politicscouk--2020-08-21--Week in Review: We deserve a better class of scoundrel

If we ca n't have ethics , we are least entitled to a bit of class .
Politicians who attempt to deceive the public will obviously lose our admiration , but it would be nice if they could bring a little style and accomplishment to doing so .
And yet that too is now a kind of heritage brand , a rose-tinted memory of better days - of Iraq war dossiers and expenses claims .
We look back fondly at the era in which politicians lied to us effectively , and with a base level of subtlety .
Today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be uncovered by a child before it was capable of walking .
Gavin Williamson is a case in point .
He is the latest Cabinet secretary to stumble half-cut into the limelight and demonstrate his utter inadequacy for the task he has been entrusted with .
Put aside the rights and wrongs of deciding exam results on the basis of an algorithm or the inputs it used .
What 's most revealing about the row which engulfed Boris Johnson 's administration this week was how the education secretary handled it .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press that he realised `` there were real concerns '' about the results `` over the weekend '' .
There are only two possible conclusions you can draw from this statement .
He is either making it up , or he is incapable of doing his job .
His supposed epiphany that weekend took place two days after the A-level results came out , when the cases of unfairness immediately became headline news .
It was over a week since an almost identical situation had unfolded in Scotland , dominating the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was over a month after the July 10th report by the education select committee warning against `` inaccuracy and bias against young people from disadvantaged backgrounds '' .
It was around six weeks after former official Jon Coles told the education secretary the planned system would lead to chunks of inaccurate cases , according to a report in the Times .
It 's not possible to square those events with Williamson 's statements .
It 's like trying to complete a jigsaw using a half-eaten chicken nugget .
Williamson is suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first days after the results , missed the Scottish exams controversy , failed to take note of a select committee report on his direct area of ministerial responsibility and did not hear the things which were said directly to him about a results system he was in charge of delivering .
In any other scenario , we might conclude that he lied .
But in Williamson 's case it is actually quite possible to imagine that he failed to understand his own responsibilities and the meaning of the words uttered to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hapless , so lacking in even the most rudimentary of intellectual achievements , that there really is no scale of failure so vast he is not sufficient to encompass it .
That much was evident by the fact he announced a photo shoot to announce his U-turn .
This was an extraordinary , baffling decision .
He was accentuating the humiliation he had inflicted on himself by framing it with visual representation .
It was equivalent to a drunk taking a selfie after they lost control of their bladder .
The shoot showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the camera like some kind of 1980s no-budget straight-to-rental version of Fifty Shades of Grey , with a coffee cup way out of reach , a fan pointing in the wrong direction and a whip in the foreground .
To even describe it is to run the risk of people disbelieving you .
But this was something that actually happened .
Perhaps he intended for it to be a not-so-subtle reminder to his colleague that he was once chief whip and knew where the bodies were buried .
Perhaps it was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charm to a stale bureaucratic environment .
No matter , it was extremely disquieting and bizarre , a kind of haunted house version of British government , an exhibit in a future museum about how the country lost its way .
But it became worse still when you imagined what had gone into the preparation of the scene .
Williamson 's office was responsible for a series of errors which had dominated front page headlines for days , leading to a fierce sense of unfairness among students and a galloping political retreat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , amid that storm , to carefully place his whip at the front of his desk , so it could dominate the foreground of a photo shoot he should not have organised in the first place .
That is the level of ministerial ability we are dealing with .
To ask for honesty from this administration is too much .
We know that now .
Organisations take on the character of the individual at the top of them .
But we can at least ask for a smidgen of sophistication in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
That really does not seem too much to ask .
And yet it is at present quite beyond the capacities of those who govern us .
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 .

If we can't have ethics, we are least entitled to a bit of class. Politicians who attempt to deceive the public will obviously lose our admiration, but it would be nice if they could bring a little style and accomplishment to doing so.
And yet that too is now a kind of heritage brand, a rose-tinted memory of better days – of Iraq war dossiers and expenses claims. We look back fondly at the era in which politicians lied to us effectively, and with a base level of subtlety. Today, we have the kind of deception which could be uncovered by a child before it was capable of walking.
Gavin Williamson is a case in point. He is the latest Cabinet secretary to stumble half-cut into the limelight and demonstrate his utter inadequacy for the task he has been entrusted with. Put aside the rights and wrongs of deciding exam results on the basis of an algorithm or the inputs it used. What's most revealing about the row which engulfed Boris Johnson's administration this week was how the education secretary handled it.
When Williamson made the U-turn, he told the press that he realised "there were real concerns" about the results "over the weekend". There are only two possible conclusions you can draw from this statement. He is either making it up, or he is incapable of doing his job.
His supposed epiphany that weekend took place two days after the A-level results came out, when the cases of unfairness immediately became headline news. It was over a week since an almost identical situation had unfolded in Scotland, dominating the news cycle and leading to a similar U-turn. It was over a month after the July 10th report by the education select committee warning against "inaccuracy and bias against young people from disadvantaged backgrounds". It was around six weeks after former official Jon Coles told the education secretary the planned system would lead to chunks of inaccurate cases, according to a report in the Times.
It's not possible to square those events with Williamson's statements. It's like trying to complete a jigsaw using a half-eaten chicken nugget. Williamson is suggesting that he noticed no problems for the first days after the results, missed the Scottish exams controversy, failed to take note of a select committee report on his direct area of ministerial responsibility and did not hear the things which were said directly to him about a results system he was in charge of delivering.
