politicscouk--2020-07-22--Phase one of the Starmer leadership is a resounding success

The last day of the Commons before summer recess provides a closing curtain on the first phase of Keir Starmer 's leadership .
And from the evidence at PMQs today , it is a success .
We now understand the dynamic of how these encounters with Boris Johnson operate .
Starmer sticks to evidence-based interrogation , sprinkled with quotes from independent figures .
Johnson tries out different lines of attack .
That in itself is revealing .
When one figure sticks to a tactic , it typically means they have found it to be effective .
When they keep trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptance that they have n't found one which works .
Johnson today tried calling Starmer a flip-flopper .
This does n't really hold true and it is noticeable how unaffected the Labour leader is by it .
It also has the rather significant disadvantage of opening up Johnson for the response .
`` This is the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ever published , '' Starmer countered , to considerable effect .
The prime minister 's own record makes it a dangerous tactic to pursue .
The second Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Islington Remainer .
This should stick .
Starmer is an MP for north London and he led the fight within Labour for Remain in the wake of the Brexit referendum .
But he 's been careful to avoid any mention of the Brexit issue since taking the leadership , even refusing to call for an extension of the transition period .
It does n't catch for that reason .
Starmer saw the attack coming a mile off and made sure to neutralise it .
The third effort was to try to paint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least as someone with a reprehensible record from when Jeremy Corbyn was in charge .
And this is where Starmer 's actions have paid the greatest dividend .
Johnson said he sat on his hands during the Salisbury attacks .
Starmer 's office quickly put out a video showing him taking a strong stand at the time and the leader himself was able to point to his own actions against Russia when head of the Department for Public Prosecutions .
But his safety in this area is n't really due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is based on those he took since .
By taking a firm stand on Russia and particularly on anti-semitism , Starmer has made it much easier to deflect these criticisms .
`` In case the prime minister has n't noticed , the Labour party is under new management , '' he said today .
It landed because it was seen as true .
None of these advantages are definitive .
PMQs is mostly ignored by the public .
The polls show the Tories maintain a decent lead - reduced since its high at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse really than after the election .
Labour starts from a disastrous electoral situation and the brand is still seriously tainted .
It would ask too much to expect all these problems to be fixed in the first phase of his leadership .
What you can rightfully expect is evidence that he has the capacity to fix them - the tactical intelligence , the presentational qualities , the political decisiveness and the intellectual thoughtfulness .
And on that limited requirement he has delivered .
The next part will be harder .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not satisfied simply by not being Jeremy Corbyn .
But he has advantages too .
The government looks knackered .
Today alone , it is fighting off the Russia report , exasperation over its shoddy coronavirus response , continued ministerial scandals such as the one surrounding Robert Jenrick , and the generally poor performance of a seriously sub-par Cabinet .
The worst part of the covid emergency - the economic malaise , a possible second wave , and the possible simultaneous body-blow of no-deal Brexit - can be seen on the horizon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not one any of us want to have to live through .
But it does provide plenty of opportunities for an opposition leader who knows what they 're doing .
And on current evidence , that is the kind of opposition leader we have .
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 @ @ @ @ @

The last day of the Commons before summer recess provides a closing curtain on the first phase of Keir Starmer’s leadership. And from the evidence at PMQs today, it is a success.
We now understand the dynamic of how these encounters with Boris Johnson operate. Starmer sticks to evidence-based interrogation, sprinkled with quotes from independent figures. Johnson tries out different lines of attack. That in itself is revealing. When one figure sticks to a tactic, it typically means they have found it to be effective. When they keep trying various ones, it is a tacit acceptance that they haven’t found one which works.
Johnson today tried calling Starmer a flip-flopper. This doesn’t really hold true and it is noticeable how unaffected the Labour leader is by it. It also has the rather significant disadvantage of opening up Johnson for the response. “This is the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ever published,” Starmer countered, to considerable effect. The prime minister’s own record makes it a dangerous tactic to pursue.
The second Johnson attack involved trying to paint Starmr as an Islington Remainer. This should stick. Starmer is an MP for north London and he led the fight within Labour for Remain in the wake of the Brexit referendum. But he’s been careful to avoid any mention of the Brexit issue since taking the leadership, even refusing to call for an extension of the transition period. It doesn’t catch for that reason. Starmer saw the attack coming a mile off and made sure to neutralise it.
The third effort was to try to paint the Labour leader as continuity Corbyn, or at least as someone with a reprehensible record from when Jeremy Corbyn was in charge. And this is where Starmer’s actions have paid the greatest dividend.
Johnson said he sat on his hands during the Salisbury attacks. Starmer’s office quickly put out a video showing him taking a strong stand at the time and the leader himself was able to point to his own actions against Russia when head of the Department for Public Prosecutions. But his safety in this area isn’t really due to his actions before becoming leader, it is based on those he took since. By taking a firm stand on Russia, and particularly on anti-semitism, Starmer has made it much easier to deflect these criticisms. “In case the prime minister hasn’t noticed, the Labour party is under new management,” he said today. It landed because it was seen as true.
None of these advantages are definitive. PMQs is mostly ignored by the public. The polls show the Tories maintain a decent lead – reduced since its high at the start of coronavirus, but no worse really than after the election. Labour starts from a disastrous electoral situation and the brand is still seriously tainted.
It would ask too much to expect all these problems to be fixed in the first phase of his leadership. What you can rightfully expect is evidence that he has the capacity to fix them – the tactical intelligence, the presentational qualities, the political decisiveness and the intellectual thoughtfulness. And on that limited requirement he has delivered.
The next part will be harder. It will involve the kind of changes which are not satisfied simply by not being Jeremy Corbyn. But he has advantages too. The government looks knackered. Today alone, it is fighting off the Russia report, exasperation over its shoddy coronavirus response, continued ministerial scandals such as the one surrounding Robert Jenrick, and the generally poor performance of a seriously sub-par Cabinet. The worst part of the covid emergency – the economic malaise, a possible second wave, and the possible simultaneous body-blow of no-deal Brexit – can be seen on the horizon.
A terrible forecast, to be sure, and not a period that any of us might choose to be living in. But it does provide plenty of opportunities for an opposition leader who knows what they’re doing. And on current evidence, that is the kind of opposition leader we have.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-23--Survey reveals betrayal of migrant women during covid

During the lockdown , Women for Refugee Women partnered with seven other organisations in the Sisters Not Strangers coalition to find out how asylum-seeking women were surviving the pandemic .
Marginalised by deliberately hostile policies , these women were vulnerable to hunger , homelessness and ill health even before the outbreak .
As our findings show , they are now struggling more than ever .
Many of the refugee women leaders who coordinated this research felt that the experiences of women like them were not being taken seriously .
Indeed , emergency measures have been wholly inadequate in protecting those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaping holes in the social safety net .
`` This research is so important because when we speak as individuals it can sound as if we are trying to dramatise the situation , '' Loraine Mponela , an asylum-seeking woman who chairs the Coventry Asylum and Refugee Action Group , said : `` But it 's not drama , it 's real life . ''
Everyday life for women within the asylum system means poverty .
Women who are still in the asylum process are effectively banned from working , so they must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an amount raised by an insulting 29p during the pandemic .
Most of the women that our groups support have fled gender-based violence – such as forced prostitution , domestic assault and female genital mutilation .
But racism and sexism in Home Office decision-making means that their stories of persecution are often disbelieved , and it has become harder and harder for them to access quality legal advice .
If they are refused asylum , many of these women , who are still scared of being persecuted in their country of origin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no access to welfare benefits or asylum support and no right to work .
Real life for these women , even before the pandemic , was a state of indefinite destitution .
`` I used to eat at a charity , '' one asylum-seeking woman , called Lora , said .
`` They have closed .
[ Another ] centre used to give me a voucher twice a week .
But I ca n't have that anymore '' .
When many charities closed at the start of the lockdown , women were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardship payments .
Priti Patel declared that `` our measures are working '' , but in fact three quarters of the women who answered our survey went hungry , including mothers who struggled to feed their families .
`` At the beginning of the lockdown I had food for just one day for me and my two boys '' , Grace , another respondent , said .
`` I did not eat so they could eat . ''
Only four women who answered the survey were in emergency accommodation provided by councils .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless and reliant on temporary arrangements with community members .
One refused asylum-seeking woman spent two nights sleeping on night buses and in a park at the very start of the lockdown , waiting for the local council in London to accommodate her .
