politicscouk--2020-05-29--Week in Review: Cummings killed the lock-down

When we look back on this period , it 'll be a moment of bitter farce in the wake of tragedy .
After all the suffering and boredom and anxiety , the end of the lock-down and the Dominic Cummings row will run simultaneously in people 's minds .
In reality , that 's not entirely correct .
The government message was already hopelessly confused before the Cummings story broke .
Stay alert , which meant nothing , replaced stay at home , which did .
People were gradually loosening compliance anyway , as anyone going for a walk outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather was n't helping to alleviate that .
But once the Cummings row hit , that process became much more acute .
There is simply nothing the government can say which carries moral weight .
`` We do n't want people to stay overnight , '' Boris Johnson said yesterday , `` we do n't want people to go to other households and stay there .
We are not saying people should now be allowed to move freely across the country . ''
Every line of it sets up a joke against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think of a single piece of government instruction which does not seem to pre-empt the punchline : 'Unless you 're Dominic Cummings ' .
On Question Time last night , health and social care minister Helen Whately 's attempt to explain government proposals saw her disintegrate into the new caveat-heavy version required to protect the prime minister 's chief adviser .
`` So follow the guidance unless you ca n't , '' host Fiona Bruce concluded .
There really are no rules now , from a viability standpoint .
There 's no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make them , nor much desire on the part of the public to comply with them , given the hypocrisy of those who issue them .
Insofar as people follow them from now on it is purely out of ethical duty .
The same lack of trust applies to the policies the government is announcing .
Thursday night 's confirmation of a relaxing of restrictions so groups of six could meet was the long-hoped for light at the end of the tunnel , allowing friends and family to be together again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything when you pop to the loo .
But even that now came with a dollop of suspicion .
Many people simply assumed it had been timed not because of an assessment of where the pandemic was at , but as an attempt to blast Cummings off the front pages .
And it did actually achieve that , with most papers focusing primarily on the relaxation .
That is not conspiracy theory .
It is a perfectly reasonable thing to have concluded .
Johnson 's behaviour at Thursday afternoon 's press conference was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after one question , so they could not ask any follow ups - a patent misuse of the virtual press conference requirements which would have been impossible in real life .
He interjected to block the scientific advisers from answering any question which related to Cummings , even if it was about public health .
He and his ministers kept firing off their `` move on '' line all of yesterday - a figure of speech which has clearly polled well on their relentless rounds of public message testing .
The government 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is intended to get it out of the Cummings-shaped hole .
So it takes very little suspicion to conclude that the public health decisions have the same motivation .
After all , who announces a relaxation of lock down rules for barbecues on Thursday , ahead of a sunny weekend , if they are meant to apply from Monday ?
It 's hard to conceive of anyone who would wait so long to adopt them .
It seems likely , on the most charitable interpretation , that this announcement would otherwise have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last major relaxation was .
The lock-down is over , and Cummings killed it .
That much is now becoming increasingly clear .
That 's bad enough for now .
But it becomes truly dangerous when we consider what will be asked of those contacted by the track-and-trace system , who , despite not having symptoms , will be asked to self-isolate for 14 days .
And even worse when we imagine the possibility of a second wave in the autumn .
The sense of trust in government is gone .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet .
We simply have to pray that it happened at the tail end of this thing , rather than in the lull which preceded another bout 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 .

When we look back on this period, it'll be a moment of bitter farce in the wake of tragedy. After all the suffering and boredom and anxiety, the end of the lock-down and the Dominic Cummings row will run simultaneously in people's minds.
In reality, that's not entirely correct. The government message was already hopelessly confused before the Cummings story broke. Stay alert, which meant nothing, replaced stay at home, which did. People were gradually loosening compliance anyway, as anyone going for a walk outside could tell you, and the warmer weather wasn't helping to alleviate that.
But once the Cummings row hit, that process became much more acute. There is simply nothing the government can say which carries moral weight. "We don't want people to stay overnight," Boris Johnson said yesterday, "we don't want people to go to other households and stay there. We are not saying people should now be allowed to move freely across the country." Every line of it sets up a joke against him.
In fact, it is hard to think of a single piece of government instruction which does not seem to pre-empt the punchline: 'Unless you're Dominic Cummings'. On Question Time last night, health and social care minister Helen Whately's attempt to explain government proposals saw her disintegrate into the new caveat-heavy version required to protect the prime minister's chief adviser. "So follow the guidance unless you can't," host Fiona Bruce concluded.
There really are no rules now, from a viability standpoint. There's no sense the government has the moral authority to make them, nor much desire on the part of the public to comply with them, given the hypocrisy of those who issue them. Insofar as people follow them from now on it is purely out of ethical duty.
The same lack of trust applies to the policies the government is announcing. Thursday night's confirmation of a relaxing of restrictions so groups of six could meet was the long-hoped for light at the end of the tunnel, allowing friends and family to be together again, even if only outside and without touching anything when you pop to the loo.
But even that now came with a dollop of suspicion. Many people simply assumed it had been timed not because of an assessment of where the pandemic was at, but as an attempt to blast Cummings off the front pages. And it did actually achieve that, with most papers focusing primarily on the relaxation.
That is not conspiracy theory. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to have concluded. Johnson's behaviour at Thursday afternoon's press conference was pure bargain-rate dictator. He muted journalists after one question, so they could not ask any follow ups – a patent misuse of the virtual press conference requirements which would have been impossible in real life. He interjected to block the scientific advisers from answering any question which related to Cummings, even if it was about public health. He and his ministers kept firing off their "move on" line all of yesterday – a figure of speech which has clearly polled well on their relentless rounds of public message testing.
The government's entire approach, it is quite clear, is intended to get it out of the Cummings-shaped hole. So it takes very little suspicion to conclude that the public health decisions have the same motivation. After all, who announces a relaxation of lock down rules for barbecues on Thursday, ahead of a sunny weekend, if they are meant to apply from Monday? It's hard to conceive of anyone who would wait so long to adopt them. It seems likely, on the most charitable interpretation, that this announcement would otherwise have been made on Sunday night, as the last major relaxation was.
The lock-down is over, and Cummings killed it. That much is now becoming increasingly clear.
That's bad enough for now. But it becomes truly dangerous when we consider what will be asked of those contacted by the track-and-trace system, who, despite not having symptoms, will be asked to self-isolate for 14 days. And even worse when we imagine the possibility of a second wave in the autumn.
The sense of trust in government is gone. We don't know the consequences of that yet. We simply have to pray that it happened at the tail end of this thing, rather than in the lull which preceded another bout 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--2020-06-01--The death of privacy: What happens to the covid-tracing apps after the virus?

Preventing the spread of Covid-19 is essential to get the economy up and running again , and governments around the world are under pressure to find a solution quickly .
This is leading to proposals for new technologies such as tracking apps , immunity passports and facial recognition cameras with built in thermometers designed to single out people with a fever .
While these invasive surveillance technologies may be considered a necessary evil in the short term , privacy advocates recognise that there is urgent need for transparent sunset clauses to be declared alongside their deployment .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections .
Failure to detail when these invasive technologies should be put to bed opens the door for them to remain even after the virus crisis is over .
This creates the very real possibility that we will exit Covid-19 into a brave new world in which many of the basic freedoms we enjoyed in 2019 are gone , potentially forever .
In the UK , even before the coronavirus crisis , police forces were trialing the use of real-time facial recognition systems in public spaces .
That technology was heavily criticised by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create an all-encompassing surveillance nexus .
Despite the determined opposition , early evidence suggested that the police would push on with the technology ’ s use , with a general feeling that it would only be a matter of time before those early trials spread across the rest of London , and then around the country .
That highly invasive real time biometric tracking is modelled directly on China 's invasive facial recognition technology - systems that just a few years ago were considered the overreaching mechanisms of a totalitarian state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 now a priority , new tracking apps are being deployed that will allow consumers to know when they have been near someone with the virus and need to self-isolate .
In the Chinese city of Hangzhou , the local government is already suggesting that those tracking systems should be made permanent to prepare for any potential second wave .
In India , a similar health tracking app called Aargoya Setu has been made compulsory for any citizen who wants to travel on domestic flights .
This is yet another concerning sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shores in the future .
For now , the government is claiming that any tracking apps for UK citizens would be voluntary .
However , there seems to be a very real possibility that citizens may eventually be told that they need to be cleared by the app to qualify for international flights .
If this is the case , it is easy to see why UK residents wanting to go on holiday - or who need to travel for business - may not consider the tracking app optional .
We can hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits everything will suddenly go back to normal .
Unfortunately , it seems possible that Western governments may instead take a leaf out of China 's book .