In any other scenario, we might conclude that he lied. But in Williamson's case it is actually quite possible to imagine that he failed to understand his own responsibilities and the meaning of the words uttered to him. His performance to date has been so hapless, so lacking in even the most rudimentary of intellectual achievements, that there really is no scale of failure so vast he is not sufficient to encompass it.
That much was evident by the fact he announced a photo shoot to announce his U-turn. This was an extraordinary, baffling decision. He was accentuating the humiliation he had inflicted on himself by framing it with visual representation. It was equivalent to a drunk taking a selfie after they lost control of their bladder.
The shoot showed Williamson at his desk, staring intently at the camera like some kind of 1980s no-budget straight-to-rental version of Fifty Shades of Grey, with a coffee cup way out of reach, a fan pointing in the wrong direction and a whip in the foreground. To even describe it is to run the risk of people disbelieving you. But this was something that actually happened.
Perhaps he intended for it to be a not-so-subtle reminder to his colleague that he was once chief whip and knew where the bodies were buried. Perhaps it was an attempt to add good old down-at-home rural charm to a stale bureaucratic environment. No matter, it was extremely disquieting and bizarre, a kind of haunted house version of British government, an exhibit in a future museum about how the country lost its way.
But it became worse still when you imagined what had gone into the preparation of the scene. Williamson's office was responsible for a series of errors which had dominated front page headlines for days, leading to a fierce sense of unfairness among students and a galloping political retreat. And yet he had still taken the time, amid that storm, to carefully place his whip at the front of his desk, so it could dominate the foreground of a photo shoot he should not have organised in the first place. That is the level of ministerial ability we are dealing with.
To ask for honesty from this administration is too much. We know that now. Organisations take on the character of the individual at the top of them. But we can at least ask for a smidgen of sophistication in the manner in which they attempt to deceive us. That really does not seem too much to ask. And yet it is at present quite beyond the capacities of those who govern us.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-24--Five years later: How we forgot the lesson of Alan Kurdi

I ca n't think of a picture that has caused more anguish or made such a difference .
It 's now five years since the body of little Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach was revealed to the world .
What 's changed ?
What have we learned ?
Once again desperate migrants on inflatable boats are front page news .
The media – and the government – are telling us that they are illegal , invaders , a threat to our society .
We are told the British people do n't want them here and that the Royal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn them away .
And now , once again , the tragically drowned body of a child is washed up on a beach , this time a 16-year-old Sudanese boy trying to row across the Channel using shovels for oars .
During the pandemic many of us have been challenged to ensure that the basic needs of our families are met .
Can we buy the food we need ?
Can we get paracetamol for our child when it 's sold out in all the shops ?
We have been anxious about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our best to keep ourselves and our families safe during this time , accepting emotional and financial hardship in order to do so .
Our responses have demonstrated that all of us would seek to do whatever it takes to protect our families from harm and disease .
What more would we be prepared to do if our country was n't safe for us to live in ?
If we faced not just a pandemic , but war and persecution ?
If we were taking enormous physical risks just by staying put ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I grieve for the kind of life that this boy washed up at Sangatte must have experienced .
We need to be mindful of our own instincts when we are forming opinions about those we see on boats crossing the Channel .
Five years ago , there was a moment when the British people sat up and took notice of the plight of such migrants .
After seeing distressing images of the body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish shore , we cared .
And we called on the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire was to do more than give money .
People were moved by compassion and empathy towards the position of people in situations so desperate that they would risk the lives of their family in an inflatable boat on choppy seas in the hope of finding safety .
That depth of public opinion forced David Cameron 's government to respond with a commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict .
The Refugee Community Sponsorship scheme was a direct response to the deep desire by the British people to welcome and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alan Kurdi 's death was tragic but it prompted positive action .
It was a rare moment when the government lost control of the story and came under pressure from public opinion to do the right thing .
As a result , there are hundreds of children now safely in the UK looking forward to a life of peace and stability here , because politicians were shamed by the fact that Alan was robbed of that safety , and of his young life .
But five years on , I am again ashamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are playing politics with this issue : always fearful of public opinion and headlines , never choosing to lead , inspire or even explain .
All the guff about gunboats in the Channel , front pages about 'invasion ' , media reporters chasing dinghies in motor boats , simply amplifying what really is only a crisis for those families on those flimsy boats .
It is not a crisis for Britain .
This is hardly the Spanish Armada - the media and political narrative is an appalling exploitation of the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the photo of Alan Kurdi , I cried .
A moment later I texted Amol Rajan , then editor of the Independent , which had first carried the photo on its front page .
I thanked him for doing so .
I knew that by printing that shocking , distressing photograph the paper had cut through the rhetoric and revealed the truth - that these refugees were just like us , had kids like us , and that we might have been in their shoes .
At the time I was Lib Dem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the makeshift camps in Calais to talk to NGO workers and refugees themselves about why they were there and the awful things that they had experienced along the way .
I also visited the camps in Lesvos and northern Greece where a huge percentage of refugees first arrive in Europe .
The common story from them was that their lives were intolerable in their home country and they wanted a new life .
Peace and quiet .
A tiny percentage of the refugees in Greece - in fact , none at all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards the UK .
Indeed , most refugees in the world remain in nearby countries in their region .
Most asylum seekers who reach France will claim asylum there .
In 2019 , France received 123,900 asylum applications compared to the UK 's 35,566 .
Some asylum seekers will still want to come to the UK .
When I visited them in Calais and Paris I asked them why .
Their answers were because they spoke English , because they had family in the UK or - most often - because the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a beacon of peace and freedom , where they would have opportunities to integrate and settle .