In sharp contrast to provisions made by the Welsh government , funding pledged by Westminster did not extend to people - such as refused asylum seekers – who had no recourse to public funds .
Inadequate funding and confusion over how local authorities could legally accommodate people with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destitute asylum-seeking women were denied emergency housing and told by councils to approach the Home Office instead .
Yet only two women who answered our survey were given emergency accommodation by the Home Office during lockdown .
As part of this research , we also spoke to staff and volunteers at the charities involved .
They reported delays in the provision of housing so severe that one vulnerable woman granted asylum support on April 4th was not accommodated until May 22nd .
Other women `` showed a fear of seeking support from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their information… and what that might mean '' .
For traumatised survivors of sexual violence , the fear of being dispersed to accommodation far from their support networks also acted as a deterrent to seeking help from the Home Office .
A fifth of women were forced to sleep in the same room as a non-family member during the pandemic , despite government insistence on social distancing .
One woman , Sarah , has been living destitute since her asylum claim was refused some time ago .
She was forced to move several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point sleeping on the floor in the room of a male stranger , cooking and cleaning the house in order to avoid street homelessness .
Like many asylum-seeking women we work with , Sarah has complex mental health issues and tried to take her own life after her claim was rejected and support withdrawn .
Unable to access sufficient food and safe housing , the vast majority of women who answered the survey said that their mental health had deteriorated .
Almost a quarter of women said that it had become `` much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges in accessing NHS care and increased isolation from a lack of phone and internet access .
A fifth of support workers had assisted women who were forced to stay in unwanted or abusive relationships – but with the closure of face-to-face services , the true figure of abuse during lockdown is likely to be much higher than what the survey revealed .
Indeed , our previous research highlighted the prevalence of sexual abuse among women who were deprived of secure housing and basic needs - a third of the women we spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fled sexual violence in their country of origin had been sexually abused again in the UK while living destitute .
We at Sisters Not Strangers believe that no one 's ability to survive the outbreak should be determined by their immigration status .
We are calling for a grant of leave-to-remain to be given to people awaiting decisions from the Home Office , those who have been refused asylum and those who are undocumented .
This would ensure that vulnerable people have access to support , safe housing and NHS care during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic has not only exposed the holes in our current safety nets , but given us an opportunity to look deeply at what we must to do in order to build a more equal society .
We need to reform the system that has placed asylum-seeking people in danger during the outbreak and to challenge all those policies that have entrenched poverty , patriarchy and white privilege in British society as a whole .
We have seen solidarity and compassion in communities all over the UK since the pandemic began .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build an equal and caring society that fully values all of its members .
Priscilla Dudhia is the policy and research coordinator for destitution at Women for Refugee Women - a London-based charity that supports refugee women to tell their own stories and advocates for a humane asylum system in the UK .
She helps coordinate Sisters Not Strangers - a nationwide movement of local organisations who are organising to end destitution .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

By Priscilla Dudhia
During the lockdown, Women for Refugee Women partnered with seven other organisations in the Sisters Not Strangers coalition to find out how asylum-seeking women were surviving the pandemic. Marginalised by deliberately hostile policies, these women were vulnerable to hunger, homelessness and ill health even before the outbreak. As our findings show, they are now struggling more than ever.
Many of the refugee women leaders who coordinated this research felt that the experiences of women like them were not being taken seriously. Indeed, emergency measures have been wholly inadequate in protecting those at the edges of society, exposing gaping holes in the social safety net. "This research is so important because when we speak as individuals it can sound as if we are trying to dramatise the situation," Loraine Mponela, an asylum-seeking woman who chairs the Coventry Asylum and Refugee Action Group, said: "But it's not drama, it's real life."
Everyday life for women within the asylum system means poverty. Women who are still in the asylum process are effectively banned from working, so they must survive on just £5.39 a day – an amount raised by an insulting 29p during the pandemic.
Most of the women that our groups support have fled gender-based violence – such as forced prostitution, domestic assault and female genital mutilation. But racism and sexism in Home Office decision-making means that their stories of persecution are often disbelieved, and it has become harder and harder for them to access quality legal advice.
If they are refused asylum, many of these women, who are still scared of being persecuted in their country of origin, remain in the UK. But they have no access to welfare benefits or asylum support and no right to work. Real life for these women, even before the pandemic, was a state of indefinite destitution.
"I used to eat at a charity," one asylum-seeking woman, called Lora, said. "They have closed. [Another] centre used to give me a voucher twice a week. But I can't have that anymore". When many charities closed at the start of the lockdown, women were often blocked from accessing hot meals and hardship payments. Priti Patel declared that "our measures are working", but in fact three quarters of the women who answered our survey went hungry, including mothers who struggled to feed their families. "At the beginning of the lockdown I had food for just one day for me and my two boys", Grace, another respondent, said. "I did not eat so they could eat."
Only four women who answered the survey were in emergency accommodation provided by councils. More than a fifth of them were homeless and reliant on temporary arrangements with community members. One refused asylum-seeking woman spent two nights sleeping on night buses and in a park at the very start of the lockdown, waiting for the local council in London to accommodate her.
In sharp contrast to provisions made by the Welsh government, funding pledged by Westminster did not extend to people – such as refused asylum seekers – who had no recourse to public funds. Inadequate funding and confusion over how local authorities could legally accommodate people with no recourse to public funds meant that some destitute asylum-seeking women were denied emergency housing and told by councils to approach the Home Office instead. Yet only two women who answered our survey were given emergency accommodation by the Home Office during lockdown.
As part of this research, we also spoke to staff and volunteers at the charities involved. They reported delays in the provision of housing so severe that one vulnerable woman granted asylum support on April 4th was not accommodated until May 22nd. Other women "showed a fear of seeking support from the Home Office… due to mistrust of sharing their information… and what that might mean". For traumatised survivors of sexual violence, the fear of being dispersed to accommodation far from their support networks also acted as a deterrent to seeking help from the Home Office.
A fifth of women were forced to sleep in the same room as a non-family member during the pandemic, despite government insistence on social distancing. One woman, Sarah, has been living destitute since her asylum claim was refused some time ago. She was forced to move several times during the pandemic, at one point sleeping on the floor in the room of a male stranger, cooking and cleaning the house in order to avoid street homelessness. Like many asylum-seeking women we work with, Sarah has complex mental health issues and tried to take her own life after her claim was rejected and support withdrawn.
Unable to access sufficient food and safe housing, the vast majority of women who answered the survey said that their mental health had deteriorated. Almost a quarter of women said that it had become "much worse than before", exacerbated by challenges in accessing NHS care and increased isolation from a lack of phone and internet access.
A fifth of support workers had assisted women who were forced to stay in unwanted or abusive relationships – but with the closure of face-to-face services, the true figure of abuse during lockdown is likely to be much higher than what the survey revealed. Indeed, our previous research highlighted the prevalence of sexual abuse among women who were deprived of secure housing and basic needs – a third of the women we spoke with for that large-scale study who had fled sexual violence in their country of origin had been sexually abused again in the UK while living destitute.
We at Sisters Not Strangers believe that no one's ability to survive the outbreak should be determined by their immigration status. We are calling for a grant of leave-to-remain to be given to people awaiting decisions from the Home Office, those who have been refused asylum and those who are undocumented. This would ensure that vulnerable people have access to support, safe housing and NHS care during a public health emergency.
We feel that the pandemic has not only exposed the holes in our current safety nets, but given us an opportunity to look deeply at what we must to do in order to build a more equal society. We need to reform the system that has placed asylum-seeking people in danger during the outbreak and to challenge all those policies that have entrenched poverty, patriarchy and white privilege in British society as a whole. We have seen solidarity and compassion in communities all over the UK since the pandemic began. Let's continue this sense of unity to build an equal and caring society that fully values all of its members.
Priscilla Dudhia is the policy and research coordinator for destitution at Women for Refugee Women – a London-based charity that supports refugee women to tell their own stories and advocates for a humane asylum system in the UK. She helps coordinate Sisters Not Strangers – a nationwide movement of local organisations who are organising to end destitution.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-24--Week in Review: A year under a post-truth prime minister

The key danger Boris Johnson poses is to the concept of objective truth .
The analysis in the press of his first year in power has mostly treated him as a standard prime minister living through extraordinary times - the Brexit fight , coronavirus , his own health problems .
But in fact he is not a normal prime minister at all .
He is a post-truth prime minister .
That is the quality which defines him and presents the core threat to the country under his administration .
Other prime ministers have lied of course .