If , for example , it is claimed that keeping the R down it is necessary to continue using newly implemented tracking methods and technologies indefinitely , then we may not get the sunset clauses we need on the use of these invasive technologies .
The result of this would be a radically altered society in which everyone 's location is recorded constantly and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In such a world , the government knows each and every journey you make , and every person you go near .
In China , where the government has already implemented a social credits system , this kind of tracking is already affecting society by changing the way that people intermingle .
Fear of association is used as a powerful tool that magnifies social boundaries , and highlights the desire for people of different classes to segregate .
A failure to do so may lead to discrimination , prejudice , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this may seem like a distant nightmare , more akin to an episode of Black Mirror than anything we 'd likely see on our shores .
Yet if the past has anything to teach us , is that the use of this kind of surveillance tech is manifesting into the West as quickly as a certain virus .
With this in mind , it seems reasonable to question how this technology may restrict our future ability to associate or travel in privacy .
No-one can be sure when the coronavirus crisis will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with the fear of a second wave and future pandemics .
This , however , is being used as an unobjectionable reason for ongoing tracking , where governments appear to have found the silver bullet they need to leverage mass surveillance of their citizens .
It must not become ‘ the new normal ’ .
Ray Walsh is digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Ray Walsh
Preventing the spread of Covid-19 is essential to get the economy up and running again, and governments around the world are under pressure to find a solution quickly. This is leading to proposals for new technologies such as tracking apps, immunity passports and facial recognition cameras with built-in thermometers designed to single out people with a fever.
While these invasive surveillance technologies may be considered a necessary evil in the short term, privacy advocates recognise that there is urgent need for transparent sunset clauses to be declared alongside their deployment. After all, plenty of these apps have less-than-ideal privacy protections.
Failure to detail when these invasive technologies should be put to bed opens the door for them to remain even after the virus crisis is over. This creates the very real possibility that we will exit Covid-19 into a brave new world in which many of the basic freedoms we enjoyed in 2019 are gone, potentially forever.
In the UK, even before the coronavirus crisis, police forces were trialing the use of real-time facial recognition systems in public spaces. That technology was heavily criticised by privacy advocacy groups due to its potential to create an all-encompassing surveillance nexus.
Despite the determined opposition, early evidence suggested that the police would push on with the technology’s use, with a general feeling that it would only be a matter of time before those early trials spread across the rest of London, and then around the country.
That highly invasive real time biometric tracking is modelled directly on China's invasive facial recognition technology – systems that just a few years ago were considered the overreaching mechanisms of a totalitarian state.
With the desire to control the spread of Covid-19 now a priority, new tracking apps are being deployed that will allow consumers to know when they have been near someone with the virus and need to self-isolate. In the Chinese city of Hangzhou, the local government is already suggesting that those tracking systems should be made permanent to prepare for any potential second wave.
In India, a similar health tracking app called Aargoya Setu has been made compulsory for any citizen who wants to travel on domestic flights. This is yet another concerning sign of what might be heading to UK shores in the future.
For now, the government is claiming that any tracking apps for UK citizens would be voluntary. However, there seems to be a very real possibility that citizens may eventually be told that they need to be cleared by the app to qualify for international flights. If this is the case, it is easy to see why UK residents wanting to go on holiday – or who need to travel for business – may not consider the tracking app optional.
We can hope that once R reduces to within acceptable limits everything will suddenly go back to normal. Unfortunately, it seems possible that Western governments may instead take a leaf out of China's book. If, for example, it is claimed that keeping the R down it is necessary to continue using newly implemented tracking methods and technologies indefinitely, then we may not get the sunset clauses we need on the use of these invasive technologies.
The result of this would be a radically altered society in which everyone's location is recorded constantly and where the right to private association is extinguished. In such a world, the government knows each and every journey you make, and every person you go near.
In China, where the government has already implemented a social credits system, this kind of tracking is already affecting society by changing the way that people intermingle. Fear of association is used as a powerful tool that magnifies social boundaries, and highlights the desire for people of different classes to segregate. A failure to do so may lead to discrimination, prejudice, and a loss of opportunity.
In the UK, this may seem like a distant nightmare, more akin to an episode of Black Mirror than anything we'd likely see on our shores. Yet if the past has anything to teach us, it is that the use of this kind of surveillance tech is manifesting into the West as quickly as a certain virus. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to question how this technology may restrict our future ability to associate or travel in privacy.
No-one can be sure when the coronavirus crisis will be declared officially over. We are dealing with the fear of a second wave and future pandemics. This, however, is being used as an unobjectionable reason for ongoing tracking, where governments appear to have found the silver bullet they need to leverage mass surveillance of their citizens. It must not become ‘the new normal’.
Ray Walsh is digital privacy expert at ProPrivacy.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-06-04--The myth of a lack of EU solidarity

The myth of a lack of EU solidarity

The coronavirus crisis hit the EU with full force .
It has exposed , as you could read over and over again , the EU 's fatal flaw : a lack of solidarity .
You will have read the story in the Guardian .
Or in the Telegraph .
You will have watched it on the BBC .
And on ITV .
If you listened closely , you probably heard the trees whisper it late at night when you fell asleep .
The recent Franco-German proposal to allow the EU to borrow €500bn and give grants to member states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have silenced the complaints about a lack of solidarity for a brief moment .
Before they inevitably reappear , it is worth reflecting on a narrative that is by now well established .
What if they 're wrong ?
What if the fatal flaw of the debate is not a lack of solidarity but the very way we talk about solidarity between states ?
Many who lamented the lack of solidarity played fast and loose with the facts .
They pointed out that Russia and China sent Italy medical aid , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Germany sent 300 ventilators to Italy and treated more than 200 coronavirus patients from France , Italy and the Netherlands , for example .
Poland and Romania sent doctors and nurses to Italy .
And so on .
They decried that a €540bn emergency package agreed by EU member states was puny , but did not acknowledge the €750bn programme of the European Central Bank .
When called out for omitting facts , they dismissed the criticism with a sigh : 'Yes , there might have been other things , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solidarity . '
Do they have a point ?
More solidarity would have been possible , surely .
But how do you set the bar for the right amount of solidarity ?
Do you compare the EU with a country like the US ?
The EU is not a country .
Nor , let us be honest , is the US currently a model for solidarity in a state .
Or do you define the bar of solidarity by what is ideal ?
If you do , I am the first to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to see coronabonds weeks ago – yet they still do not exist .
But people disagree about what is ideal .
Both Matteo Salvini 's Lega and Silvio Berlusconi 's Forza Italia voted against eurobonds in the European parliament .
The truth is : few things in life live up to anyone 's ideals .
And none do in politics , anywhere .
The discussion about solidarity compares incomplete descriptions of facts with unreachable ideals to reach untenable conclusions .
That might sound bad .
But it is actually worse .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because rather than discussing how we can show more solidarity , we spend our time blaming others for lacking it .
Consider , for example , the export restrictions on personal protection equipment passed in several countries , which caused such a stir .
Germany passed its restrictions on March 4th .
When explaining why , the government pointed its fingers at France , which had introduced its own measures the day before .
France , in turn , accused Germany of a lack of solidarity over coronabonds in the days before Macron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Italian debate , both the French and German export restrictions were held up as evidence for the lack of solidarity in the EU , while the debate passed quietly over the fact that Italy had passed its own export restrictions for personal protection equipment on February 25th .
And the UK , you might ask ?
You will have seen the Telegraph articles , the Guardian op-eds and the BBC pieces pointing fingers at the EU , Germany and France for lacking solidarity .
But have you seen any discussions about UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did we give to Italy , France or Spain ?
Or , if leaving the EU means we no longer care about Europeans , what aid did we give to Latin America ?
The reality is that much like everyone else , we love to point the finger at others for lacking solidarity , but fail to look at ourselves .
It is time we change tack .
Solidarity is a noble concept .
It has a long history .
León Bourgeois , one of the fathers of the League of Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solidarité .
It has even entered discussions of international law .
But the political discussion about solidarity has become a circular exercise in finger-pointing .
It is a distraction for the debate we need to have .
How do we address the problems we face in a globalised world ?
How should the cooperation of states be organised so that we all benefit ?
Which level of governance do we want to be in charge of a certain policy ?
Macron and Merkel have made a proposal on how the EU should tackle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by way of grants .
They are right not because their plan satisfies some abstract notion of solidarity , but because it can work .
Currently , even within the EU , states are legally permitted to impose export restrictions on PPE in a health emergency .
This is wrong , not because it falls short of ideas of solidarity , but because it leaves everyone worse off .
These issues deserve a thorough debate on their merits .
Pointing fingers helps nobody .
It only detracts from finding answers .
Holger P. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resolution at the Dickson Poon School of Law .