We are , if you like , a victim of 'positive prejudice ' , people have an image of Britain that draws them to us .
No war , no civil strife , no persecution on the grounds of race or religion .
I want to believe that this positive prejudice is accurate .
Surely we should be rather proud of the fact that we still have this reputation ?
None of them had any awareness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the welfare state , which is just as well , given that if refugees do manage to find their way to the UK , they will have to exist on the princely sum of £39.60 a week while waiting months for their asylum applications to be processed .
The resettlement scheme put in place during the 2015 refugee crisis was suspended in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic .
The Home Office has now restarted deportations , British people are allowed to go abroad on holiday , but we still do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neither do we know whether the government will commit to continue refugee resettlement beyond 2021 .
If we want to address the issue of migrant boats in the Channel , we need to restart and expand safe and legal routes for refugees to reach the UK .
We must boost the family reunion provisions and ensure that they are maintained post-Brexit .
We also need to work with our European neighbours to tackle the criminal networks exploiting migrants .
The Conservative government spent millions on a wall in Calais to prevent desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They now come on dinghies .
The criminals will always find another , more dangerous way .
The fact is that people will always move - desperate people fleeing danger will always seek safety .
We need to accept this and reform our asylum system so that it is effective and humane .
Alan Kurdi should be eight now .
His death should anger us .
It should remind us that circumstances can change , that comfortable people can become desperate people .
Alan , or the teenage boy drowned in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your child , or mine .
Those 'invaders ' in the Channel - they might be you .
Lets not have to see the remains of another child washed up on a shore before we snap out of our suspicion of others and do the right thing .
Tim Farron is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats , the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its owners .

By Tim Farron
I can't think of a picture that has caused more anguish or made such a difference. It's now five years since the body of little Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach was revealed to the world. What's changed? What have we learned?
Once again desperate migrants on inflatable boats are front page news. The media – and the government – are telling us that they are illegal, invaders, a threat to our society. We are told the British people don't want them here and that the Royal Navy might be sent into the Channel to turn them away. And now, once again, the tragically drowned body of a child is washed up on a beach, this time a 16-year-old Sudanese boy trying to row across the Channel using shovels for oars.
During the pandemic many of us have been challenged to ensure that the basic needs of our families are met. Can we buy the food we need? Can we get paracetamol for our child when it's sold out in all the shops? We have been anxious about high levels of infection and have done our best to keep ourselves and our families safe during this time, accepting emotional and financial hardship in order to do so. Our responses have demonstrated that all of us would seek to do whatever it takes to protect our families from harm and disease.
What more would we be prepared to do if our country wasn't safe for us to live in? If we faced not just a pandemic, but war and persecution? If we were taking enormous physical risks just by staying put? I have a 16-year-old son, and I grieve for the kind of life that this boy washed up at Sangatte must have experienced. We need to be mindful of our own instincts when we are forming opinions about those we see on boats crossing the Channel.
Five years ago, there was a moment when the British people sat up and took notice of the plight of such migrants. After seeing distressing images of the body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish shore, we cared. And we called on the government to do something about it.
The desire was to do more than give money. People were moved by compassion and empathy towards the position of people in situations so desperate that they would risk the lives of their family in an inflatable boat on choppy seas in the hope of finding safety. That depth of public opinion forced David Cameron's government to respond with a commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees displaced by the Syrian conflict. The Refugee Community Sponsorship scheme was a direct response to the deep desire by the British people to welcome and show hospitality to those seeking refuge.
Alan Kurdi's death was tragic but it prompted positive action. It was a rare moment when the government lost control of the story and came under pressure from public opinion to do the right thing. As a result, there are hundreds of children now safely in the UK looking forward to a life of peace and stability here, because politicians were shamed by the fact that Alan was robbed of that safety, and of his young life.
But five years on, I am again ashamed of the government, and of politicians who are playing politics with this issue: always fearful of public opinion and headlines, never choosing to lead, inspire or even explain. All the guff about gunboats in the Channel, front pages about 'invasion', media reporters chasing dinghies in motor boats, simply amplifying what really is only a crisis for those families on those flimsy boats. It is not a crisis for Britain. This is hardly the Spanish Armada – the media and political narrative is an appalling exploitation of the lives of the desperate.
When I first saw the photo of Alan Kurdi, I cried. A moment later I texted Amol Rajan, then editor of the Independent, which had first carried the photo on its front page. I thanked him for doing so. I knew that by printing that shocking, distressing photograph the paper had cut through the rhetoric and revealed the truth – that these refugees were just like us, had kids like us, and that we might have been in their shoes.
At the time I was Lib Dem Leader and had already been to visit the makeshift camps in Calais to talk to NGO workers and refugees themselves about why they were there and the awful things that they had experienced along the way.
I also visited the camps in Lesvos and northern Greece where a huge percentage of refugees first arrive in Europe. The common story from them was that their lives were intolerable in their home country and they wanted a new life. Peace and quiet. A tiny percentage of the refugees in Greece – in fact, none at all that I remember – were planning on heading towards the UK.
Indeed, most refugees in the world remain in nearby countries in their region. Most asylum seekers who reach France will claim asylum there. In 2019, France received 123,900 asylum applications compared to the UK's 35,566.
Some asylum seekers will still want to come to the UK. When I visited them in Calais and Paris I asked them why. Their answers were because they spoke English, because they had family in the UK or – most often – because the UK is seen as a safe sanctuary, a beacon of peace and freedom, where they would have opportunities to integrate and settle.