Under Tony Blair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq was stretched beyond what it would sustain , involving a series of misleading arguments which served to discredit not just him but also the institutional reputation of the British state .
Under Theresa May , the tribal urgency of Brexit was allowed to replace any sense of logical or empirical validity .
But no administration has lied so consistently , cynically and strategically as the one we are currently living under .
We are now in a period of British politics in which the entire notion of objective truth threatens to drift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's approach to government lies in the dynamic between him and his chief advisor , Dominic Cummings .
During the campaign to leave the EU , Cummings introduced a striking new proposition to political life .
It was that facts did n't matter .
Loyalty to them was a hindrance rather than a virtue .
Fact-checking agencies could be used against themselves , promoting erroneous claims rather than refuting them .
The entire structure of empirical verification - think tanks , experts , economic analysts - could be undermined as a conspiracy against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a zero-sum battle over cultural values , rather than a debate which used shared facts to progress different views of how to improve human life .
The combination of Cummings and Johnson proved uniquely dangerous : two men with no interests in , and often an extreme animosity towards , verifiable facts .
That approach is now embedded in British government .
During Johnson 's time as prime minister he has tried to cancel parliament while claiming it was a routine prorogation , had the party mimic fact-checking agencies to appraise TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general election campaign , smeared journalists , presented a demonstrably catastrophic covid response as `` world beating '' , allowed a clear breach of lockdown rules by Cummings to take priority over the resilience of those rules , tried to stitch-up the intelligence committee elections which claiming they are independent , and insisted that he is holding firm against Russia while diligently ensuring he does not investigate their operations against British democracy .
But there is one deception which stands above all , in terms of pertinence and implication .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the moment it was struck , Johnson 's administration accepted that it would lead to a border between Britain and Northern Ireland and also insisted that it would not .
The black and white of the text made it clear it would .
The Brexit department acknowledged it would .
Any trading expert knew it would .
But Johnson repeatedly insisted it would not .
This meant that the deal operated in the realm of truth and fiction at the same time .
And this was not some small esoteric issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK 's territorial integrity and its trading life for the next generation .
And yet it operated in the arena of post-truth , something which was and was n't at the same time .
That is a profound defeat .
Not just for Remainers , or the DUP , or Labour .
It is a defeat for those who believe in politics as a process grounded in reality , in people arguing on the basis of logic and accepted facts .
It takes it veering madly off into the world of never-never land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to play out without any connection to truth , the entire basis of political life flies away with them .
You can see it now spinning more out of control every day .
Wednesday 's PMQs - the last before summer recess - was not particularly remarkable .
But even there , the lies came relentlessly , a machine gun fire of incessant nonsense .
In his first answer Johnson said that the government had taken `` the strongest possible action against Russian wrongdoing '' .
In fact , the intelligence committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had specifically chosen not to investigate Russian interference .
In the same sentence he said that Keir Starmer `` sat on his hands and said nothing… when people in this country were poisoned on the orders of Vladimir Putin '' .
In fact , Starmer strongly condemned Russia 's Salisbury attack .
In Johnson 's second answer , he repeated this lie , saying again that `` he sat on his hands and said nothing '' .
In his third answer he said discussion of the conclusions of the Russia report was `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give the impression that Russian interference was somehow responsible for Brexit '' .
In fact , the chair of the committee who was responsible for releasing the report , Julian Lewis , is a keen supporter of Brexit .
The report stated that the Kremlin 's role should be investigated , not that it was decisive in the Brexit result .
In his fourth answer , he repeated this argument and said Starmer could not `` bring himself to accept '' the Brexit result .
In his fifth answer he said Starmer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even the nonsense was n't consistent with itself .
There was nothing particularly remarkable in this event , in terms of the density or velocity of the misleading comments .
It was just a typical day in the Commons under this administration .
But you could see what happens when you start to lose contact with objective truth .
Once that grip slips , there is nothing to restrain the executive from veering completely out of control .
Politics becomes unhinged .
Last summer , just after Johnson entered No.10 , Channel 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asked the Edinburgh TV Festival audience an important question .
`` What we all need to decide , '' she said , was what to do `` when a known liar becomes our prime minister '' .
A year on and we 're still struggling to answer that question .
Unless we get a handle on it soon , the damage Johnson 's administration does to our society will last well after he has left Downing Street .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 key danger Boris Johnson poses is to the concept of objective truth. The analysis in the press of his first year in power has mostly treated him as a standard prime minister living through extraordinary times – the Brexit fight, coronavirus, his own health problems. But in fact he is not a normal prime minister at all. He is a post-truth prime minister. That is the quality which defines him and presents the core threat to the country under his administration.
Other prime ministers have lied of course. Under Tony Blair, the case for the war in Iraq was stretched beyond what it would sustain, involving a series of misleading arguments which served to discredit not just him but also the institutional reputation of the British state. Under Theresa May, the tribal urgency of Brexit was allowed to replace any sense of logical or empirical validity.
But no administration has lied so consistently, cynically and strategically as the one we are currently living under. We are now in a period of British politics in which the entire notion of objective truth threatens to drift away altogether.
The key to Johnson's approach to government lies in the dynamic between him and his chief advisor, Dominic Cummings. During the campaign to leave the EU, Cummings introduced a striking new proposition to political life. It was that facts didn't matter. Loyalty to them was a hindrance rather than a virtue. Fact-checking agencies could be used against themselves, promoting erroneous claims rather than refuting them. The entire structure of empirical verification – think tanks, experts, economic analysts – could be undermined as a conspiracy against the people. Politics could be degraded into a zero-sum battle over cultural values, rather than a debate which used shared facts to progress different views of how to improve human life.
The combination of Cummings and Johnson proved uniquely dangerous: two men with no interest in, and often an extreme animosity towards, verifiable facts. That approach is now embedded in British government.
During Johnson's time as prime minister he has tried to cancel parliament while claiming it was a routine prorogation, had the party mimic fact-checking agencies to appraise TV debates, avoided nearly all scrutiny during a general election campaign, smeared journalists, presented a demonstrably catastrophic covid response as "world beating", allowed a clear breach of lockdown rules by Cummings to take priority over the resilience of those rules, tried to stitch-up the intelligence committee elections while claiming they are independent, and insisted that he is holding firm against Russia while diligently ensuring he does not investigate their operations against British democracy.
But there is one deception which stands above all, in terms of pertinence and implication. It is the one over the Brexit deal. From the moment it was struck, Johnson's administration accepted that it would lead to a border between Britain and Northern Ireland and also insisted that it would not. The black and white of the text made it clear it would. The Brexit department acknowledged it would. Any trading expert knew it would. But Johnson repeatedly insisted it would not.
This meant that the deal operated in the realm of truth and fiction at the same time. And this was not some small esoteric issue. It went to the heart of the UK's territorial integrity and its trading life for the next generation. And yet it operated in the arena of post-truth, something which was and wasn't at the same time.
That is a profound defeat. Not just for Remainers, or the DUP, or Labour. It is a defeat for those who believe in politics as a process grounded in reality, in people arguing on the basis of logic and accepted facts. It takes it veering madly off into the world of never-never land. When core issues like this are allowed to play out without any connection to truth, the entire basis of political life flies away with them.
You can see it now spinning more out of control every day. Wednesday's PMQs – the last before summer recess – was not particularly remarkable. But even there, the lies came relentlessly, a machine gun fire of incessant nonsense.
In his first answer Johnson said that the government had taken "the strongest possible action against Russian wrongdoing". In fact, the intelligence committee report had just found that the government had specifically chosen not to investigate Russian interference. In the same sentence he said that Keir Starmer "sat on his hands and said nothing… when people in this country were poisoned on the orders of Vladimir Putin". In fact, Starmer strongly condemned Russia's Salisbury attack.
In Johnson's second answer, he repeated this lie, saying again that "he sat on his hands and said nothing". In his third answer he said discussion of the conclusions of the Russia report was "about pressure from the Islingtonian Remainers… to give the impression that Russian interference was somehow responsible for Brexit". In fact, the chair of the committee who was responsible for releasing the report, Julian Lewis, is a keen supporter of Brexit. The report stated that the Kremlin's role should be investigated, not that it was decisive in the Brexit result. In his fourth answer, he repeated this argument and said Starmer could not "bring himself to accept" the Brexit result. In his fifth answer he said Starmer was "willing to accept Brexit". Even the nonsense wasn't consistent with itself.