His latest book , Eigenständigkeit und Homogenität in föderalen Systemen , discusses the opposing themes of unity and diversity in federal systems .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Holger P. Hestermeyer
The coronavirus crisis hit the EU with full force. It has exposed, as you could read over and over again, the EU's fatal flaw: a lack of solidarity. You will have read the story in the Guardian. Or in the Telegraph. You will have watched it on the BBC. And on ITV. If you listened closely, you probably heard the trees whisper it late at night when you fell asleep.
The recent Franco-German proposal to allow the EU to borrow €500bn and give grants to member states to tackle the fallout of the pandemic seems to have silenced the complaints about a lack of solidarity for a brief moment. Before they inevitably reappear, it is worth reflecting on a narrative that is by now well established. What if they're wrong? What if the fatal flaw of the debate is not a lack of solidarity but the very way we talk about solidarity between states?
Many who lamented the lack of solidarity played fast and loose with the facts. They pointed out that Russia and China sent Italy medical aid, but failed to mention aid by EU member states. Germany sent 300 ventilators to Italy and treated more than 200 coronavirus patients from France, Italy and the Netherlands, for example. Poland and Romania sent doctors and nurses to Italy. And so on.
They decried that a €540bn emergency package agreed by EU member states was puny, but did not acknowledge the €750bn programme of the European Central Bank.
When called out for omitting facts, they dismissed the criticism with a sigh: 'Yes, there might have been other things, but what you mention certainly falls short of solidarity.'
Do they have a point? More solidarity would have been possible, surely. But how do you set the bar for the right amount of solidarity? Do you compare the EU with a country like the US? The EU is not a country. Nor, let us be honest, is the US currently a model for solidarity in a state.
Or do you define the bar of solidarity by what is ideal? If you do, I am the first to say that the EU falls short. I wanted to see coronabonds weeks ago – yet they still do not exist. But people disagree about what is ideal. Both Matteo Salvini's Lega and Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia voted against eurobonds in the European parliament. The truth is: few things in life live up to anyone's ideals. And none do in politics, anywhere.
The discussion about solidarity compares incomplete descriptions of facts with unreachable ideals to reach untenable conclusions. That might sound bad. But it is actually worse. The debate about solidarity is also counterproductive, because rather than discussing how we can show more solidarity, we spend our time blaming others for lacking it.
Consider, for example, the export restrictions on personal protection equipment passed in several countries, which caused such a stir. Germany passed its restrictions on March 4th. When explaining why, the government pointed its fingers at France, which had introduced its own measures the day before. France, in turn, accused Germany of a lack of solidarity over coronabonds in the days before Macron and Merkel announced their proposal. In the Italian debate, both the French and German export restrictions were held up as evidence for the lack of solidarity in the EU, while the debate passed quietly over the fact that Italy had passed its own export restrictions for personal protection equipment on February 25th.
And the UK, you might ask? You will have seen the Telegraph articles, the Guardian op-eds and the BBC pieces pointing fingers at the EU, Germany and France for lacking solidarity. But have you seen any discussions about UK solidarity? What aid, if any, did we give to Italy, France or Spain? Or, if leaving the EU means we no longer care about Europeans, what aid did we give to Latin America? The reality is that much like everyone else, we love to point the finger at others for lacking solidarity, but fail to look at ourselves.
It is time we change tack. Solidarity is a noble concept. It has a long history. León Bourgeois, one of the fathers of the League of Nation, discussed it in his 1896 book Solidarité. It has even entered discussions of international law. But the political discussion about solidarity has become a circular exercise in finger-pointing.
It is a distraction for the debate we need to have. How do we address the problems we face in a globalised world? How should the cooperation of states be organised so that we all benefit? Which level of governance do we want to be in charge of a certain policy?
Macron and Merkel have made a proposal on how the EU should tackle the economic fallout of the coronavirus crisis by way of grants. They are right not because their plan satisfies some abstract notion of solidarity, but because it can work.
Currently, even within the EU, states are legally permitted to impose export restrictions on PPE in a health emergency. This is wrong, not because it falls short of ideas of solidarity, but because it leaves everyone worse off.
These issues deserve a thorough debate on their merits. Pointing fingers helps nobody. It only detracts from finding answers.
Holger P. Hestermeyer is Shell Reader in International Dispute Resolution at the Dickson Poon School of Law. His latest book, Eigenständigkeit und Homogenität in föderalen Systemen, discusses the opposing themes of unity and diversity in federal systems. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-06-05--Week in Review: The fake equality of All Lives Matter

It emerges every time the Black Lives Matter movement has any success .
The response from right-wing comment writers , pundits and social media accounts is always the same : All Lives Matter .
It 's worth quickly breaking down this smug piece of cynicism .
It is a phrase which aims to accomplish the precise opposite of what it suggests .
It seems as if the force of it comes from a universal , equal view of humankind .
But in fact it tries to protect and consolidate inequality .
None of this should need saying .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no longer enough to establish the viability of an argument , so unfortunately it does .
Humans do not live in perfect equality .
Oppressed groups exist .
They suffer disadvantages on the basis of how they are perceived .
Black people , in the UK and US , suffer worse treatment at the hands of the police , worse treatment in work , worse treatment in the criminal justice system , worse treatment in healthcare .
That 's not a full list .
It 's the tip of an iceberg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment is true egalitarianism .
That is what the battle for equality looks like .
You can disagree about the tactics , but you can not disagree sensibly about the mission without closing yourself off from justice , or empirical reality , or both .
To say that All Lives Matter in response is not , in fact , to care for all lives .
It is to use egalitarianism against itself .
It is to insist , against evidential reality , that all people are treated equally now .
It is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in order to undermine efforts for change .
The use of the phrase is typical of a right-wing instinct which takes liberal terminology and twists it as a weapon against social justice .
Where , for instance , have the great marketplace-of-ideas free speech campaigners been over the last week ?
You could n't ask for a more clear-cut moment of threat against free speech , individual rights and freedom of assembly than what we are seeing in the US right now .
Protestors , demonstrating against the killing of a class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by police in the street , beaten , hit by tear gas , shot with rubber bullets , put under curfew and branded `` terrorists '' by their own president .
So where are the great free speech advocates of the right ?
Nowhere to be heard .
Because , in truth , it 's not free speech they want .
They just know which bits of liberalism to mangle and distort as a weapon against the marginalised .
They do n't care about this any more than they care about immigration detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law , or the suspension of parliament , or any of the other affronts to freedom and equality which should objectively be contrary to their stated values .
They use these ideals against that which they are intended to achieve .
It 's a proper stand-up-and-be-counted moment right now .
The protests which broke out this week show the urgent moral need for people to be treated equally and freed from the discrimination and abuse which is directed at them .
Those who twist liberalism and egalitarianism to oppose them should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They 're not controversialists , or classical liberals , or libertarians , or even contrarians .
They 're not that interesting .
They 're just , at the end of it all , bog-standard reactionaries : a lobby group against justice and change .
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 @ @

It emerges every time the Black Lives Matter movement has any success. The response from right-wing comment writers, pundits and social media accounts is always the same: All Lives Matter.
It's worth quickly breaking down this smug piece of cynicism. It is a phrase which aims to accomplish the precise opposite of what it suggests. It seems as if the force of it comes from a universal, equal view of humankind. But in fact it tries to protect and consolidate inequality.
None of this should need saying. It is profoundly obvious. But that criteria alone is no longer enough to establish the viability of an argument, so unfortunately it does.
Humans do not live in perfect equality. Oppressed groups exist. They suffer disadvantages on the basis of how they are perceived. Black people, in the UK and US, suffer worse treatment at the hands of the police, worse treatment in work, worse treatment in the criminal justice system, worse treatment in healthcare. That's not a full list. It's the tip of an iceberg.
To want to eradicate that disparity of treatment is true egalitarianism. That is what the battle for equality looks like. You can disagree about the tactics, but you cannot disagree sensibly about the mission without closing yourself off from justice, or empirical reality, or both.
To say that All Lives Matter in response is not, in fact, to care for all lives. It is to use egalitarianism against itself. It is to insist, against evidential reality, that all people are treated equally now. It is to use misuse normative statements as descriptive statements, in order to undermine efforts for change.
The use of the phrase is typical of a right-wing instinct which takes liberal terminology and twists it as a weapon against social justice. Where, for instance, have the great marketplace-of-ideas free speech campaigners been over the last week?
You couldn't ask for a more clear-cut moment of threat against free speech, individual rights and freedom of assembly than what we are seeing in the US right now. Protestors, demonstrating against the killing of a class of people by law enforcement, attacked by police in the street, beaten, hit by tear gas, shot with rubber bullets, put under curfew and branded "terrorists" by their own president.
So where are the great free speech advocates of the right? Nowhere to be heard.