We are, if you like, a victim of 'positive prejudice', people have an image of Britain that draws them to us. No war, no civil strife, no persecution on the grounds of race or religion. I want to believe that this positive prejudice is accurate. Surely we should be rather proud of the fact that we still have this reputation? None of them had any awareness of the existence of the NHS or of the welfare state, which is just as well, given that if refugees do manage to find their way to the UK, they will have to exist on the princely sum of £39.60 a week while waiting months for their asylum applications to be processed.
The resettlement scheme put in place during the 2015 refugee crisis was suspended in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Home Office has now restarted deportations, British people are allowed to go abroad on holiday, but we still don't know when this scheme will restart. Neither do we know whether the government will commit to continue refugee resettlement beyond 2021.
If we want to address the issue of migrant boats in the Channel, we need to restart and expand safe and legal routes for refugees to reach the UK. We must boost the family reunion provisions and ensure that they are maintained post-Brexit. We also need to work with our European neighbours to tackle the criminal networks exploiting migrants.
The Conservative government spent millions on a wall in Calais to prevent desperate migrants coming on trucks to the UK. They now come on dinghies. The criminals will always find another, more dangerous way. The fact is that people will always move – desperate people fleeing danger will always seek safety. We need to accept this and reform our asylum system so that it is effective and humane.
Alan Kurdi should be eight now. His death should anger us. It should remind us that circumstances can change, that comfortable people can become desperate people. Alan, or the teenage boy drowned in the Channel last week, could easily be your child, or mine. Those 'invaders' in the Channel – they might be you. Lets not have to see the remains of another child washed up on a shore before we snap out of our suspicion of others and do the right thing.
Tim Farron is the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-25--Dogmatic anti-imperialism: How the left learned the wrong lessons from Iraq

By Oz Katerji The Iraq War was one of the most catastrophic and disastrous military interventions in modern history , so it has had a lasting impact on the British electorate 's view on foreign policy .
There are some good reasons for that .
Even conservative estimates place the death toll from the invasion and the civil war that followed it - one that arguably continues to this day - in the hundreds of thousands .
Most of those deaths were not directly attributable to the international coalition , but many were nevertheless an indirect result of the invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For many in Britain , the Iraq War is the prism through which they view all foreign policy .
It has created a policy vacuum totally divorced from empathy and solidarity towards the victims of international conflicts .
A recent video published by the Labour left campaign group Momentum , fronted by Labour councillor and NEC member Yasmine Dar , was indicative of the problem .
The video - tweeted alongside the statement `` to stop refugees , we need to stop creating refugees '' - actively denied agency to the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside for one moment the fact that a supposedly left-wing political group framed their message around finding a way to `` stop '' refugees - an utterly futile task that only gives succor to right wing narratives about immigration - the arguments made by Dar were fundamentally misleading .
Dar argued that the majority of refugees arriving in the UK come from Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan , Iraq , Syria or Libya - countries that have experienced some form of UK military involvement over the last two decades .
This is simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Migration Observatory , the majority of asylum seekers in the UK in 2018 were from Iran , Iraq , Eritrea , Pakistan and Albania .
Syria and Libya were not even in the top ten .
This fact , however , would have immediately pierced Dar 's narrative that British foreign policy is somehow the reason that the `` majority '' of refugees are fleeing their countries at all .
There was n't even any mention of the fact that the majority of migrants heading to Europe from Libya are n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are actually fleeing other parts of Africa .
British bombs have nothing to do with it .
During the video , images of Iraq and Libya played out while Dar spoke .
For her argument , they were interchangeable .
But a UN Security Council-mandated No Fly Zone enacted to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is not the same as a UN Security Council-rejected invasion and occupation .
The idea that a progressive foreign policy requires Britain to use its power and influence to protect civilians , rather than turn a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anathema to this way of thinking .
`` In a lot of cases , not only do we support dictators , but we 've put them there in the first place , '' Dar said , before spending the rest of the video discussing Britain 's role in the overthrow of Iran 's Mossadegh in 1953 - as if one of the main reasons for conflict in the region can be blamed solely on events that happened 67 years ago , and as if British foreign policy has n't moved on from Churchill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honestly , no regional country has been more responsible for the Middle Eastern refugee crisis than Iran , but that wo n't fit into a Momentum video that lays the blame squarely at the feet of the British government .
The massacres committed in Syria , Yemen and Iraq by Iran 's sectarian militias have displaced millions of civilians across the Middle East .
The Iranian regime has been forcibly conscripting Afghan Hazara refugee children and sending them to fight in Syria .
I am not sure how any video about today 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussing the 1953 coup without as much as a passing mention of Iran 's sectarian involvement in regional wars , including the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians - deaths which Dar prefers to attribute to British foreign policy .
I wish I could say Dar was an isolated case on the left , but this foreign policy rot is far more pervasive than that .
The legacy of the Iraq War has left a generation of supposedly progressive people turning a blind eye to some of the most heinous atrocities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea that tolerating mass murder is preferable to preventing it .
This misreading of the Iraq conflict is widespread , particularly on the political left .
The war is often cited as one of the main reasons that younger voters were so attracted to Jeremy Corbyn 's brand of anti-imperialist politics .
This narrative acts as if only the far left opposed Iraq , just as it had opposed all foreign interventions during the period .
In fact , there were far more persuasive arguments against the war from more mainstream sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanitarian military intervention .
There was no responsibility-to-protect element in the conflict .
The intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was wilfully distorted to ramp up the threat level and pacify political opposition to the war .