There was nothing particularly remarkable in this event, in terms of the density or velocity of the misleading comments. It was just a typical day in the Commons under this administration. But you could see what happens when you start to lose contact with objective truth. Once that grip slips, there is nothing to restrain the executive from veering completely out of control. Politics becomes unhinged.
Last summer, just after Johnson entered No.10, Channel 4's head of news, Dorothy Byrne, asked the Edinburgh TV Festival audience an important question. "What we all need to decide," she said, was what to do "when a known liar becomes our prime minister".
A year on and we're still struggling to answer that question. Unless we get a handle on it soon, the damage Johnson's administration does to our society will last well after he has left Downing Street.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-30--Faith groups, businesses & activists unite to demand asylum rights

By Mariam Kemple Hardy We ’ ve been told to use our common sense a lot lately .
Or our `` good , British common sense '' , as Boris Johnson puts it .
And now , more than 240 organisations want the government to finally find theirs and let people seeking asylum go to work .
The Lift the Ban coalition – an incredibly diverse mix of faith groups , trade unions , charities , business and think tanks – has today released a report that shows the Government could save the taxpayer almost £100 million if it allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim .
Currently , people seeking asylum are only allowed to work if they have waited a year or more for a decision , and only then if they are a classical ballet dancer , a hydrogeologist , or one of the other niche roles on the government 's severely restrictive Shortage Occupation List .
So , effectively banned from working , they must live off a £5.66 per day government allowance , a pitiful amount that leaves them living 73 % below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favour of lifting the ban are overwhelming .
We are genuinely baffled the government has n't acted .
It is that rare political beast : a public policy ask that is genuinely win-win .
It would put money into the government purse , and not just our moderate estimate of £97.8m per year from reduced asylum support payments and increased tax and National Insurance .
There will be longer-term savings from better integration and improved mental and physical wellbeing .
It would stop the UK from recklessly wasting a huge range of skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made us all appreciate how dependent we are on the abilities and effort of each other and threw into sharp relief the nonsense of preventing people seeking asylum from contributing .
For instance , we asked more than 200 people seeking asylum about their work experience .
Almost one in two have had jobs that would classify them as 'critical workers ' , including one in seven with a health or social care background .
People like Farhat , who in Afghanistan was an expert in public and international health but is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK to help tackle coronavirus .
It 's never made sense to stop people seeking asylum from working but doing so during a global pandemic is borderline negligent .
Lifting the ban would bring a myriad of social benefits .
Employment is one of the most important factors to help people integrate .
There is also a huge amount of evidence to suggest a strong and positive link between employment and mental health .
People seeking asylum often arrive in the UK already having experienced horrific trauma but can then find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unbearable .
It ’ s something all too many of us have experienced to some degree since the covid outbreak .
Lfting the ban would go some way to helping the government in its commitment to tackle modern slavery , as less people would be forced into long periods of poverty that make them particularly vulnerable to exploitation .
It is no surprise that letting people seeking asylum work is the norm around the world .
Even Australia , well-known for its draconian asylum policies , grants people the right to work from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shock to discover that lifting the ban has widespread public support .
Polls consistently show that almost three quarters of the population and business leaders support people seeking asylum having the right to work ( 71 % in the UK , 73 % in Scotland , 67 % of business leaders ) .
That 's why the Lift the Ban coalition can command such a breadth of support , with members including The Salvation Army , CBI , Unison , the Adam Smith Institute and Oxfam .
In 2018 , then home secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on right to work but nothing has been heard of this process since .
At a time of severe economic crisis when everyone will be looking for policies that help society and make good economic sense , the government is preventing a change that ticks every box .
Lifting the ban would save the Treasury millions each year , inject skills into our post-coronavirus economic recovery , support the health and social care sector , help integration , fight exploitation and let families stand on their own two feet .
When the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , why can ’ t they ?
Mariam Kemple Hardy is head of campaigns at Refugee Action .
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 Mariam Kemple Hardy
We’ve been told to use our common sense a lot lately. Or our "good, British common sense", as Boris Johnson puts it. And now, more than 240 organisations want the government to finally find theirs and let people seeking asylum go to work.
The Lift the Ban coalition – an incredibly diverse mix of faith groups, trade unions, charities, business and think tanks – has today released a report that shows the Government could save the taxpayer almost £100 million if it allowed people to work after they had waited more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim.
Currently, people seeking asylum are only allowed to work if they have waited a year or more for a decision, and only then if they are a classical ballet dancer, a hydrogeologist, or one of the other niche roles on the government's severely restrictive Shortage Occupation List.
So, effectively banned from working, they must live off a £5.66 per day government allowance, a pitiful amount that leaves them living 73% below the poverty line.
The arguments in favour of lifting the ban are overwhelming. We are genuinely baffled the government hasn't acted. It is that rare political beast: a public policy ask that is genuinely win-win.
It would put money into the government purse, and not just our moderate estimate of £97.8m per year from reduced asylum support payments and increased tax and National Insurance. There will be longer-term savings from better integration and improved mental and physical wellbeing.
It would stop the UK from recklessly wasting a huge range of skills at its disposal. The Covid-19 crisis has made us all appreciate how dependent we are on the abilities and effort of each other and threw into sharp relief the nonsense of preventing people seeking asylum from contributing.
For instance, we asked more than 200 people seeking asylum about their work experience. Almost one in two have had jobs that would classify them as 'critical workers', including one in seven with a health or social care background.
People like Farhat, who in Afghanistan was an expert in public and international health but is unable to put her expertise to use in the UK to help tackle coronavirus. It's never made sense to stop people seeking asylum from working but doing so during a global pandemic is borderline negligent.
Lifting the ban would bring a myriad of social benefits. Employment is one of the most important factors to help people integrate. There is also a huge amount of evidence to suggest a strong and positive link between employment and mental health. People seeking asylum often arrive in the UK already having experienced horrific trauma but can then find the isolation and tedium of forced unemployment unbearable. It’s something all too many of us have experienced to some degree since the covid outbreak.
Lfting the ban would go some way to helping the government in its commitment to tackle modern slavery, as less people would be forced into long periods of poverty that make them particularly vulnerable to exploitation.
It is no surprise that letting people seeking asylum work is the norm around the world. Even Australia, well-known for its draconian asylum policies, grants people the right to work from day one. It is also no shock to discover that lifting the ban has widespread public support. Polls consistently show that almost three quarters of the population and business leaders support people seeking asylum having the right to work (71% in the UK, 73% in Scotland, 67% of business leaders). That's why the Lift the Ban coalition can command such a breadth of support, with members including The Salvation Army, CBI, Unison, the Adam Smith Institute and Oxfam.
In 2018, then home secretary Sajid Javid committed to reviewing its policy on right to work but nothing has been heard of this process since. At a time of severe economic crisis when everyone will be looking for policies that help society and make good economic sense, the government is preventing a change that ticks every box.
Lifting the ban would save the Treasury millions each year, inject skills into our post-coronavirus economic recovery, support the health and social care sector, help integration, fight exploitation and let families stand on their own two feet. When the government is asking us all to use common sense, why can’t they?
Mariam Kemple Hardy is head of campaigns at Refugee Action. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-07-31--Week in Review: A long tense summer

Week in Review: A long tense summer

This is usually the nice bit of the year .
Parliament is in recess , so there 's very little politics to bother you .
Most people are away on holiday somewhere pretty .
Those of us that remain do n't have so many crowds to get through .
The weather 's decent .
Everything seems kind of alright .
But this is covid 's summer .
It 's a fraught , tense , uncertain period , where the sunshine outside belies the things that lurk under it .
Those on holiday in Europe wonder whether they 'll get stuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they get back .
Those with holidays booked wonder whether they 'll be cancelled .
Spain was put on the quarantine list this week , then Luxembourg last night .
Belgium and Croatia may follow .
At home , there was a sudden spasm of mini-lockdowns , except it really was n't so mini at all .
Last night - in a catastrophically handled announcement , because of course what other kind do they do - the government imposed controls on nine areas containing around 4 million people , including Greater Manchester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Household mixing is effectively banned , although the exact rules were confusing and hard to decipher .
For the rest of us , the background hum of covid brings a simmering tension to what should be the best part of the year .
Discussing second waves and spikes has become a kind of football chat , the thing you talk about when you meet .
We are all developing a different set of personal rules about how we go back into the world .
Some are carrying on largely like normal .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small groups , and even then only outside .
Some are still locked away at home .