Because, in truth, it's not free speech they want. They just know which bits of liberalism to mangle and distort as a weapon against the marginalised. They don't care about this any more than they care about immigration detention centres, or threats to the rule of law, or the suspension of parliament, or any of the other affronts to freedom and equality which should objectively be contrary to their stated values. They use these ideals against that which they are intended to achieve.
It's a proper stand-up-and-be-counted moment right now. The protests which broke out this week show the urgent moral need for people to be treated equally and freed from the discrimination and abuse which is directed at them.
Those who twist liberalism and egalitarianism to oppose them should be seen for what they really are. They're not controversialists, or classical liberals, or libertarians, or even contrarians. They're not that interesting. They're just, at the end of it all, bog-standard reactionaries: a lobby group against justice and change.
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--2020-06-11--Boris Johnson must stand up against an annexation of the West Bank

By William Bell Last June , an 82-year-old Palestinian refugee called Fayza in Lebanon 's Nahr el-Bared camp wept as she told me : `` Palestine is in our bones – it is not something to describe .
When you lose your home town , you never trade it with anything .
I want just to go to Palestine , die there and be buried there . ''
It is a sentiment you hear echoed across the region and it is time it was heard here .
World leaders usually respond decisively when a state annexes the land of another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unilaterally carries out its threat to establish sovereignty over more of the occupied Palestinian territory .
However , when it comes to the Palestinians , the world has consistently been found wanting .
It is time for us all to stop taking sides , respect the law and treat people equally irrespective of race or religion .
If Israel formally annexes more West Bank territory , the international community , including the UK , must confront the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with renewed vigour .
In a 2017 Telegraph column just before the 100th anniversary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledged to give `` whatever support we can '' to fulfil the declaration 's promise that a Jewish homeland would not prejudice Palestinian rights .
Now he has an opportunity to make good on that pledge , and to recognise Palestine as a state , as the House of Commons voted to do in 2014 by 274 votes to 12 , a majority of 262 .
By erasing the pre-June 1967 lines , Israel will be challenging international consensus for a two-state solution and meaningful sovereignty for Palestinians .
It will render UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of settlements and calls for differentiation between them and Israel - meaningless .
Ultimately , should it go unopposed , annexation will also seriously undermine and damage the multilateral rules-based system developed to protect us all .
Johnson should ensure territorial differentiation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in all future bilateral negotiations between the UK and Israel to ensure that settlements do not benefit from any agreements .
And he should end all trade with illegal settlements to demonstrate unequivocally that UK policy considers them unlawful and contrary to peace .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear in many Palestinian communities is displacement .
From refugee camps in Lebanon , to villages in the Jordan Valley , to unrecognised Bedouin villages in southern Israel , or under blockade in Gaza , young Palestinians grow up as either unwelcome refugees in a foreign land , unprotected and vulnerable in the occupied Palestinian territory , or feeling unwanted as citizens in Israel .
This latest annexation threat provokes a mix of reactions in Palestinians .
Yes , there is anger , but also a shrug of weariness from those who already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a coercive environment which restricts movement and access to natural resources , sees homes and livelihoods relentlessly demolished and fails to prosecute settler violence against them .
For most though , like Fayza , it is also about dignity and defending their identity .
The most visible example of creeping annexation is the growth of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank .
Israel applies its own state civil law to the settlers but imposes military law on the Palestinians .
Thus , for many , this latest threat is viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawful policy .
Significantly , formal annexation would allow Israel to challenge further the West Bank 's legal status as occupied territory , which includes an occupying power 's duty to protect the rights and property of the population living under its occupation .
It is not clear what legal status Palestinians in newly annexed areas can expect , but , if history is anything to go by , their hopes of being treated with equality , dignity and justice will not be realised .
This comes as new figures from the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic , more than a quarter of Palestinians lived below the poverty line , with youth unemployment at 38 % .
What is not in doubt now is the continued existence of two peoples who will continue to claim part , or all , of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean .
However , it is international law which should be applied in response , not a weighing up of narratives .
Christian Aid has worked in the Middle East since the 1950s when it responded to the Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still there today because a just peace , which would provide the stability and opportunity Palestinians crave to build their own destiny and tackle poverty , has eluded all .
This is not the place to rehash history or to apportion blame .
But we should all be clear that Palestinians are as much a people with the same right to self-determination and meaningful sovereignty as any other nation , including Israel .
That needs saying because there are some , with influence , who claim as the commentator Melanie Phillips did in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a fiction invented solely to destroy the Jewish claim to Israel '' .
This conflict will never be resolved by delegitimising one another .
It wo n't help Palestinians - or Israelis - to feel more secure or develop economies that tackle poverty and support all .
It wo n't end the violence that blights so many lives .
Full sovereignty for one side of this conflict can not come at the expense of the other .
Just as Israelis need and deserve security , so too do the Palestinians .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bestows privilege on one and ignominy upon the other .
World leaders , including Johnson , must act to ensure that the rules-based order is strengthened now and for future generations .
International law was derived from the bitter experience of world wars .
That experience must not be forgotten .
Its lessons must be preserved .
Annexation , a clear breach of international law , could harm not just the future Fayzas of Palestine , but us all .
William Bell is head of Middle East for Christian Aid .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By William Bell
Last June, an 82-year-old Palestinian refugee called Fayza in Lebanon's Nahr el-Bared camp wept as she told me: "Palestine is in our bones – it is not something to describe. When you lose your home town, you never trade it with anything. I want just to go to Palestine, die there and be buried there."
It is a sentiment you hear echoed across the region and it is time it was heard here. World leaders usually respond decisively when a state annexes the land of another people – as they should if Israel unilaterally carries out its threat to establish sovereignty over more of the occupied Palestinian territory. However, when it comes to the Palestinians, the world has consistently been found wanting. It is time for us all to stop taking sides, respect the law and treat people equally irrespective of race or religion.
If Israel formally annexes more West Bank territory, the international community, including the UK, must confront the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with renewed vigour. In a 2017 Telegraph column just before the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Boris Johnson pledged to give "whatever support we can" to fulfil the declaration's promise that a Jewish homeland would not prejudice Palestinian rights. Now he has an opportunity to make good on that pledge, and to recognise Palestine as a state, as the House of Commons voted to do in 2014 by 274 votes to 12, a majority of 262.
By erasing the pre-June 1967 lines, Israel will be challenging international consensus for a two-state solution and meaningful sovereignty for Palestinians. It will render UN Resolution 2334 – which affirms the illegality of settlements and calls for differentiation between them and Israel – meaningless. Ultimately, should it go unopposed, annexation will also seriously undermine and damage the multilateral rules-based system developed to protect us all.
Johnson should ensure territorial differentiation between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in all future bilateral negotiations between the UK and Israel to ensure that settlements do not benefit from any agreements. And he should end all trade with illegal settlements to demonstrate unequivocally that UK policy considers them unlawful and contrary to peace.
Alongside poverty, the common experience and fear in many Palestinian communities is displacement. From refugee camps in Lebanon, to villages in the Jordan Valley, to unrecognised Bedouin villages in southern Israel, or under blockade in Gaza, young Palestinians grow up as either unwelcome refugees in a foreign land, unprotected and vulnerable in the occupied Palestinian territory, or feeling unwanted as citizens in Israel.
This latest annexation threat provokes a mix of reactions in Palestinians. Yes, there is anger, but also a shrug of weariness from those who already live under de facto annexation. It is a coercive environment which restricts movement and access to natural resources, sees homes and livelihoods relentlessly demolished and fails to prosecute settler violence against them. For most though, like Fayza, it is also about dignity and defending their identity.
The most visible example of creeping annexation is the growth of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Israel applies its own state civil law to the settlers but imposes military law on the Palestinians. Thus, for many, this latest threat is viewed as an extension and formalisation of existing unlawful policy.
Significantly, formal annexation would allow Israel to challenge further the West Bank's legal status as occupied territory, which includes an occupying power's duty to protect the rights and property of the population living under its occupation. It is not clear what legal status Palestinians in newly annexed areas can expect, but, if history is anything to go by, their hopes of being treated with equality, dignity and justice will not be realised.
This comes as new figures from the World Bank show that even prior to the coronavirus pandemic, more than a quarter of Palestinians lived below the poverty line, with youth unemployment at 38%.
What is not in doubt now is the continued existence of two peoples who will continue to claim part, or all, of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. However, it is international law which should be applied in response, not a weighing up of narratives.
Christian Aid has worked in the Middle East since the 1950s when it responded to the Palestinian refugee crisis. Sadly, it is still there today because a just peace, which would provide the stability and opportunity Palestinians crave to build their own destiny and tackle poverty, has eluded all. This is not the place to rehash history or to apportion blame. But we should all be clear that Palestinians are as much a people with the same right to self-determination and meaningful sovereignty as any other nation, including Israel.