That situation can not be compared with the wars in Syria and Libya , where dictators launched wars against their own people , who were defenceless from the coming onslaught and looked to Western powers for protection - protection which , in the case of Syria , never came .
Despite many young , left-leaning people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq , too many are totally ignorant of the facts and history of conflicts in the Middle East and too few are bothered to learn .
An increasingly conspiratorial strand of so-called 'anti-imperialism ' , one which routinely dehumanises and denies agency to Middle Eastern civilians , has further poisoned the debate .
Allegations about Saddam Hussein 's possession of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 may have proved false , but it is demonstrably true that Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against the Syrian people .
Every time footage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those people who grew up in this strand of 'anti-imperialist ' politics responded to the images of dead and dying children , frothing at the mouth from nerve agent poisoning , in the same way they would the 'dodgy dossier ' .
The suggestion that something should be done to protect them saw supposed progressives abandon all semblance of compassion and warn those expressing grief that they were being hoodwinked by the same people who 'manufactured consent ' for Iraq .
This political camp has grown proud of its ignorance .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Middle East or the conflicts raging within it .
Why learn about the decades of human misery inflicted upon the people of Libya or Syria when you can instead just dismiss it all as propaganda ?
There are few more wilfully anti-intellectual movements in the world than dogmatic anti-imperialism , an ideology that essentially instructs its adherents to ignore the voices and views of local populations in favour of pro-regime conspiracism regurgitated by cosplaying revolutionary communists .
Conspiracism and war crimes denial has now deeply embedded itself in the Western left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a progressive foreign policy .
For many , it is irrelevant that the calls for civilian protection measures in Libya and Syria came from Libyan and Syrian civilians themselves .
Democratic revolutions are routinely rejected or dismissed because they require a level of self-reflection that many decided they no longer needed to do after Iraq .
The truth is that , whether Britain is involved or not , conflicts will continue to rage across the world .
There is no way to `` stop '' refugees , just as there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
But far from deciding to look away from this , we need to take it on .
I do not understand how any progressive can look at the barbarity in Syria , with nearly a million dead and 12 million displaced , and state that Britain could have alleviated civilian suffering by doing less for the Syrian people , rather than more .
If we want to help refugees , we have to understand that we can not `` stop '' them .
If we want to stop conflicts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in those countries need our help .
Oz Katerji is a freelance journalist and filmmaker , and the host of Corbynism : The Post-Mortem .
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 Oz Katerji
The Iraq War was one of the most catastrophic and disastrous military interventions in modern history, so it has had a lasting impact on the British electorate's view on foreign policy.
There are some good reasons for that. Even conservative estimates place the death toll from the invasion and the civil war that followed it – one that arguably continues to this day – in the hundreds of thousands. Most of those deaths were not directly attributable to the international coalition, but many were nevertheless an indirect result of the invasion.
There are some bad reasons too. For many in Britain, the Iraq War is the prism through which they view all foreign policy. It has created a policy vacuum totally divorced from empathy and solidarity towards the victims of international conflicts.
A recent video published by the Labour left campaign group Momentum, fronted by Labour councillor and NEC member Yasmine Dar, was indicative of the problem. The video – tweeted alongside the statement "to stop refugees, we need to stop creating refugees" – actively denied agency to the very people it claimed to defend.
Leaving aside for one moment the fact that a supposedly left-wing political group framed their message around finding a way to "stop" refugees – an utterly futile task that only gives succour to right wing narratives about immigration – the arguments made by Dar were fundamentally misleading.
Dar argued that the majority of refugees arriving in the UK come from Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Libya – countries that have experienced some form of UK military involvement over the last two decades. This is simply not true. In fact, according to the Migration Observatory, the majority of asylum seekers in the UK in 2018 were from Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Pakistan and Albania. Syria and Libya were not even in the top ten. This fact, however, would have immediately pierced Dar's narrative that British foreign policy is somehow the reason that the "majority" of refugees are fleeing their countries at all.
There wasn't even any mention of the fact that the majority of migrants heading to Europe from Libya aren't victims of the Libya conflict, but are actually fleeing other parts of Africa. British bombs have nothing to do with it.
During the video, images of Iraq and Libya played out while Dar spoke. For her argument, they were interchangeable. But a UN Security Council-mandated No Fly Zone enacted to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is not the same as a UN Security Council-rejected invasion and occupation.
The idea that a progressive foreign policy requires Britain to use its power and influence to protect civilians, rather than turn a blind eye to their suffering, seems anathema to this way of thinking.
"In a lot of cases, not only do we support dictators, but we've put them there in the first place," Dar said, before spending the rest of the video discussing Britain's role in the overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh in 1953 – as if one of the main reasons for conflict in the region can be blamed solely on events that happened 67 years ago, and as if British foreign policy hasn't moved on from Churchill.
If we're assessing the situation honestly, no regional country has been more responsible for the Middle Eastern refugee crisis than Iran, but that won't fit into a Momentum video that lays the blame squarely at the feet of the British government.
The massacres committed in Syria, Yemen and Iraq by Iran's sectarian militias have displaced millions of civilians across the Middle East. The Iranian regime has been forcibly conscripting Afghan Hazara refugee children and sending them to fight in Syria. I am not sure how any video about today's refugee crisis can spend so much time discussing the 1953 coup without as much as a passing mention of Iran's sectarian involvement in regional wars, including the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians – deaths which Dar prefers to attribute to British foreign policy.