You look at pubs and restaurants not as somewhere pleasant , but with a kind of Terminator vision , evaluating potential threats , establishing how the waiters conduct themselves , assessing how distant the tables are .
When it rains , as of course it does often because this is Britain , we effectively enter lock-down again .
Socialising outside the home becomes near impossible in a safe way .
You 're trapped back indoors with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependent on the weather , which is a disastrous state of affairs for this country .
Our personal relations have n't gotten back to normal yet either .
We are still unable to properly greet people outside our household , to shake an acquaintance 's hand , to kiss a friend on the cheek , to hug a parent .
That currency of small , day-to-day intimacy , the fleeting moments of connection , are gone , replaced by awkward introductions .
It makes us all more distant and alone - not by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningful , dispiriting way .
The worst part of it all is the sense of coming winter .
It seems likely that the drop in temperature will help the virus spread .
And once the weather gets worse , all the outdoor activities we engage in now will become unattainable .
It 's possible that it will result in another wave of infections , a grim extended period of dark and gloom , in which we 're trapped at home again , horrified by what 's happening to people outside but unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hope it improves .
Not a very pleasant prospectus .
We 're starting to acknowledge the hard truth of our predicament - that this thing is n't going away anytime soon , no matter how many times the prime minister tries to pretend otherwise .
It 's going to be with us for a long time .
We are going to have to get used to the various pains and inconveniences it entails .
We are accustoming ourselves to a new way of living , one which is appreciably worse than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do is make the most of the liberties the summer does offer , while trying to be sensible about how we do so .
It 's a weird period , where our streets look like they 're partly back to normal , but exist under the shadow of something dreadful .
Today is a lovely day , blistering sunshine outside , warm enough to stay pleasant right into the night .
Make the most of it .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

This is usually the nice bit of the year. Parliament is in recess, so there's very little politics to bother you. Most people are away on holiday somewhere pretty. Those of us that remain don't have so many crowds to get through. The weather's decent. Everything seems kind of alright.
But this is covid's summer. It's a fraught, tense, uncertain period, where the sunshine outside belies the things that lurk under it. Those on holiday in Europe wonder whether they'll get stuck out there, or have to quarantine when they get back. Those with holidays booked wonder whether they'll be cancelled. Spain was put on the quarantine list this week, then Luxembourg last night. Belgium and Croatia may follow.
At home, there was a sudden spasm of mini-lockdowns, except it really wasn't so mini at all. Last night – in a catastrophically handled announcement, because of course what other kind do they do – the government imposed controls on nine areas containing around 4 million people, including Greater Manchester, Blackburn, Burnley and Bradford. Household mixing is effectively banned, although the exact rules were confusing and hard to decipher.
For the rest of us, the background hum of covid brings a simmering tension to what should be the best part of the year. Discussing second waves and spikes has become a kind of football chat, the thing you talk about when you meet.
We are all developing a different set of personal rules about how we go back into the world. Some are carrying on largely like normal. Some are seeing friends, but only in small groups, and even then only outside. Some are still locked away at home.
You look at pubs and restaurants not as somewhere pleasant, but with a kind of Terminator vision, evaluating potential threats, establishing how the waiters conduct themselves, assessing how distant the tables are.
When it rains, as of course it does often because this is Britain, we effectively enter lock-down again. Socialising outside the home becomes near impossible in a safe way. You're trapped back indoors with the telly. We've become completely dependent on the weather, which is a disastrous state of affairs for this country.
Our personal relations haven't gotten back to normal yet either. We are still unable to properly greet people outside our household, to shake an acquaintance's hand, to kiss a friend on the cheek, to hug a parent. That currency of small, day-to-day intimacy, the fleeting moments of connection, are gone, replaced by awkward introductions. It makes us all more distant and alone – not by much, but in a small, meaningful, dispiriting way.
The worst part of it all is the sense of coming winter. It seems likely that the drop in temperature will help the virus spread. And once the weather gets worse, all the outdoor activities we engage in now will become unattainable. It's possible that it will result in another wave of infections, a grim extended period of dark and gloom, in which we're trapped at home again, horrified by what's happening to people outside but unable to do much about it except stay inside and hope it improves.
Not a very pleasant prospectus. We're starting to acknowledge the hard truth of our predicament – that this thing isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how many times the prime minister tries to pretend otherwise. It's going to be with us for a long time. We are going to have to get used to the various pains and inconveniences it entails. We are accustoming ourselves to a new way of living, one which is appreciably worse than the one we had before.
All we can do is make the most of the liberties the summer does offer, while trying to be sensible about how we do so. It's a weird period, where our streets look like they're partly back to normal, but exist under the shadow of something dreadful.
Today is a lovely day, blistering sunshine outside, warm enough to stay pleasant right into the night. Make the most of it.
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--2020-08-03--The road to independence: How Covid and Brexit pushed Scotland from the Union

At least they 've noticed .
Boris Johnson 's flying visit to Scotland late last month was n't much of a response to rising support for Scottish independence - but it was , at least , a response .
Johnson 's desperation not to be the prime minister who 'lost the union ' might be the only thing motivating him to try and hold it together , given that , like David Cameron , he instinctively sucks at electoral teat of English nationalism , casually alienating Scottish voters with the insouciance of a man for whom everything in his life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The recent turn in the polls towards independence is much more dangerous for unionists than the Yes campaign surge in 2014 .
During the referendum campaign , the surge in support for independence came from undecided voters rather than supporters of the union .
But 2019 and 2020 have seen a much more direct shift of opinion from No to Yes .
The shift has had two big drivers - the first of which is Brexit .
`` If you go back to the 2014 referendum , there was no relationship at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and whether or not they voted Yes or No , '' says polling expert John Curtice .
The Brexit vote then sparked a movement of pro-union Remain voters towards Yes , but one that was balanced out by pro-independence Leave voters shifting towards No - initially at least .
`` Last year it became clear that the group of people who were moving from No to Yes because they voted Remain was now larger than the group moving in the other direction , '' says Curtice .
`` So by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson gets his majority , it 's very clear that the pursuit of Brexit is beginning to undermine support for the Union , such that we were getting close to but were not quite at the 50-50 mark . ''
And then came the coronavirus .
`` When the pandemic started , I briefly thought 'well , this could be curtains [ for independence ] , at least for a good few years ' , '' says James Kelly of pro-independence website Scot Goes Pop !
`` The fact that it 's gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westminster 's handling of the crisis has been . ''
Critics of the SNP argue the Scottish government has overstated the extent to which it has deviated from the decision-making at Westminster in handling the pandemic , and Scotland has endured many of the same problems as the rest of the UK , most notably with outbreaks in care homes .
`` It is really interesting that at a point where two governments are following a similar path in policy terms to a crisis , they are getting very different responses from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar response , '' says Edinburgh-based political consultant Mark Diffley .
First minister Nicola Sturgeon has enjoyed sky-high popularity in Scotland during the pandemic - the complete reverse of Johnson 's subterranean personal ratings .
And this support is not limited to SNP voters .
`` The really striking thing was that the cohort of 2014 No voters , which of course would include lots of Leave voters as well , rate the first minister 's handling of the crisis more positively than the prime minister 's handling , '' says Diffley .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit and think about it - a Conservative prime minister against an SNP first minister coming off worse amongst unionists . ''
While survey data has long shown Scottish voters have more trust in the devolved government than in Westminster , Sturgeon 's style - and her visibility fronting most of the ongoing daily press conferences - contrasts with that of the prime minister .
`` There 's been a sense in which basically she 's just levelled with people , '' says Curtice , `` and she 's kind of said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to worry about some of these decisions I 've made for the rest of my life ' .
There is no promise of 'sunny uplands ' . ''
Her focus on enabling people to reunite with loved ones when easing lockdown , in contrast to Johnson 's focus on reopening the economy , also gives her leadership a more empathetic tone than the prime minister 's , while steering away from the tub-thumping partisanship of the Tory leader .
`` It 's certainly possible to construct a case that would argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct and given the impression that she knows what she 's doing , '' says Curtice .
By contrast , Johnson is a `` liability '' for the unionist cause , says Kelly .
Scotland is now pursuing a 'zero Covid ' strategy , with no deaths from one day to the next , whereas the Tories appear ready to tolerate an ongoing level of communal infection as they try and reopen the economy .
`` The feeling is that things were going badly when Scotland was following Westminster 's lead , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own way , '' says Kelly .
