any contrition. Instead, he went for the standard Trump strategy: blame the media. Were people right to be angry at what he had done? "A lot of that anger is based on reports in the media that have not been true," he said. Would his actions lead people to break lock-down? "The coverage of the last couple of days could make people believe they can behave in certain ways." So in other words he'd done nothing wrong. It was the media's fault.
As for the story itself, it was incredibly bizarre, like the plot of some kind of straight-to-DVD midmarket American comedy. After attacking the media for telling lies, he proceeded to accept the two main stories they had uncovered about him – firstly that he had driven to Durham and secondly that he had then gone to Barnard Castle.
His excuse for the latter journey was that he was unsure if his eyesight was working, so to test it out he took a half hour trip to a beauty spot with his wife and child in the car.
It's hard to know what to do with this. Let's say it's false, which you kind of have to hope it is. In that case he should resign for lying and breaking the rules which he himself set, as well as damaging public acceptance of the lock-down. He should also resign on the more superficial, but arguably more pertinent, basis that, as a political adviser, he does not understand that this story is inadequate to stop the coverage.
But what if he isn't? What if this is a thing he actually did? Then surely it is also the case that he should resign, on the basis that his judgment is hopelessly impaired. Testing your capacity to drive by driving is not a sensible thing to do. If you are going to do it, it is even less sensible to take a half hour drive instead of just going around the block. And if this really is something you insist on doing regardless, then do not put your child in the car, especially if their safety is ostensibly the reason you went to Durham in the first place.
In the end though, the real story today wasn't his strange timeline. That, by the end of the press conference, was more of a comedy subplot than anything else. The real story was the state of him. He was stripped of all the culture war defences he had built up over the last few years – weaponising the right-wing press over Brexit and firing off constant salvos of 'will of the people' gibberish. So what we saw was a slight and helpless figure. Once the lights were turned in on him, it was clear he wasn't up to it.
Boris Johnson has staked his reputation on this man. He put his government on the line and risked his public health strategy in order to preserve him. Given the performance today, it's hard to work out why.
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--2020-05-27--The failure of Cummings' British culture war

They were meant to be good at this .
That was the whole point of them .
Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings did n't have much to commend them , but having their finger on the pulse of the public was meant to be their one special skill .
Instead Tory MPs are being deluged with furious letters and emails from voters - often Tory voters , Leave voters - furious that the prime minister 's henchman was allowed to swan across the country when people were locked in their homes and their loved ones died alone .
How have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ category error made by this government 's advisers , supporters and indeed its critics was to mistake Britain for America .
Yes , there is a values divide in British ( not just English ) society - particularly on immigration and sovereignty , and to a lesser degree on law and order and political correctness .
Cummings and Johnson exploited these divisions to win the EU referendum and then channelled that support towards hard Brexit , pitching a 'them and us ' narrative which saw some of the richest people in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked for two reasons .
First , it told a lot of instinctively eurosceptic , anti-immigration voters that they could have what they wanted .
Second , it created caricatures of Remainers that these voters not only could not identify with , but actively identified against : Guardian-reading liberals in expensive Islington townhouses ( the sort Cummings lives in ) , politically correct student activists who 'd find all your jokes offensive , and the whispered smearing of London as a city that is not truly English - meaning , bluntly , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved was God .
There are three pillars to America 's culture wars : 'freedom ' , racism , and religion .
America 's mad mutation of personal freedom into a 'Live Free or Die ' creed of gun rights and hating 'the state ' goes well beyond Britain 's understanding of civil liberties .
Racism , while ever-present here , does not run as wide nor as deep as it does in the States .
But the role of religion is the biggest contrast .
The tens of millions of Americans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is evil and sinners will burn in hell are wedded to such stances in a way unimaginable in contemporary Britain 's secular politics .
Factor in the enormously influential Fox News , whose commitment to fake news makes the Sun look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica , and it is easy to see why such voters turn out each election to back a Republican party that promises to uphold Biblical bigotry and bog standard racism no matter what - even if the candidate is a serial philanderer like Donald Trump , and even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes and health .
White religious conservatives are bound to the Republicans by God .
That creates a bond of trust that is similarly fervent on any issue - be it on guns , tax , the media , anything .
Give them a man who 'll endorse their every last prejudice , and they will believe whatever he says and forgive whatever he does .
No such dynamic exists in Britain .
Nothing even comes close .
That is why coronavirus became a culture war in America but not the UK .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican right and the demented end of the internet combined to cast the pandemic , lockdown and vaccines as vast conspiracies to a cult like audience .
But in Britain , older voters - Boris ' base - were the most supportive of lockdown before Johnson backed it .
The anti-lockdown movement promoted by conspiracists , Spectator columnists and Nigel Farage was a pathetic embarrassment .