I wish I could say Dar was an isolated case on the left, but this foreign policy rot is far more pervasive than that. The legacy of the Iraq War has left a generation of supposedly progressive people turning a blind eye to some of the most heinous atrocities of the 21st century, based on the idea that tolerating mass murder is preferable to preventing it.
This misreading of the Iraq conflict is widespread, particularly on the political left. The war is often cited as one of the main reasons that younger voters were so attracted to Jeremy Corbyn's brand of anti-imperialist politics.
This narrative acts as if only the far left opposed Iraq, just as it had opposed all foreign interventions during the period. In fact, there were far more persuasive arguments against the war from more mainstream sources. The Iraq War was not a humanitarian military intervention. There was no responsibility-to-protect element in the conflict. The intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was wilfully distorted to ramp up the threat level and pacify political opposition to the war.
That situation cannot be compared with the wars in Syria and Libya, where dictators launched wars against their own people, who were defenceless from the coming onslaught and looked to Western powers for protection – protection which, in the case of Syria, never came.
Despite many young, left-leaning people having strong opinions about the conflict in Iraq, too many are totally ignorant of the facts and history of conflicts in the Middle East and too few are bothered to learn. An increasingly conspiratorial strand of so-called 'anti-imperialism', one which routinely dehumanises and denies agency to Middle Eastern civilians, has further poisoned the debate.
Allegations about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 may have proved false, but it is demonstrably true that Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
Every time footage of these atrocities reached the West, many of those people who grew up in this strand of 'anti-imperialist' politics responded to the images of dead and dying children, frothing at the mouth from nerve agent poisoning, in the same way they would the 'dodgy dossier'. The suggestion that something should be done to protect them saw supposed progressives abandon all semblance of compassion and warn those expressing grief that they were being hoodwinked by the same people who 'manufactured consent' for Iraq.
This political camp has grown proud of its ignorance. It sees no need to learn more about the Middle East or the conflicts raging within it. Why learn about the decades of human misery inflicted upon the people of Libya or Syria when you can instead just dismiss it all as propaganda?
There are few more wilfully anti-intellectual movements in the world than dogmatic anti-imperialism, an ideology that essentially instructs its adherents to ignore the voices and views of local populations in favour of pro-regime conspiracism regurgitated by cosplaying revolutionary communists.
Conspiracism and war crimes denial has now deeply embedded itself in the Western left, alongside the total abandonment of any semblance of a progressive foreign policy.
For many, it is irrelevant that the calls for civilian protection measures in Libya and Syria came from Libyan and Syrian civilians themselves. Democratic revolutions are routinely rejected or dismissed because they require a level of self-reflection that many decided they no longer needed to do after Iraq.
The truth is that, whether Britain is involved or not, conflicts will continue to rage across the world. There is no way to "stop" refugees, just as there is no way for Western military power to police the world.
But far from deciding to look away from this, we need to take it on. I do not understand how any progressive can look at the barbarity in Syria, with nearly a million dead and 12 million displaced, and state that Britain could have alleviated civilian suffering by doing less for the Syrian people, rather than more.
If we want to help refugees, we have to understand that we cannot "stop" them. If we want to stop conflicts, we have to understand that the people in those countries need our help.
Oz Katerji is a freelance journalist and filmmaker, and the host of Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 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--2020-08-27--The UK is facing down Covid without turning to religion

In the past , people were more likely to turn to religion during times of crisis than look to other sources of guidance .
But there has always been an alternative : the humanist approach .
And in today 's UK , where most people are now not religious , that alternative is more relevant than ever .
Now , with the fragility of life so clear to us all , we 're all emerging from a crisis with a desire for a new social morality - one that recognises our interdependence in this world and provides guidance , comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the majority of Brits – more than 52 % of whom identify as non-religious – this is the first time in living history that a crisis has been met without religion .
In reaction to chaos , uncertainty and great loss , society faced the coronavirus pandemic with reason and science .
It has rejected historical explanations involving deities and the supernatural , and condemned those that spread damaging conspiracy theories , fake news and quack cures .
Unimaginable human ingenuity in the organised enterprise of medical science is being expended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and preserve civilisation .
We are all seeing scientific developments unfold in real time , leading to a greater public understanding of how science works , including the importance of evidence as well as doubt over certainty .
These are not new concepts .
For thousands of years , humanist thought from some of history 's greatest thinkers has provided the answers to help guide us through life : a simple and natural philosophy with reason and a belief in creating a better world at its core .
But the humanist approach does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance of science .
Humanists value commonality , interconnectedness and resilience - values that have shaped our response to this crisis .
Though we have been physically distant , we have come together as a society to support one another – to volunteer , raise money and help those grieving their losses .
The courage of key workers and those on the front line of our community has highlighted the selflessness , bravery and generosity of countless people who are supporting those suffering .
Whether you 're new to humanism , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , this is a philosophy and outlook that more and more people are discovering , from Frozen 's Kristen Bell to national treasure Stephen Fry .
For many people in recent years the discovery has come at a humanist funeral – an increasingly popular way to celebrate the life of someone who has died .
But there 's no reason why anyone should have to wait for a funeral to encounter an approach to life that may be their own .
The Little Book of Humanism – a collection of stories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new and old – has been written with this in mind .
A small , perfectly formed book from which readers can draw comfort , wisdom and inspiration .
There has always been another way to learn how to live well – the humanist way – and in today 's more secular world , it is more relevant than ever .
Andrew Copson is the chief executive of Humanists UK .
The Little Book of Humanism by Andrew Copson and Alice Roberts is out now from Piatkus Books .