That needs saying because there are some, with influence, who claim as the commentator Melanie Phillips did in June 2018 that the "Palestinian identity is a fiction invented solely to destroy the Jewish claim to Israel". This conflict will never be resolved by delegitimising one another. It won't help Palestinians – or Israelis – to feel more secure or develop economies that tackle poverty and support all. It won't end the violence that blights so many lives.
Full sovereignty for one side of this conflict cannot come at the expense of the other. Just as Israelis need and deserve security, so too do the Palestinians. There cannot remain a mutually exclusive situation that bestows privilege on one and ignominy upon the other.
World leaders, including Johnson, must act to ensure that the rules-based order is strengthened now and for future generations. International law was derived from the bitter experience of world wars. That experience must not be forgotten. Its lessons must be preserved. Annexation, a clear breach of international law, could harm not just the future Fayzas of Palestine, but us all.
William Bell is head of Middle East for Christian Aid.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-06-15--Special needs children left without support amid covid education chaos

Last week 's announcement that most children will not be returning to school until the autumn sparked widespread concern about the impact on pupils of nearly half a year with little or no education .
But while the effect on most children 's learning is bad enough , the impact could be most severe on those with special education needs and disabilities , such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) .
Rules rushed through by the government under the Coronavirus Act , and now extended for a second month , have left many children with special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns section 42 of the Children and Families Act .
Section 42 legally requires councils and local NHS groups to secure all the provision set out in a child 's Education , Health and Care Plan ( EHCP ) , which establishes how their needs must be met .
But the government has watered this down - instead of being legally required to ensure children 's needs are met , councils and NHS groups now only need use their 'reasonable endeavours ' to meet them .
If , after these 'reasonable endeavours ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet them - and if it can show this is because of the impact of coronavirus - these children 's needs can be set aside .
The government argues that school closures , social distancing and staff absence means provision such as one-to-one tuition simply ca n't be met during the pandemic .
But many parents fear the impact on their children 's education - and how long the new rules might last .
`` In theory it affects every child with an EHCP , '' says Tania Tirraoro , parent and co-founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If you had an EHCP which said your child was entitled to one-to-one , they wo n't be getting it , most likely .
If they had speech and language therapies , they most likely wo n't be getting it . ''
Alicia McColl has a 16-year-old son , Kian , who has autism , ADHD , dyspraxia and speech and language disorder .
He has an EHCP and a council-funded place at an independent special school , who she says have been supportive during lockdown .
`` I just hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... that he does have all of the support that 's in his EHCP , '' she says .
`` So far they 've given remotely what they can - speech and language etc .
But if he does n't , it 'll be very hard for him to go back .
Because they 're already changing the routine in the day , so if they do n't have that support in place he 'll really struggle . ''
Kian 's EHCP includes full-time one-to-one teaching due to his speech and language issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone to interpret people 's speech for him , and gets frustrated and anxious if people speak very quickly .
`` They have an EHCP for a very good reason - because they need the support , '' says McColl .
`` If they 're sending children back to school then they need to provide the support that 's in the EHCP ... .
They 're just going to have to find a way of doing it . ''
In truth , councils often failed to meet section 42 duties before the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs education .
But back then , parents could at least go to tribunal to force councils to act .
Now they must take the much harder road to a judicial review .
`` Most families with EHCPs do n't really understand the law and they do n't have the capacity to do that kind of thing , '' says Tirraoro .
One family is going to court , however - with the aim of forcing the government to scrap its entire policy .
Amber Shaw is a 16-year-old girl from Salford with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thanks to the government 's rule changes , she is not currently receiving the support she needs , including speech and language therapy and support managing her anxiety .
Polly Sweeney is the lawyer bringing the case .
`` I think that [ Shaw 's family ] accept that plainly there are going to be parts of her EHC plan which just are n't going to be provided at the moment , '' she says .
`` But there are also some bits of it that clearly could be provided at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any support at all . ''
Shaw is also affected by the other major rule change brought in during the pandemic - the loosening of the strict timescales by which the different steps in the EHCP process must be completed .
Until September 24th , councils only have to complete these steps as soon as 'reasonably practicable ' - which could cause major problems for children switching school this autumn .
Shaw is starting college in September , and her EHCP is being updated to ensure it meets her needs when she gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's going to be delays in her transition to college and having the right support , '' says Sweeney .
The grounds for the legal challenge are that there was insufficient consultation and scrutiny of the changes , and that they are n't 'appropriate and proportionate ' - the test set by the Coronavirus Act .
Sweeney argues that relatively few council staff are actually off work sick , and the staff whose job is to support children with special needs have n't been redeployed to other duties , meaning the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was actually impossible for a council to meet a particular child 's needs , then under the legal principle of 'futility ' the courts would not force it to do so - which , Shaw 's lawyers believe , makes the emergency laws redundant .
`` We 've been contacted by a large number of parents who are concerned that their children are not getting the support that they need at the moment , and it 's certainly influencing whether those parents are sending their children back to school , '' Sweeney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , the children have experienced heightened anxiety , a deterioration in their needs , challenging behaviour - one of my clients had a real setback in his mental wellbeing , because what is often very important is consistency of programmes and of strategies and of teaching , and that has just been taken away . ''
Relaxing legal duties now may simply store up trouble down the road .
`` Some children just wo n't be able to go back '' without their EHCP needs being met , says Tirraoro , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be at greater risk of exclusion , because they ca n't social-distance , or because they do n't have the support that helps keep them in school .
And so their behaviour will deteriorate because everything is very different . ''
`` If you think about children , even the ones going back to school now , how 's it going to affect their mental health ?
That 's another cost in the long term , '' adds McColl .
The downgrade to section 42 must be renewed each month .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was rolled over to June at the last moment .
Some fear children 's rights could be downgraded indefinitely .
`` Longer term , what would concern me , for education and health and care , is that this becomes a new normal , '' says one parent of children with special needs who wished to remain anonymous .
`` I could honestly see this just ticking over month by month by month by month , and it will become more attractive [ to the government ] I think over time to leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long period of time . ''
The Department for Education refutes this , and it is true the government did not take other even more severe steps that were open to it , such as suspending aspects of the Equalities Act .
Tirraoro , who suspects the government weakened the rules under pressure from councils , says the government might try to make the downgrade in protections permanent , `` but I do n't think they 'll get away with it '' .
As it stands , children with special needs may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earliest .
For many parents , that 's not good enough .
`` We really just want the relaxation to be lifted as soon as possible , '' says Tirraoro , `` because otherwise you 're putting disabled children at a huge disadvantage . ''
A statement from the Department for Education said : `` Our first priority remains the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children and young people , including those with special educational needs and disabilities .
`` Education settings have remained open for these children and young people , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may put additional pressure on services .
We thank dedicated frontline staff for their continued work to support families in these challenging circumstances .
`` Children and young people with complex needs continue to have legal rights to support .
Given the unprecedented situation , the precise nature of this support may need to be modified temporarily .
These changes will be kept under review . ''
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
Last week's announcement that most children will not be returning to school until the autumn sparked widespread concern about the impact on pupils of nearly half a year with little or no education.
But while the effect on most children's learning is bad enough, the impact could be most severe on those with special education needs and disabilities, such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Rules rushed through by the government under the Coronavirus Act, and now extended for a second month, have left many children with special needs unsupported.
The biggest rule change concerns section 42 of the Children and Families Act. Section 42 legally requires councils and local NHS groups to secure all the provision set out in a child's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), which establishes how their needs must be met.
But the government has watered this down – instead of being legally required to ensure children's needs are met, councils and NHS groups now only need use their 'reasonable endeavours' to meet them. If, after these 'reasonable endeavours', a council decides it cannot meet them – and if it can show this is because of the impact of coronavirus – these children's needs can be set aside.
The government argues that school closures, social distancing and staff absence means provision such as one-to-one tuition simply can't be met during the pandemic.
But many parents fear the impact on their children's education – and how long the new rules might last.
"In theory it affects every child with an EHCP," says Tania Tirraoro, parent and co-founder of the Special Needs Jungle website. "If you had an EHCP which said your child was entitled to one-to-one, they won't be getting it, most likely. If they had speech and language therapies, they most likely won't be getting it."
Alicia McColl has a 16-year-old son, Kian, who has autism, ADHD, dyspraxia and speech and language disorder. He has an EHCP and a council-funded place at an independent special school, who she says have been supportive during lockdown.
"I just hope that when my son goes back to school… that he does have all of the support that's in his EHCP," she says. "So far they've given remotely what they can – speech and language etc. But if he doesn't, it'll be very hard for him to go back. Because they're already changing the routine in the day, so if they don't have that support in place he'll really struggle."