`` It 's not that what happened in care homes is directly Westminster 's fault , but Scotland at that point had locked itself into a Westminster-led 'four nations ' strategy that was hopelessly misconceived . ''
Diffley points to a basic communications problem for the UK government : `` Stuff that goes wrong - UK 's fault .
Stuff that goes right - plaudits to the Scottish government . ''
All this feeds through to the independence debate .
Just as Brexit proved that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK government , many Scots increasingly feel the pandemic shows they are better off governing themselves .
But with rising support for independence among Leave voters since the pandemic started , does that make an explicitly pro-EU Yes campaign risky in a second referendum ?
`` Insofar as Brexit becomes an essential part of the story , Yes support will fall further among Leave voters , '' says Curtice .
`` But it does n't have to gain at the same rate amongst Remain voters in order to for it to match @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big challenge Brexit poses to the Yes campaign is the wearily familiar issue of the border .
If Yes promises to pave the way for Scotland to rejoin the EU , we could see a repeat of the wrangling over the Northern Irish border after the 2016 Brexit vote - although that would also leave the UK government adopting the very same logic to argue against independence that it previously rejected in arguing for a hard Brexit .
The independence debate still has years left to run .
But Kelly is confident that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will no longer see the union as the safe option .
`` My guess is the pandemic may have shifted opinion to the point where that 's less likely to happen .
There 's a feeling now that we 're being run by a bunch of clowns in London , and that things wo n't get any better , and will probably keep getting worse , unless we do something about that . ''
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
At least they've noticed. Boris Johnson's flying visit to Scotland late last month wasn't much of a response to rising support for Scottish independence – but it was, at least, a response.
Johnson's desperation not to be the prime minister who 'lost the union' might be the only thing motivating him to try and hold it together, given that, like David Cameron, he instinctively sucks at the electoral teat of English nationalism, casually alienating Scottish voters with the insouciance of a man for whom everything in life has been cleaned up after him.
The recent turn in the polls towards independence is much more dangerous for unionists than the Yes campaign surge in 2014. During the referendum campaign, the surge in support for independence came from undecided voters rather than supporters of the union. But 2019 and 2020 have seen a much more direct shift of opinion from No to Yes.
The shift has had two big drivers – the first of which is Brexit.
"If you go back to the 2014 referendum, there was no relationship at that referendum between people's attitudes towards Europe and whether or not they voted Yes or No," says polling expert John Curtice.
The Brexit vote then sparked a movement of pro-union Remain voters towards Yes, but one that was balanced out by pro-independence Leave voters shifting towards No – initially at least.
"Last year it became clear that the group of people who were moving from No to Yes because they voted Remain was now larger than the group moving in the other direction," says Curtice. "So by the end of 2019 and by the time Boris Johnson gets his majority, it's very clear that the pursuit of Brexit is beginning to undermine support for the Union, such that we were getting close to, but were not quite at, the 50-50 mark."
And then came the coronavirus.
"When the pandemic started, I briefly thought 'well, this could be curtains [for independence], at least for a good few years'," says James Kelly of pro-independence website Scot Goes Pop! "The fact that it's gone completely the other way demonstrates how catastrophic Westminster's handling of the crisis has been."
Critics of the SNP argue the Scottish government has overstated the extent to which it has deviated from the decision-making at Westminster in handling the pandemic, and Scotland has endured many of the same problems as the rest of the UK, most notably with outbreaks in care homes.
"It is really interesting that at a point where two governments are following a similar path in policy terms to a crisis, they are getting very different responses from the public for what is essentially a very similar response," says Edinburgh-based political consultant Mark Diffley.
First minister Nicola Sturgeon has enjoyed sky-high popularity in Scotland during the pandemic – the complete reverse of Johnson's subterranean personal ratings. And this support is not limited to SNP voters.
"The really striking thing was that the cohort of 2014 No voters, which of course would include lots of Leave voters as well, rate the first minister's handling of the crisis more positively than the prime minister's handling," says Diffley.
"Which is quite something when you sit and think about it – a Conservative prime minister against an SNP first minister coming off worse amongst unionists."
While survey data has long shown Scottish voters have more trust in the devolved government than in Westminster, Sturgeon's style – and her visibility fronting most of the ongoing daily press conferences – contrasts with that of the prime minister.
"There's been a sense in which basically she's just levelled with people," says Curtice, "and she's kind of said, 'this is difficult, I'm probably going to worry about some of these decisions I've made for the rest of my life'. There is no promise of 'sunny uplands'."
Her focus on enabling people to reunite with loved ones when easing lockdown, in contrast to Johnson's focus on reopening the economy, also gives her leadership a more empathetic tone than the prime minister's, while steering away from the tub-thumping partisanship of the Tory leader.
"It's certainly possible to construct a case that would argue that perhaps Nicola Sturgeon has got the tone correct and given the impression that she knows what she's doing," says Curtice.
By contrast, Johnson is a "liability" for the unionist cause, says Kelly.
Scotland is now pursuing a 'zero Covid' strategy, with no deaths from one day to the next, whereas the Tories appear ready to tolerate an ongoing level of communal infection as they try and reopen the economy.
"The feeling is that things were going badly when Scotland was following Westminster's lead, and then improved markedly when Nicola Sturgeon went her own way," says Kelly. "It's not that what happened in care homes is directly Westminster's fault, but Scotland at that point had locked itself into a Westminster-led 'four nations' strategy that was hopelessly misconceived."
Diffley points to a basic communications problem for the UK government: "Stuff that goes wrong – UK's fault. Stuff that goes right – plaudits to the Scottish government."
All this feeds through to the independence debate. Just as Brexit proved that Scotland's wishes could be overruled by the UK government, many Scots increasingly feel the pandemic shows they are better off governing themselves.
But with rising support for independence among Leave voters since the pandemic started, does that make an explicitly pro-EU Yes campaign risky in a second referendum?
"Insofar as Brexit becomes an essential part of the story, Yes support will fall further among Leave voters," says Curtice. "But it doesn't have to gain at the same rate amongst Remain voters in order to for it to match its losses."
Instead, the big challenge Brexit poses to the Yes campaign is the wearily familiar issue of the border. If Yes promises to pave the way for Scotland to rejoin the EU, we could see a repeat of the wrangling over the Northern Irish border after the 2016 Brexit vote – although that would also leave the UK government adopting the very same logic to argue against independence that it previously rejected in arguing for a hard Brexit.
The independence debate still has years left to run. But Kelly is confident that Brexit and the pandemic mean that voters will no longer see the Union as the safe option.
"My guess is the pandemic may have shifted opinion to the point where that's less likely to happen. There's a feeling now that we're being run by a bunch of clowns in London, and that things won't get any better, and will probably keep getting worse, unless we do something about that."
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--2020-08-04--TikTok has been sucked into the China-US security war

In the last two years , TikTok has risen to be one of Facebook 's primary competitors .
The social media platform has attracted 2 billion downloads worldwide , with 80 million in the US alone .
Admittedly , those numbers fall way short of Facebook ’ s 190 million US users - but it is growing steadily - and it is clear that Facebook wants a piece of the pie .
Luckily for Mark Zuckerberg , Facebook 's CEO , the consensus is that its ties to China make TikTok a privacy nightmare .
Article 7 of China 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 , states that `` any organisation or citizen shall support , assist , and cooperate with state intelligence work in accordance with the law , and maintain the secrecy of all knowledge of state intelligence work '' .
That legislation leaves little to the imagination .
Even the director for cybersecurity and data privacy at Huawei previously admitted that the law can be used to `` force organisations and individuals to provide assistance with work relating to state security '' .
The potential for TikTok to perform covert espionage on behalf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unpalatable security risk .
For Facebook , it creates the opportunity to encourage direct government intervention that would allow it to dominate its competitor .
The government of India recently banned TikTok on national security grounds .
Now Facebook is drumming up nationalist feelings in an attempt to make US president Donald Trump do the same .
`` China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas , '' Zuckerberg warned last Wednesday , `` and they are exporting their vision to other countries . ''
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Facebook is focussed solely on eliminating its competition so that it can fill the vacuum left behind .
If the manoeuvre is successful , it would let the company roll out a TikTok clone called Collab .
The signs that TikTok could be about to be excluded from Western markets are obvious .
The Huawei ban in the US - and more recently the UK - reveals a glimpse into the app 's potential future .
The writing is on the wall and if the ban were to occur Facebook could further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can hardly be called a win for consumer privacy .
Despite the privacy concerns that follow Facebook everywhere it goes - and the fact that the company is defending itself on Capitol Hill for the third time in two years - the Trump administration appears keen to prop up Facebook 's dominance .