Opposition to lockdown never rose much beyond ten per cent of the public .
More recently , the relative national unity behind the government collapsed even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its blatant mishandling of the pandemic cost it the support of Labour voters .
Again , this was not a culture war or values divide .
It was about trust .
Yes , Leave voters voted Tory because they trusted Johnson to deliver Brexit .
He was their guy - they gave him more leeway , more benefit of the doubt .
But the trust they placed in him over the pandemic was not about the Brexit divide , because the pandemic is not about the Brexit divide .
That bond of trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the twin blades of a catastrophic death toll and an adviser and prime minister who are treating the public like fools .
Cummings ' defence was the display of someone who as a child might have scribbled out the word 'truth ' from his first dictionary .
Even if his trip to Durham were morally excusable , his subsequent jolly to Barnard Castle patently was not .
It was blatant and unnecessary flouting of the rules , even accepting his implausible stated reason .
He was able to state that reason in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the full backing of the prime minister , in front of the nation .
Those brusquely arrested and charged by police for infringing the lockdown rules over the last two months enjoyed rather less leeway .
It is just another inequality in a crisis defined by inequalities .
For all the lies and bad faith on show , some will be persuaded by it - primarily those who want to be .
Others will feel it 's time to move on .
After all , if Johnson wants him to stay then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's given his side , what use is there in dragging this out ?
Let the government focus on dealing with the pandemic .
But the Cummings episode is not an aberration .
It is not some deviation from the Tories ' norm .
It is the Tories ' norm .
Secrecy , incompetence , dishonesty and detachment from reality have marked the government ’ s entire , shambolic , world-trailing handling of the pandemic .
They rarely publish the scientific advice they claim to base their decisions on .
They whip out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then fail to meet those targets , then lie about the failures .
They created a catastrophe in care homes and then simply denied it to our faces .
The Tories , in one guise or another , have spent a decade in government without knowing or understanding what it is they are governing , dismissing swathes of lower-profile public services as 'bureaucrats ' or 'public sector waste ' .
Thus their response to the pandemic paid little attention to public health infrastructure , cut council leaders out of discussions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clear NHS beds for new covid inpatients - as we now see , with catastrophic results .
And why would a government led by a pampered faux-aristocrat advised by an angry cosplaying philosopher king with a family castle have any idea that care workers inhabit a world where they ca n't afford to take time off sick ?
The government will attempt to move on and get back to the job in hand .
There is no reason to believe that will make things better .
A faulty engine will go on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chewing up paper .
Cummings is one of the many malfunctions in Britain 's government , and a key one at that .
When he operates , things go wrong .
That is the norm we would return to .
And what millions of people will continue to see - with no need for a half hour drive - is a government lying in order to retrospectively move the goalposts to protect an unelected adviser .
A government that does not care about the truth , does not care about fairness , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own guidance risks undermining key public health messages that are meant to save lives .
Johnson will throw everything , including the country 's safety , under the bus to save his key strategist .
Because his only strategy is to bang a culture war drum pitting the masses against a nebulous 'elite ' that somehow comprises anyone who disagrees with him .
But in shielding Cummings , he is showing millions of his own voters that he and his adviser are the elite , for whom the rules are purely advisory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no private woodland or family castles , who are all in it together .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
They were meant to be good at this. That was the whole point of them. Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings didn't have much to commend them, but having their finger on the pulse of the public was meant to be their one special skill.
Instead Tory MPs are being deluged with furious letters and emails from voters – often Tory voters, Leave voters – furious that the prime minister's henchman was allowed to swan across the country when people were locked in their homes and their loved ones died alone.
How have they got it so wrong?
The category error made by this government's advisers, supporters and indeed its critics was to mistake Britain for America.
Yes, there is a values divide in British (not just English) society – particularly on immigration and sovereignty, and to a lesser degree on law and order and political correctness.
Cummings and Johnson exploited these divisions to win the EU referendum and then channelled that support towards hard Brexit, pitching a 'them and us' narrative which saw some of the richest people in the country deride others as the elite.
This worked for two reasons. First, it told a lot of instinctively eurosceptic, anti-immigration voters that they could have what they wanted. Second, it created caricatures of Remainers that these voters not only could not identify with, but actively identified against: Guardian-reading liberals in expensive Islington townhouses (the sort Cummings lives in), politically correct student activists who'd find all your jokes offensive, and the whispered smearing of London as a city that is not truly English – meaning, bluntly, not truly white.
What none of it involved was God.
There are three pillars to America's culture wars: 'freedom', racism, and religion. America's mad mutation of personal freedom into a 'Live Free or Die' creed of gun rights and hating 'the state' goes well beyond Britain's understanding of civil liberties. Racism, while ever-present here, does not run as wide nor as deep as it does in the States.