Kian's EHCP includes full-time one-to-one teaching due to his speech and language issues. He is cognitively able but needs someone to interpret people's speech for him, and gets frustrated and anxious if people speak very quickly.
"They have an EHCP for a very good reason – because they need the support," says McColl. "If they're sending children back to school then they need to provide the support that's in the EHCP…. They're just going to have to find a way of doing it."
In truth, councils often failed to meet section 42 duties before the pandemic thanks to the massive underfunding of special needs education. But back then, parents could at least go to tribunal to force councils to act. Now they must take the much harder road to a judicial review.
"Most families with EHCPs don't really understand the law and they don't have the capacity to do that kind of thing," says Tirraoro.
One family is going to court, however – with the aim of forcing the government to scrap its entire policy. Amber Shaw is a 16-year-old girl from Salford with an EHCP for autism and sensory needs. Thanks to the government's rule changes, she is not currently receiving the support she needs, including speech and language therapy and support managing her anxiety.
Polly Sweeney is the lawyer bringing the case. "I think that [Shaw's family] accept that plainly there are going to be parts of her EHC plan which just aren't going to be provided at the moment," she says.
"But there are also some bits of it that clearly could be provided at the moment, and they're not receiving any support at all."
Shaw is also affected by the other major rule change brought in during the pandemic – the loosening of the strict timescales by which the different steps in the EHCP process must be completed. Until September 24th, councils only have to complete these steps as soon as 'reasonably practicable' – which could cause major problems for children switching school this autumn.
Shaw is starting college in September, and her EHCP is being updated to ensure it meets her needs when she gets there. "She's very worried there's going to be delays in her transition to college and having the right support," says Sweeney.
The grounds for the legal challenge are that there was insufficient consultation and scrutiny of the changes, and that they aren't 'appropriate and proportionate' – the test set by the Coronavirus Act.
Sweeney argues that relatively few council staff are actually off work sick, and the staff whose job is to support children with special needs haven't been redeployed to other duties, meaning the rule change was unnecessary.
Moreover, if it was actually impossible for a council to meet a particular child's needs, then under the legal principle of 'futility' the courts would not force it to do so – which, Shaw's lawyers believe, makes the emergency laws redundant.
"We've been contacted by a large number of parents who are concerned that their children are not getting the support that they need at the moment, and it's certainly influencing whether those parents are sending their children back to school," Sweeney says.
"In a number of cases, the children have experienced heightened anxiety, a deterioration in their needs, challenging behaviour – one of my clients had a real setback in his mental wellbeing, because what is often very important is consistency of programmes and of strategies and of teaching, and that has just been taken away."
Relaxing legal duties now may simply store up trouble down the road. "Some children just won't be able to go back" without their EHCP needs being met, says Tirraoro, "and some children who do go back may be at greater risk of exclusion, because they can't social-distance, or because they don't have the support that helps keep them in school. And so their behaviour will deteriorate because everything is very different."
"If you think about children, even the ones going back to school now, how's it going to affect their mental health? That's another cost in the long term," adds McColl.
The downgrade to section 42 must be renewed each month. It was introduced in time for May and was rolled over to June at the last moment. Some fear children's rights could be downgraded indefinitely.
"Longer term, what would concern me, for education and health and care, is that this becomes a new normal," says one parent of children with special needs who wished to remain anonymous. "I could honestly see this just ticking over month by month by month by month, and it will become more attractive [to the government] I think over time to leave things as they are, for a long period of time."
The Department for Education refutes this, and it is true the government did not take other even more severe steps that were open to it, such as suspending aspects of the Equalities Act.
Tirraoro, who suspects the government weakened the rules under pressure from councils, says the government might try to make the downgrade in protections permanent, "but I don't think they'll get away with it".
As it stands, children with special needs may not have them met until September at the earliest. For many parents, that's not good enough.
"We really just want the relaxation to be lifted as soon as possible," says Tirraoro, "because otherwise you're putting disabled children at a huge disadvantage."
A statement from the Department for Education said: "Our first priority remains the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children and young people, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
"Education settings have remained open for these children and young people, but we know that responding to this pandemic may put additional pressure on services. We thank dedicated frontline staff for their continued work to support families in these challenging circumstances.
"Children and young people with complex needs continue to have legal rights to support. Given the unprecedented situation, the precise nature of this support may need to be modified temporarily. These changes will be kept under review."
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--2020-06-16--Coming to terms with our past

Coming to terms with our past

`` There is nothing in this world as invisible as a monument , '' Robert Musil said in the 1920s .
They were `` impregnated with something that repels attention . ''
Even the largest ones in city squares get noticed no more than nearby trees do .
Tourists and weary shoppers are more likely to use their pedestals to sit on while eating their sandwiches than to look up at them and wonder who they represent .
Our indifference is a response , or non-response , to their anachronistic quality : while the figures on these monuments do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its advertisements , its shop windows and its traffic , is a kaleidoscope of constantly changing shapes and colours .
It is these that the urban gaze is drawn to .
Musil wondered whether the sculptors ought to try a bit harder , to keep up with the times by having their creations tap their fingers or wink instead of reducing these men of action to the status of `` melancholics in mental hospitals '' .
You could say that the current discussion of notable public statues has rather blown a hole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much because these figures have suddenly become the object of a collective campaigning gaze , but because the daily urban experience of some people has for decades not been one of indifference at all , but of having felt traduced by walking past and being gazed at by these bronze reminders .
Against that - and this is our current dilemma - a majority may not have felt so traduced , not because they have been constantly looking up and thinking 'he 's my man ' , but nor quite because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more reflective level of indifference , these statues , erected at different times and for a variety of reasons , are part of the urban furniture , giving the city its historical depth just as its buildings do .
They are part of the accumulated historical record of how we came to be where we are .
While our opinions about any of the people depicted vary , just as our political beliefs vary , the statue may draw our attention not to values but to matters of public significance .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Churchill and Gandhi , Earl Haig and Martin Luther King can all be found within the same square mile in Westminster .
They were put up because a particular group of people thought them worthy of praise , and some who put the statue of one figure here will disagree with those who put that of another there , just as the various poets in Westminster Abbey warrant their place regardless of the difference between them .
Edward Colston in Bristol was not part of such a mixed ensemble .
The place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few are going to campaign to have him put back .
A curious feature of his toppling is that comparisons have been made with the fall of the Saddam Hussein statues in Iraq and of the heroes of communism in Eastern Europe .
Aside from the common imagery , the comparison makes no sense : in both Iraq and Eastern Europe an entire system of rule was brought down before the statues came down and the statues came down because they symbolised those regimes .
This is what makes the museums of communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful : each artefact encapsulates the system .
The British political system by contrast has not collapsed .
On the contrary , it is remarkable for its longevity , maintained not through a sacred written constitution , but through centuries of upgrading , stubborn failures to reform and the occasional revolution .
Yet precisely in line with the messiness of British political and economic history , the proposal to put Colston in a museum does make sense , especially if we say that he represent a social or cultural regime – rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while it has not quite had its day , we may seek to put behind us .
In a museum the statue can be accompanied by textual and other visual material that places him in an informative history of slavery and its connection with the city of Bristol .
A similar fate might befall similar statues in other cities .
If however , as some campaigners would like , the sculpture of Colston is accompanied by those of Churchill and Gladstone and anyone who has ever benefited from slavery or expressed negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethnicities , then the museum may turn into something less useful - a more thematic and less historically nuanced museum of British racism .
It is worth recalling that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union went in for this sort of thing - Nazi Germany with its museum of communism , the Soviet Union with its museums of religion .
They wanted to say that communism , or religion , had been vanquished .
They both turned out to be wrong .
After the communist monuments fell in eastern Europe , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of what in the nation 's past needed to be reckoned with , and what in its traditions of thought and practice might provide it with the resources to confront the future .
Poland and Hungary have shown how difficult that can be .
In 2020 the task for the UK is the ongoing one of working out where slavery and then racism figure in our history , and what weight they should be allowed or required to place on the present .
Too much weight , and slavery can look both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases like a necessary condition for building a civilised society .
Too little , and the past gets lost in an ahistorical appeal to basic principles of tolerance and pluralism .
Either way , or neither way , and as Eastern Europe since 1989 painfully reminds us , the best guides are professional historians open to nuance , not amateur ones with points to score .
It is they who either put these blasted monuments up in the first place or are keenest to tear them down .
Charles Turner is associate professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 Charles Turner
"There is nothing in this world as invisible as a monument," Robert Musil said in the 1920s. They were "impregnated with something that repels attention." Even the largest ones in city squares get noticed no more than nearby trees do. Tourists and weary shoppers are more likely to use their pedestals to sit on while eating their sandwiches than to look up at them and wonder who they represent.