You can buy it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Andrew Copson
In the past, people were more likely to turn to religion during times of crisis than look to other sources of guidance. But there has always been an alternative: the humanist approach. And in today's UK, where most people are now not religious, that alternative is more relevant than ever.
Now, with the fragility of life so clear to us all, we're all emerging from a crisis with a desire for a new social morality – one that recognises our interdependence in this world and provides guidance, comfort and inspiration even during times like these.
For the majority of Brits – more than 52% of whom identify as non-religious – this is the first time in living history that a crisis has been met without religion. In reaction to chaos, uncertainty and great loss, society faced the coronavirus pandemic with reason and science. It has rejected historical explanations involving deities and the supernatural, and condemned those that spread damaging conspiracy theories, fake news and quack cures.
Unimaginable human ingenuity in the organised enterprise of medical science is being expended to contain this virus, save lives and preserve civilisation. We are all seeing scientific developments unfold in real time, leading to a greater public understanding of how science works, including the importance of evidence as well as doubt over certainty.
These are not new concepts. For thousands of years, humanist thought from some of history's greatest thinkers has provided the answers to help guide us through life: a simple and natural philosophy with reason and a belief in creating a better world at its core.
But the humanist approach doesn't end solely with this belief in the importance of science. Humanists value commonality, interconnectedness and resilience – values that have shaped our response to this crisis. Though we have been physically distant, we have come together as a society to support one another – to volunteer, raise money and help those grieving their losses. The courage of key workers and those on the front line of our community has highlighted the selflessness, bravery and generosity of countless people who are supporting those suffering.
Whether you're new to humanism, or you're a humanist without even realising it, this is a philosophy and outlook that more and more people are discovering, from Frozen's Kristen Bell to national treasure Stephen Fry. For many people in recent years the discovery has come at a humanist funeral – an increasingly popular way to celebrate the life of someone who has died. But there's no reason why anyone should have to wait for a funeral to encounter an approach to life that may be their own. The Little Book of Humanism – a collection of stories, quotes, and illustrations from humanists, new and old – has been written with this in mind. A small, perfectly formed book from which readers can draw comfort, wisdom and inspiration.
There has always been another way to learn how to live well – the humanist way – and in today's more secular world, it is more relevant than ever.
Andrew Copson is the chief executive of Humanists UK. The Little Book of Humanism by Andrew Copson and Alice Roberts is out now from Piatkus Books. You can buy it here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-08-28--Week in Review: The truth is, people like working from home

It was only a matter of time really .
The right wing press has an anger quota , like Stalin demanding a set amount of grain regardless of what has happened with the harvest .
That anger quota must be fulfilled in the same way , regardless of whether there is any reason to feel it .
The current excuse is working from home .
`` You can hear them every single day on radio phone-ins , boasting smugly about their exciting new 'work/life balance ' and the amount of money they are saving on their railway season tickets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mail last night , shortly before admitted that he himself writes and files from home and has done for 30 years .
The Telegraph bolstered the growing campaign with the front page headline : `` Go back to work or risk losing your job '' .
A government source told the newspaper : `` We need workers to be alert to what decisions their bosses may take in the weeks ahead .
If they are only seeing workers once a fortnight then that could prove problematic for some employees in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Companies will realise some people were n't working as hard as they thought '' .
At the moment , the government is n't quite jumping on that message - it prefers a more upbeat approach to getting people back to work .
But there is clearly a strong contingent in the administration wanting to throw red meat to the growing press campaign .
It 's a grim sight .
People who do n't feel safe should not be forced to go to work .
Journalists and ministers should not be legitimising the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are still in a pandemic , with cases on the rise and schools about to go back .
This is not the time to frighten people into going back to the office .
But quite aside from the covid-related aspects , something else is playing out underneath the debate .
It is about the commute , and where we live , and the things that make a good life .
It 's been about six months since the Great Change happened .
The losses have been gargantuan and trivial - from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whole industries are tottering on the edge of oblivion .
But there has been an upside .
There 's no point denying it , just because it was motivated by something terrible .
Many people have found that their quality of life , much as Littlejohn might like to disparage the notion , has greatly improved .
The commute is a word we once used without thinking .
Now , from this vantage point , it seems an act of life-harming lunacy .
Some of us are lucky , enjoying a trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
But even there , you have lost an hour and a half of every day , on crammed public transport .
Many are not so lucky .
They commute into the nearest city , on run down and unreliable trains , shelling out impossible amounts of money for something which brings no pleasure .
Many will undergo a one and a half hour , or even two hour commute - that 's three to four hours a day gone , every day , for the rest of your working life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have found that they work more and spend more time with their family , or on the things that bring them joy .
Even if a day has been stressful , the eradication of the commute means you do n't have that last tedious journey home , sucking up more precious time .
You 're more likely to cook than grab a ready meal , more likely to chat to a friend rather than plonk down and vegetate in front of the TV .
Remote working has had an interesting effect on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , the assessment of whether someone was working well was based on how they behaved rather than their results .
This was one of the great tyrannies of the open office , a kind of white-collar panopticon , where you could always be seen and therefore had to always look busy , even if in reality an effective working day is made up of bursts of activity , rather than a sustained level of it .
People stay late to be seen to be staying late , rather than because it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees are instead being judged on what they produce , on whether they do the work required of them .
That 's more profound than just a management technique .
It 's about respect for autonomy rather than imitation - of workers who can go about their tasks however they like , whenever they like , as long as they achieve them .
It values self-starting and personal motivation over a superficial copy-and-paste assessment of performance - one which agitates against quality of life .