At the weekend , Trump announced that he is indeed preparing to ban TikTok in the US .
This should , perhaps , be unsurprising considering Facebook 's track record of providing US intelligence agencies with the same kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of providing to China .
Unfortunately for Zuckerberg , even Trump 's intervention may not be enough for Facebook to win the TikTok battle .
This is because Microsoft has just announced that it is in talks with ByteDance to acquire the US , Canadian , Australian and New Zealand parts of TikTok 's business .
If that deal is successful , Microsoft would remove the Chinese threat from TikTok .
And , with Microsoft in control of TikTok US , user data would be held on US servers and no longer at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There would no longer be a legitimate reason for the US TikTok ban , much to Facebook 's annoyance .
Microsoft is another company that has proven itself agreeable to working with US intelligence .
As a result , it seems likely that this outcome would be acceptable to the Trump administration .
After all , US intelligence is unlikely to care who owns TikTok as long as it is a US company upon which it can serve warrants and gag orders .
TikTok understands that to compete in the US it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding China to bed .
Selling to Microsoft would be one option , but TikTok appears to have another card up its sleeve .
At the end of last week , its CEO , Kevin Mayer , announced that the firm is going to open a Transparency and Accountability Center that would give third parties the opportunity to analyse the code that drives TikTok 's algorithms .
He also claimed that the center would allow for a transparent analysis of its data practices .
Providing this kind of transparency is an extremely strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game-changer .
If TikTok can successfully use transparency to create trust in the platform , a US ban would be understood to be political and economic - as opposed to motivated by security concerns .
But at the moment Mayer 's statements are just claims .
While terms like `` open '' and `` real-time '' are impressive , we will have to wait and see what TikTok actually brings to the table .
Only then will we be able to make concrete decisions about security and privacy on the platform .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can actually do enough to create trust in its platform .
Can it provide real evidence that it is not being compromised by Chinese interests ?
And can it do these things in time to prevent itself being banned , handing the US market to Facebook on a silver platter .
Only time will tell , but it certainly appears that TikTok 's best option for beating Facebook may be to cash-out by selling to Microsoft , however reluctantly .
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy .
You can follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Ray Walsh
In the last two years, TikTok has risen to be one of Facebook's primary competitors. The social media platform has attracted 2 billion downloads worldwide, with 80 million in the US alone. Admittedly, those numbers fall way short of Facebook’s 190 million US users – but it is growing steadily – and it is clear that Facebook wants a piece of the pie.
Luckily for Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, the consensus is that its ties to China make TikTok a privacy nightmare. Article 7 of China's National Intelligence Law, which was passed in 2017, states that "any organisation or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and maintain the secrecy of all knowledge of state intelligence work".
That legislation leaves little to the imagination. Even the director for cybersecurity and data privacy at Huawei previously admitted that the law can be used to "force organisations and individuals to provide assistance with work relating to state security".
The potential for TikTok to perform covert espionage on behalf of the Chinese Communist party results in an unpalatable security risk. For Facebook, it creates the opportunity to encourage direct government intervention that would allow it to dominate its competitor.
The government of India recently banned TikTok on national security grounds. Now Facebook is drumming up nationalist feelings in an attempt to make US president Donald Trump do the same. "China is building its own version of the internet focused on very different ideas," Zuckerberg warned last Wednesday, "and they are exporting their vision to other countries."
Despite the patriotic rhetoric, the reality is that Facebook is focussed solely on eliminating its competition so that it can fill the vacuum left behind. If the manoeuvre is successful, it would let the company roll out a TikTok clone called Collab.
The signs that TikTok could be about to be excluded from Western markets are obvious. The Huawei ban in the US – and more recently the UK – reveals a glimpse into the app's potential future. The writing is on the wall and if the ban were to occur Facebook could further monopolise the US market – a result that can hardly be called a win for consumer privacy.
Despite the privacy concerns that follow Facebook everywhere it goes – and the fact that the company is defending itself on Capitol Hill for the third time in two years – the Trump administration appears keen to prop up Facebook's dominance. At the weekend, Trump announced that he is indeed preparing to ban TikTok in the US. This should, perhaps, be unsurprising considering Facebook's track record of providing US intelligence agencies with the same kind of espionage capacities that TikTok is accused of providing to China.
Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, even Trump's intervention may not be enough for Facebook to win the TikTok battle. This is because Microsoft has just announced that it is in talks with ByteDance to acquire the US, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand parts of TikTok's business. If that deal is successful, Microsoft would remove the Chinese threat from TikTok. And, with Microsoft in control of TikTok US, user data would be held on US servers and no longer at risk of China's security law. There would no longer be a legitimate reason for the US TikTok ban, much to Facebook's annoyance.
Microsoft is another company that has proven itself agreeable to working with US intelligence. As a result, it seems likely that this outcome would be acceptable to the Trump administration. After all, US intelligence is unlikely to care who owns TikTok as long as it is a US company upon which it can serve warrants and gag orders.
TikTok understands that to compete in the US it is going to need to put international concerns regarding China to bed. Selling to Microsoft would be one option, but TikTok appears to have another card up its sleeve. At the end of last week, its CEO, Kevin Mayer, announced that the firm is going to open a Transparency and Accountability Center that would give third parties the opportunity to analyse the code that drives TikTok's algorithms. He also claimed that the center would allow for a transparent analysis of its data practices.
Providing this kind of transparency is an extremely strong move. It could theoretically be a game-changer. If TikTok can successfully use transparency to create trust in the platform, a US ban would be understood to be political and economic – as opposed to motivated by security concerns. But at the moment Mayer's statements are just claims. While terms like "open" and "real-time" are impressive, we will have to wait and see what TikTok actually brings to the table. Only then will we be able to make concrete decisions about security and privacy on the platform.
The big question for TikTok is whether it can actually do enough to create trust in its platform. Can it provide real evidence that it is not being compromised by Chinese interests? And can it do these things in time to prevent itself being banned, handing the US market to Facebook on a silver platter.
Only time will tell, but it certainly appears that TikTok's best option for beating Facebook may be to cash-out by selling to Microsoft, however reluctantly.
Ray Walsh is a digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy. You can follow the group on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-06--Forget about masks: the real covid culture war has only just begun

By Jonathan Lis The box-office coronavirus culture war already seems to have faltered .
People still grumble about their masks but they mostly wear them , both because they have to and because they want to stop the virus .
The US-style backlash and protests just have n't caught on as widely or fervently as their proponents hoped .
The problem is that this is n't the real gulf at all .
The row over face coverings has in fact masked a much larger and more serious split , one which could impact Britain 's society , culture and economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the division between those who intend to live their lives as normal and those who can not .
The seeds of this divide were planted at the beginning of lockdown .
As early as the start of April , officials were touting the idea of 'immunity passports ' , where those found to have covid antibodies could use some kind of certification to re-enter society , while those without them would stay locked down .
That played into the herd immunity strategy , as it would in effect incentivise people to get sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that your social and economic value would hinge on whether you had had the virus or were waiting to get it .
In the end , that idea never transpired .
But it was replaced by something else : a division regulated not by certificates but by individual will , and fear .
The first thing to note about this new culture war is that neither side is an enemy , or in the wrong .
Both new groups have valid reasons to behave as they do .
The life-as-normals are desperate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their identities and made life happy and meaningful .
Most want to do so safely .
Meanwhile , the self-restricting may have health conditions or anxieties , or simply observe the widespread breakdown in social distancing in public and private spaces and consider it not worth the risk .
The virus has amply demonstrated its lethality .
It is reasonable to fear it .
The second thing to note is that the government is to blame .
Under the meaningless banner of 'common sense ' , ministers urge us to 'eat out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even as they lock down parts of the country and remind us that infection rates are rising .
In the usual win-win game of abrogating all political responsibility , they will condemn those who re-enter society for spreading the virus and those who do n't for crashing the economy .
Whatever happens , we must never blame the government for issuing guidance , just the public for following it .
And yet just because this divide has been stoked by the government , it still exists , and leaves us all with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no neutrality here : we judge that it is safe to go out , or we judge that it is n't .
We choose to see our friends in the busy café , or we choose not to .
That choice matters .
It 's currently unclear how many people are declining to go back to normal .
Over 2 million people have been shielding .
The streets in London can still feel eerily quiet even at rush hour .
Anecdotally , most of us know people who are determined to live their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less continuing lockdown unchanged .