Our indifference is a response, or non-response, to their anachronistic quality: while the figures on these monuments don't move, the city, its people and its advertisements, its shop windows and its traffic, is a kaleidoscope of constantly changing shapes and colours. It is these that the urban gaze is drawn to. Musil wondered whether the sculptors ought to try a bit harder, to keep up with the times by having their creations tap their fingers or wink instead of reducing these men of action to the status of "melancholics in mental hospitals".
You could say that the current discussion of notable public statues has rather blown a hole in Musil's thesis, not so much because these figures have suddenly become the object of a collective campaigning gaze, but because the daily urban experience of some people has for decades not been one of indifference at all, but of having felt traduced by walking past and being gazed at by these bronze reminders.
Against that – and this is our current dilemma – a majority may not have felt so traduced, not because they have been constantly looking up and thinking 'he's my man', but nor quite because of the indifference of which Musil speaks. At a more reflective level of indifference, these statues, erected at different times and for a variety of reasons, are part of the urban furniture, giving the city its historical depth just as its buildings do. They are part of the accumulated historical record of how we came to be where we are.
While our opinions about any of the people depicted vary, just as our political beliefs vary, the statue may draw our attention not to values but to matters of public significance. This is why Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, Churchill and Gandhi, Earl Haig and Martin Luther King can all be found within the same square mile in Westminster. They were put up because a particular group of people thought them worthy of praise, and some who put the statue of one figure here will disagree with those who put that of another there, just as the various poets in Westminster Abbey warrant their place regardless of the difference between them.
Edward Colston in Bristol was not part of such a mixed ensemble. The place he vacated was an exclusive one and few are going to campaign to have him put back.
A curious feature of his toppling is that comparisons have been made with the fall of the Saddam Hussein statues in Iraq and of the heroes of communism in Eastern Europe. Aside from the common imagery, the comparison makes no sense: in both Iraq and Eastern Europe an entire system of rule was brought down before the statues came down and the statues came down because they symbolised those regimes. This is what makes the museums of communist era sculptures in Budapest and Sofia so powerful: each artefact encapsulates the system. The British political system by contrast has not collapsed. On the contrary, it is remarkable for its longevity, maintained not through a sacred written constitution, but through centuries of upgrading, stubborn failures to reform and the occasional revolution.
Yet precisely in line with the messiness of British political and economic history, the proposal to put Colston in a museum does make sense, especially if we say that he represent a social or cultural regime – rather than an all-encompassing one like communism – which, while it has not quite had its day, we may seek to put behind us. In a museum the statue can be accompanied by textual and other visual material that places him in an informative history of slavery and its connection with the city of Bristol. A similar fate might befall similar statues in other cities.
If however, as some campaigners would like, the sculpture of Colston is accompanied by those of Churchill and Gladstone and anyone who has ever benefited from slavery or expressed negative attitudes towards people of other races or ethnicities, then the museum may turn into something less useful – a more thematic and less historically nuanced museum of British racism.
It is worth recalling that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union went in for this sort of thing – Nazi Germany with its museum of communism, the Soviet Union with its museums of religion. They wanted to say that communism, or religion, had been vanquished. They both turned out to be wrong.
After the communist monuments fell in eastern Europe, people were forced to arrive at a better sense of what in the nation's past needed to be reckoned with, and what in its traditions of thought and practice might provide it with the resources to confront the future. Poland and Hungary have shown how difficult that can be.
In 2020 the task for the UK is the ongoing one of working out where slavery and then racism figure in our history, and what weight they should be allowed or required to place on the present. Too much weight, and slavery can look both like an ineradicable burden and in extreme cases like a necessary condition for building a civilised society. Too little, and the past gets lost in an ahistorical appeal to basic principles of tolerance and pluralism.
Either way, or neither way, and as Eastern Europe since 1989 painfully reminds us, the best guides are professional historians open to nuance, not amateur ones with points to score. It is they who either put these blasted monuments up in the first place or are keenest to tear them down.
Charles Turner is associate professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-06-18--Losers' coalition postpones radical change in Ireland

It is always troubling to see the winners of the popular vote usurped when it comes to forming a government by the very people they beat , but that is now happening in the Irish Republic following February 's general election .
Sinn Fein scored a major breakthrough at the time , topping the poll .
Having expected modest gains , the party is no doubt kicking itself for limiting its advance by not fielding enough candidates under Ireland 's single transferable vote system to capitalise on its popularity .
Despite capturing the national mood when it came to addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the radical solutions offered by Sinn Fein will have to wait .
Instead , the second and third placed parties – Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – are now aiming to form a coalition with the Greens .
A programme for government has been agreed this week by the respective party leaders , who are now consulting their members .
In a departure from convention , the role of Taoiseach will be shared , with Fianna Fail 's Micheál Martin taking the first turn until the end of 2022 and Leo Varadkar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point until the next general election .
So : what happened , will this coalition last and what does it mean for British politics ?
It was clear early on that Fianna Fail – which had been propping up Varadkar 's Fine Gael government on a confidence and supply arrangement for the past few years – would , in the final analysis , prefer to carry on working together rather than allow Sinn Fein to take the reins .
The two big centre-right parties , who were once sworn enemies , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Irish politics and this is their last chance to avoid it .
Their clammy embrace is a blatant attempt to stymie Sinn Fein 's progress .
Once normalised , the Shinners would upend Dublin 's cosy cartel and provoke a more familiar left/right politics .
So this is a pyrrhic victory .
Micheál Martin already faces grassroots pressure to reject the deal after repeatedly ruling out a coalition with Fine Gael in the past .
He and Varadkar are standing two metres apart at the bar in the last chance saloon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leadership challenge , with Martin in particular desperate to avoid the tag of being the only leader of his party never to become Taoiseach .
'Maradkar ' is the result .
A losers ' coalition of silver and bronze – with the Greens , who did not even make the podium , helping make up the numbers .
The programme for government promises a strong green character , although there is also going to be an office to prepare for a 'shared Ireland ' in a response to Sinn Fein demands for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be enormous pressure on the Greens not to become an accessory to a centre-right government .
Already there is talk of a leadership challenge against their leader , Eamon Ryan .
Then there is the problem about who , ultimately , will call the shots .
Coalitions usually see a single main party augmented by a smaller party or parties .
Complementarity , not equality .
How does either party use their turn with the top job ?
Will Fianna Fail avoid hard decisions , hoping to pass them along to Varadkar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn , insist that problems are dealt with on their watch ?
Keeping this show on the road will prove exhausting .
Sinn Fein recognised early on that they were fighting a losing battle with the Dublin establishment .
The coronavirus shutdown put paid to their efforts to strongarm the other parties into talks , following a series of well-attended public meetings around the county .
Party leader Mary-Lou McDonald will now aim to make their breakthrough a bridgehead , further entrenching her position and forcing the governing parties to devour each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Irish politics .
The Shinners will now opt for the long game .
It 's something they are experts at , having gradually superseded the moderate nationalists , the SDLP , in Northern Ireland .
Martin , in particular , is worried they will repeat the trick in the south and undermine Fianna Fail 's long-term position , with figures in his party who would have actually preferred a tie-up with Sinn Fein .
So , what does all this mean for British politics ?
Micheál Martin is a familiar figure as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fail government a decade ago .
But there will be few chinks for Boris Johnson to exploit as he continues to bluff over trade deal negotiations with Michel Barnier and prevaricate about the Irish Protocol that effectively keeps Northern Ireland tied to the EU .
The Irish political system stood four-square behind Varadkar over how to respond to Brexit and that will not change .
So , the Irish political system gets one last twirl around the dancefloor , while relations between Dublin and London remained strained .
With reports that Ireland ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten per cent this year and unemployment hit 22 % , Sinn Fein might see a silver lining .
If there was ever an election for them to lose , it was probably this one .
Kevin Meagher is the author of A United Ireland : Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Kevin Meagher
It is always troubling to see the winners of the popular vote usurped when it comes to forming a government by the very people they beat, but that is now happening in the Irish Republic following February's general election.
Sinn Fein scored a major breakthrough at the time, topping the poll. Having expected modest gains, the party is no doubt kicking itself for limiting its advance by not fielding enough candidates under Ireland's single transferable vote system to capitalise on its popularity.
Despite capturing the national mood when it came to addressing cost of living issues and homelessness, the radical solutions offered by Sinn Fein will have to wait. Instead, the second and third placed parties – Fianna Fail and Fine Gael – are now aiming to form a coalition with the Greens. A programme for government has been agreed this week by the respective party leaders, who are now consulting their members.