But the role of religion is the biggest contrast. The tens of millions of Americans who believe that abortion is murder, homosexuality is evil and sinners will burn in hell are wedded to such stances in a way unimaginable in contemporary Britain's secular politics.
Factor in the enormously influential Fox News, whose commitment to fake news makes the Sun look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it is easy to see why such voters turn out each election to back a Republican party that promises to uphold Biblical bigotry and bog standard racism no matter what – even if the candidate is a serial philanderer like Donald Trump, and even when that party's other policies threaten their homes and health.
White religious conservatives are bound to the Republicans by God. That creates a bond of trust that is similarly fervent on any issue – be it on guns, tax, the media, anything. Give them a man who'll endorse their every last prejudice, and they will believe whatever he says and forgive whatever he does.
No such dynamic exists in Britain. Nothing even comes close.
That is why coronavirus became a culture war in America but not the UK. In the US, Fox News, the Republican right and the demented end of the internet combined to cast the pandemic, lockdown and vaccines as vast conspiracies to a cult like audience.
But in Britain, older voters – Boris' base – were the most supportive of lockdown before Johnson backed it. The anti-lockdown movement promoted by conspiracists, Spectator columnists and Nigel Farage was a pathetic embarrassment. Opposition to lockdown never rose much beyond ten per cent of the public.
More recently, the relative national unity behind the government collapsed even before the Cummings scandal broke, as its blatant mishandling of the pandemic cost it the support of Labour voters. Again, this was not a culture war or values divide. It was about trust. Yes, Leave voters voted Tory because they trusted Johnson to deliver Brexit. He was their guy – they gave him more leeway, more benefit of the doubt. But the trust they placed in him over the pandemic was not about the Brexit divide, because the pandemic is not about the Brexit divide.
That bond of trust is now fraying rapidly, hacked by the twin blades of a catastrophic death toll and an adviser and prime minister who are treating the public like fools.
Cummings' defence was the display of someone who as a child might have scribbled out the word 'truth' from his first dictionary. Even if his trip to Durham were morally excusable, his subsequent jolly to Barnard Castle patently was not. It was blatant and unnecessary flouting of the rules, even accepting his implausible stated reason.
He was able to state that reason in a time and manner of his choosing, with the full backing of the prime minister, in front of the nation. Those brusquely arrested and charged by police for infringing the lockdown rules over the last two months enjoyed rather less leeway. It is just another inequality in a crisis defined by inequalities.
For all the lies and bad faith on show, some will be persuaded by it – primarily those who want to be. Others will feel it's time to move on. After all, if Johnson wants him to stay then what else can be done? He's given his side, what use is there in dragging this out? Let the government focus on dealing with the pandemic.
But the Cummings episode is not an aberration. It is not some deviation from the Tories' norm. It is the Tories' norm.
Secrecy, incompetence, dishonesty and detachment from reality have marked the government’s entire, shambolic, world-trailing handling of the pandemic. They rarely publish the scientific advice they claim to base their decisions on. They whip out targets to draw attention from their failings, then fail to meet those targets, then lie about the failures. They created a catastrophe in care homes and then simply denied it to our faces.
The Tories, in one guise or another, have spent a decade in government without knowing or understanding what it is they are governing, dismissing swathes of lower-profile public services as 'bureaucrats' or 'public sector waste'. Thus their response to the pandemic paid little attention to public health infrastructure, cut council leaders out of discussions, and treated care homes as a dumping ground to clear NHS beds for new covid inpatients – as we now see, with catastrophic results.
And why would a government led by a pampered faux-aristocrat advised by an angry cosplaying philosopher king with a family castle have any idea that care workers inhabit a world where they can't afford to take time off sick?
The government will attempt to move on and get back to the job in hand. There is no reason to believe that will make things better. A faulty engine will go on sputtering. A malfunctioning printer will keep chewing up paper. Cummings is one of the many malfunctions in Britain's government, and a key one at that. When he operates, things go wrong. That is the norm we would return to.
And what millions of people will continue to see – with no need for a half hour drive – is a government lying in order to retrospectively move the goalposts to protect an unelected adviser. A government that does not care about the truth, does not care about fairness, and does not care that setting fire to its own guidance risks undermining key public health messages that are meant to save lives.
Johnson will throw everything, including the country's safety, under the bus to save his key strategist. Because his only strategy is to bang a culture war drum pitting the masses against a nebulous 'elite' that somehow comprises anyone who disagrees with him.
But in shielding Cummings, he is showing millions of his own voters that he and his adviser are the elite, for whom the rules are purely advisory.
It is the rest of us, with no private woodland or family castles, who are all in it together.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.