If the government wants us back to normal , it should be worried .
According to a recent YouGov poll , 49 % were uncomfortable returning to pubs , with just 28 % comfortable doing so .
A further poll last week revealed that 53 % probably or definitely would n't take advantage of the restaurant discount scheme .
This corresponds with a general sense of unease : YouGov found that 74 % feared a second wave of the virus and only 21 % did not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant consequences on a social and personal level .
A fear of missing out could encourage some people to put themselves at risk , while others who stay home could find themselves cut out of friendship and support networks .
The splitting of such groups could foster deep resentments .
Mental health problems may emerge in people who felt isolated in the lockdown and re-isolated in its ending .
The most visible problem , of course , will be economic .
Returning to normality does n't simply mean going back to pubs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nobody is being forced to go to the pub , but some employees are being forced back to their jobs – even if they consider them unsafe .
Hundreds of thousands of people with health risks or anxiety are now facing two unenviable outcomes : a situation where they can not return to economic activity while their colleagues are , or where they are in fact dismissed from work altogether .
The former will breed a two-tier society where people are , through no fault of their own , trapped in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleasures and rewards of their jobs , and prevented from progressing with their careers .
The latter will be a form of outright – yet lawful – discrimination , and could bring rapid poverty .
Both will create not only a social stratification but also a monetary one , where those with fewer health problems or anxieties also end up richer and with better careers .
Economists have talked of a K-shaped recovery , where some groups quickly rebound while others move in the opposite direction .
The deepest sting is that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't depend on personal choice .
Already we can see a geographic disparity , with Leicester and parts of northern England facing restrictions that other places do not .
Given that poorer people have been more exposed to the virus from the start , we could find that it is the less well-off parts of the country that frequently return to lockdown , while richer areas keep their businesses and leisure activities open .
That will further exacerbate the economic and health inequalities , and gap in quality of life , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just about geography or income .
The aftermath of the virus will increase the gaps between able-bodied and disabled people and deepen the divisions across age groups .
Far from a society coming together after the torment of the Brexit years , we could be about to re-solidify divisions on some of the old lines and separate further along new ones .
Perhaps the most poignant element of all this is that there did seem to be a national coming together in the lockdown months .
Certainly , much of that was superficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporary , but events such as the clapping for carers appeared to engender a broad solidarity .
As the recent report from the Together campaign suggested , people no longer feel that shared purpose .
Covid had a harder impact on those who could not work from home , but it restricted everyone 's social and family lives in the same way , regardless of class or wealth .
People accepted that , because we had the single task of curbing the death toll and saving the NHS .
Now those restrictions no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily understand what we 're meant to be doing or where the government is taking us .
Individually and in groups , we are diverging far and fast .
Now is the time to get to grips with this problem .
As we face the trauma and anxiety of a potential second wave , and months or years of localised restrictions , we risk breaking into two solid and distinct categories which will define and divide us .
If the government refuses to unify us , we must do it for ourselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
The most difficult and damaging problem has only just begun .
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The box-office coronavirus culture war already seems to have faltered. People still grumble about their masks but they mostly wear them, both because they have to and because they want to stop the virus. The US-style backlash and protests just haven’t caught on as widely or fervently as their proponents hoped.
The problem is that this isn’t the real gulf at all. The row over face coverings has in fact masked a much larger and more serious split, one which could impact Britain’s society, culture and economy for years to come. It is the division between those who intend to live their lives as normal and those who cannot.
The seeds of this divide were planted at the beginning of lockdown. As early as the start of April, officials were touting the idea of ‘immunity passports’, where those found to have covid antibodies could use some kind of certification to re-enter society, while those without them would stay locked down. That played into the herd immunity strategy, as it would in effect incentivise people to get sick. There was a vague dystopian notion that your social and economic value would hinge on whether you had had the virus or were waiting to get it.
In the end, that idea never transpired. But it was replaced by something else: a division regulated not by certificates but by individual will, and fear.
The first thing to note about this new culture war is that neither side is an enemy, or in the wrong. Both new groups have valid reasons to behave as they do. The life-as-normals are desperate to resume the habits and activities which defined their identities and made life happy and meaningful. Most want to do so safely. Meanwhile, the self-restricting may have health conditions or anxieties, or simply observe the widespread breakdown in social distancing in public and private spaces and consider it not worth the risk. The virus has amply demonstrated its lethality. It is reasonable to fear it.
The second thing to note is that the government is to blame. Under the meaningless banner of ‘common sense’, ministers urge us to ‘eat out to help out’ and return to offices, even as they lock down parts of the country and remind us that infection rates are rising. In the usual win-win game of abrogating all political responsibility, they will condemn those who re-enter society for spreading the virus and those who don’t for crashing the economy. Whatever happens, we must never blame the government for issuing guidance, just the public for following it.
And yet just because this divide has been stoked by the government, it still exists, and leaves us all with individual choices to make. There is no neutrality here: we judge that it is safe to go out, or we judge that it isn’t. We choose to see our friends in the busy café, or we choose not to. That choice matters.
It’s currently unclear how many people are declining to go back to normal. Over 2 million people have been shielding. The streets in London can still feel eerily quiet even at rush hour. Anecdotally, most of us know people who are determined to live their pre-virus lives and others who are more or less continuing lockdown unchanged.
If the government wants us back to normal, it should be worried. According to a recent YouGov poll, 49% were uncomfortable returning to pubs, with just 28% comfortable doing so. A further poll last week revealed that 53% probably or definitely wouldn’t take advantage of the restaurant discount scheme. This corresponds with a general sense of unease: YouGov found that 74% feared a second wave of the virus and only 21% did not.
This kind of voluntary segregation could bring significant consequences on a social and personal level. A fear of missing out could encourage some people to put themselves at risk, while others who stay home could find themselves cut out of friendship and support networks. The splitting of such groups could foster deep resentments. Mental health problems may emerge in people who felt isolated in the lockdown and re-isolated in its ending.
The most visible problem, of course, will be economic. Returning to normality doesn’t simply mean going back to pubs and restaurants, but also workplaces. Significantly, nobody is being forced to go to the pub, but some employees are being forced back to their jobs – even if they consider them unsafe. Hundreds of thousands of people with health risks or anxiety are now facing two unenviable outcomes: a situation where they cannot return to economic activity while their colleagues are, or where they are in fact dismissed from work altogether.
The former will breed a two-tier society where people are, through no fault of their own, trapped in a form of work paralysis, denied the pleasures and rewards of their jobs, and prevented from progressing with their careers. The latter will be a form of outright – yet lawful – discrimination, and could bring rapid poverty. Both will create not only a social stratification but also a monetary one, where those with fewer health problems or anxieties also end up richer and with better careers. Economists have talked of a K-shaped recovery, where some groups quickly rebound while others move in the opposite direction.
The deepest sting is that this new division feeds into wider disadvantages that don’t depend on personal choice. Already we can see a geographic disparity, with Leicester and parts of northern England facing restrictions that other places do not. Given that poorer people have been more exposed to the virus from the start, we could find that it is the less well-off parts of the country that frequently return to lockdown, while richer areas keep their businesses and leisure activities open. That will further exacerbate the economic and health inequalities, and gap in quality of life, which already existed.
It is also not just about geography or income. The aftermath of the virus will increase the gaps between able-bodied and disabled people and deepen the divisions across age groups. Far from a society coming together after the torment of the Brexit years, we could be about to re-solidify divisions on some of the old lines and separate further along new ones.
Perhaps the most poignant element of all this is that there did seem to be a national coming together in the lockdown months. Certainly, much of that was superficial or, by its very nature, temporary, but events such as the clapping for carers appeared to engender a broad solidarity.
As the recent report from the Together campaign suggested, people no longer feel that shared purpose. Covid had a harder impact on those who could not work from home, but it restricted everyone’s social and family lives in the same way, regardless of class or wealth. People accepted that, because we had the single task of curbing the death toll and saving the NHS. Now those restrictions no longer apply, and we do not necessarily understand what we’re meant to be doing or where the government is taking us. Individually and in groups, we are diverging far and fast.
Now is the time to get to grips with this problem. As we face the trauma and anxiety of a potential second wave, and months or years of localised restrictions, we risk breaking into two solid and distinct categories which will define and divide us. If the government refuses to unify us, we must do it for ourselves. So forget about the culture war on masks. The most difficult and damaging problem has only just begun.
Jonathan Lis is deputy director of the pro-EU think tank British Influence and a political writer and commentator.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.