In a departure from convention, the role of Taoiseach will be shared, with Fianna Fail's Micheál Martin taking the first turn until the end of 2022 and Leo Varadkar, the incumbent Taoiseach, taking over from that point until the next general election.
So: what happened, will this coalition last and what does it mean for British politics?
It was clear early on that Fianna Fail – which had been propping up Varadkar's Fine Gael government on a confidence and supply arrangement for the past few years – would, in the final analysis, prefer to carry on working together rather than allow Sinn Fein to take the reins.
The two big centre-right parties, who were once sworn enemies, are worried that a realignment is taking place in Irish politics and this is their last chance to avoid it. Their clammy embrace is a blatant attempt to stymie Sinn Fein's progress. Once normalised, the Shinners would upend Dublin's cosy cartel and provoke a more familiar left/right politics.
So this is a pyrrhic victory. Micheál Martin already faces grassroots pressure to reject the deal after repeatedly ruling out a coalition with Fine Gael in the past. He and Varadkar are standing two metres apart at the bar in the last chance saloon. It is likely each would have faced a leadership challenge, with Martin in particular desperate to avoid the tag of being the only leader of his party never to become Taoiseach.
'Maradkar' is the result. A losers' coalition of silver and bronze – with the Greens, who did not even make the podium, helping make up the numbers. The programme for government promises a strong green character, although there is also going to be an office to prepare for a 'shared Ireland' in a response to Sinn Fein demands for a referendum on Irish unity.
There will be enormous pressure on the Greens not to become an accessory to a centre-right government. Already there is talk of a leadership challenge against their leader, Eamon Ryan.
Then there is the problem about who, ultimately, will call the shots. Coalitions usually see a single main party augmented by a smaller party or parties. Complementarity, not equality.
How does either party use their turn with the top job? Will Fianna Fail avoid hard decisions, hoping to pass them along to Varadkar to deal with? Will he, in turn, insist that problems are dealt with on their watch? Keeping this show on the road will prove exhausting.
Sinn Fein recognised early on that they were fighting a losing battle with the Dublin establishment. The coronavirus shutdown put paid to their efforts to strongarm the other parties into talks, following a series of well-attended public meetings around the county. Party leader Mary-Lou McDonald will now aim to make their breakthrough a bridgehead, further entrenching her position and forcing the governing parties to devour each other, while colonising the red/green space in Irish politics.
The Shinners will now opt for the long game. It's something they are experts at, having gradually superseded the moderate nationalists, the SDLP, in Northern Ireland. Martin, in particular, is worried they will repeat the trick in the south and undermine Fianna Fail's long-term position, with figures in his party who would have actually preferred a tie-up with Sinn Fein.
So, what does all this mean for British politics? Micheál Martin is a familiar figure as the foreign minister in the last Fianna Fail government a decade ago. But there will be few chinks for Boris Johnson to exploit as he continues to bluff over trade deal negotiations with Michel Barnier and prevaricate about the Irish Protocol that effectively keeps Northern Ireland tied to the EU. The Irish political system stood four-square behind Varadkar over how to respond to Brexit and that will not change.
So, the Irish political system gets one last twirl around the dancefloor, while relations between Dublin and London remained strained. With reports that Ireland’s economy is set to contract by ten per cent this year and unemployment hit 22%, Sinn Fein might see a silver lining.
If there was ever an election for them to lose, it was probably this one.
Kevin Meagher is the author of A United Ireland: Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-06-23--No more business-as-usual in asylum policy

As we emerge from lockdown , the Home Office proposes a return to 'business as usual ' for the UK ’ s asylum system .
But there can be no return to normal for people seeking refugee protection .
Even pre-covid , the UK 's asylum system was anything but normal .
In practical terms , this approach could mean a return to evictions for people living in asylum accommodation , forced destitution and the requirement to travel to Croydon and Liverpool at crucial stages of the asylum process - even if you live in Glasgow , have no money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return trip to do so .
There is nothing normal about any of this .
People seeking asylum in the UK are not allowed to work to support themselves and their families , despite evidence of a wide and diverse skills base and imminent workforce shortages in certain sectors .
Banned from working , people seeking protection must find a way to live on around £5 per day , the current rate of asylum support .
It is a completely inadequate amount that barely stretched to cover essentials pre-covid .
Mid-pandemic , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitiser and household cleaners soared , we saw the full impact of this separate and unequal system .
A whole class of people – men , women , children , parents - denied the means to keep themselves safe , healthy and fed at the same time .
We 've got to ask ourselves : is this normal ?
Refugee rights supporters campaigned throughout lockdown for an increase in asylum support rates in line with the recent £20 increase in Universal Credit .
The UK government announced an increase of just £1.85 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - enough to buy half a pint of milk .
Is it normal to treat one group of people so differently ?
Or is there another word for this ?
At Scottish Refugee Council , like many other workplaces , we benefit from working alongside volunteers from refugee backgrounds : accountants , teachers , community development experts who do n't want their skills and professional expertise to lapse as they wait , often years , for a decision on their claim for protection .
But we also know many others who are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , to practise English every day , to make friends and colleagues and connections .
The structural inequality of the asylum system leaves people overwhelmed by isolation , anxiety , and the disorientation of existing every day in a separate , parallel world .
How much longer can we call this 'normal ' ?
There 's nothing normal about the racist Hostile Environment policy , now subject to investigation on whether it breached equality law .
There 's nothing normal about torture survivors feeling dehumanised and re-traumatised after interviews with the Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection .
There 's nothing normal about unrelated people sharing sleeping space during a pandemic when private companies receive billions of pounds of government money to provide safe , secure accommodation .
Instead of an asylum system that supports people to settle into UK society and rebuild their lives in a meaningful and sustainable way , we have a parallel shadow system designed to keep people pushed to the margins , which routinely withholds rights from an entire section of the population .
Covid and Black Lives Matter is forcing a long overdue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much longer can we talk in terms of 'business as usual ' and accept that this is what 'normal ' looks like ?
Sabir Zazai is Scottish Refugee Council 's chief executive .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment section are those of the author.
By Sabir Zazai
As we emerge from lockdown, the Home Office proposes a return to 'business as usual' for the UK’s asylum system. But there can be no return to normal for people seeking refugee protection. Even pre-covid, the UK's asylum system was anything but normal.
In practical terms, this approach could mean a return to evictions for people living in asylum accommodation, forced destitution and the requirement to travel to Croydon and Liverpool at crucial stages of the asylum process – even if you live in Glasgow, have no money, and need to make an 800-mile return trip to do so. There is nothing normal about any of this.
People seeking asylum in the UK are not allowed to work to support themselves and their families, despite evidence of a wide and diverse skills base and imminent workforce shortages in certain sectors.
Banned from working, people seeking protection must find a way to live on around £5 per day, the current rate of asylum support. It is a completely inadequate amount that barely stretched to cover essentials pre-covid. Mid-pandemic, as the cost of everyday essentials like hand sanitiser and household cleaners soared, we saw the full impact of this separate and unequal system. A whole class of people – men, women, children, parents – denied the means to keep themselves safe, healthy and fed at the same time.
We've got to ask ourselves: is this normal?
Refugee rights supporters campaigned throughout lockdown for an increase in asylum support rates in line with the recent £20 increase in Universal Credit. The UK government announced an increase of just £1.85 per week. That's 26p per day – enough to buy half a pint of milk. Is it normal to treat one group of people so differently? Or is there another word for this?
At Scottish Refugee Council, like many other workplaces, we benefit from working alongside volunteers from refugee backgrounds: accountants, teachers, community development experts who don't want their skills and professional expertise to lapse as they wait, often years, for a decision on their claim for protection.
But we also know many others who are not able to keep their skills up to date, to practise English every day, to make friends and colleagues and connections.
The structural inequality of the asylum system leaves people overwhelmed by isolation, anxiety, and the disorientation of existing every day in a separate, parallel world. How much longer can we call this 'normal'?
There's nothing normal about the racist Hostile Environment policy, now subject to investigation on whether it breached equality law. There's nothing normal about torture survivors feeling dehumanised and re-traumatised after interviews with the Home Office about their right to seek refugee protection. There's nothing normal about unrelated people sharing sleeping space during a pandemic when private companies receive billions of pounds of government money to provide safe, secure accommodation.
Instead of an asylum system that supports people to settle into UK society and rebuild their lives in a meaningful and sustainable way, we have a parallel shadow system designed to keep people pushed to the margins, which routinely withholds rights from an entire section of the population.
Covid and Black Lives Matter is forcing a long overdue reckoning on all of us. How much longer can we talk in terms of 'business as usual' and accept that this is what 'normal' looks like?
Sabir Zazai is Scottish Refugee Council's chief executive. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.