That Cabinet minister 's comment speaks volumes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard from home .
That 's because those who constantly demand proof of work , rather than evidence of it , are motivated by a bleak assessment of humanity .
And so they set up tests to catch people .
And that in itself creates a culture in which people are constantly trying to dodge the rules , because they are not treated with dignity .
You respond to the system imposed on you .
If it 's trying to catch you out , you try to catch it out .
If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to it .
This change is n't for everyone .
Many people thrive on the social element of the office .
Others , especially people in their 20s and 30s , make friends there , go for drinks after work , meet the people they love there .
There are also painful economic costs , which we are experiencing right now , especially to the shops and infrastructure which service office workers .
Pret A Manger , for instance , announced nearly 3,000 job losses yesterday .
Transport networks , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And those of us who love the hustle and bustle of the city , that sense of charged dynamism , have to face up to the fact that it 'll go into partial decline if this continues .
Cities will become quieter places , more mellow , and investment will instead go to the suburbs and even the countryside .
These are big changes .
And there are costs - steep ones .
But you can now , if you look clearly enough , see a different , better way of life being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not one in which everyone always works from home , but one in which the office becomes a place you go to sometimes , for specific reasons , rather than all the time .
One in which , to use that dreaded but important phrase , there is a better work/life balance .
One in which people are rated on the job they do rather than how they look when they do it , when autonomy and effectiveness are praised more highly than mimicry .
The temptation now , in parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this before it can grow .
But in truth , people have glimpsed a better life .
And , with a bit of luck , this could be the moment in which we grasp it .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out next month .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

It was only a matter of time really. The right wing press has an anger quota, like Stalin demanding a set amount of grain regardless of what has happened with the harvest. That anger quota must be fulfilled in the same way, regardless of whether there is any reason to feel it. The current excuse is working from home.
"You can hear them every single day on radio phone-ins, boasting smugly about their exciting new 'work/life balance' and the amount of money they are saving on their railway season tickets," the rage-merchant Richard Littlejohn wrote in the Mail last night, shortly before admitted that he himself writes and files from home and has done for 30 years.
The Telegraph bolstered the growing campaign with the front page headline: "Go back to work or risk losing your job". A government source told the newspaper: "We need workers to be alert to what decisions their bosses may take in the weeks ahead. If they are only seeing workers once a fortnight then that could prove problematic for some employees in the future." A Cabinet minister added: "Companies will realise some people weren't working as hard as they thought".
At the moment, the government isn't quite jumping on that message – it prefers a more upbeat approach to getting people back to work. But there is clearly a strong contingent in the administration wanting to throw red meat to the growing press campaign.
It's a grim sight. People who don't feel safe should not be forced to go to work. Journalists and ministers should not be legitimising the most pernicious practices of the worst employers. We are still in a pandemic, with cases on the rise and schools about to go back. This is not the time to frighten people into going back to the office.
But quite aside from the covid-related aspects, something else is playing out underneath the debate. It is about the commute, and where we live, and the things that make a good life.
It's been about six months since the Great Change happened. The losses have been gargantuan and trivial – from life itself to a friend's embrace. Whole industries are tottering on the edge of oblivion.
But there has been an upside. There's no point denying it, just because it was motivated by something terrible. Many people have found that their quality of life, much as Littlejohn might like to disparage the notion, has greatly improved.
The commute is a word we once used without thinking. Now, from this vantage point, it seems an act of life-harming lunacy. Some of us are lucky, enjoying a trip into work of just 45 minutes or so. But even there, you have lost an hour and a half of every day, on crammed public transport. Many are not so lucky. They commute into the nearest city, on run down and unreliable trains, shelling out impossible amounts of money for something which brings no pleasure. Many will undergo a one and a half hour, or even two hour commute – that's three to four hours a day gone, every day, for the rest of your working life.
Freed from the commute, many people have found that they work more and spend more time with their family, or on the things that bring them joy. Even if a day has been stressful, the eradication of the commute means you don't have that last tedious journey home, sucking up more precious time. You're more likely to cook than grab a ready meal, more likely to chat to a friend rather than plonk down and vegetate in front of the TV.
Remote working has had an interesting effect on the assumptions of businesses. For a long time, the assessment of whether someone was working well was based on how they behaved rather than their results. This was one of the great tyrannies of the open office, a kind of white-collar panopticon, where you could always be seen and therefore had to always look busy, even if in reality an effective working day is made up of bursts of activity, rather than a sustained level of it. People stay late to be seen to be staying late, rather than because it is required.
With everyone working off-site, employees are instead being judged on what they produce, on whether they do the work required of them. That's more profound than just a management technique. It's about respect for autonomy rather than imitation – of workers who can go about their tasks however they like, whenever they like, as long as they achieve them. It values self-starting and personal motivation over a superficial copy-and-paste assessment of performance – one which agitates against quality of life.
That Cabinet minister's comment speaks volumes. They simply assume people aren't working hard from home. That's because those who constantly demand proof of work, rather than evidence of it, are motivated by a bleak assessment of humanity. And so they set up tests to catch people. And that in itself creates a culture in which people are constantly trying to dodge the rules, because they are not treated with dignity. You respond to the system imposed on you. If it's trying to catch you out, you try to catch it out. If it respects you, you try to live up to it.
This change isn't for everyone. Many people thrive on the social element of the office. Others, especially people in their 20s and 30s, make friends there, go for drinks after work, meet the people they love there.
There are also painful economic costs, which we are experiencing right now, especially to the shops and infrastructure which service office workers. Pret A Manger, for instance, announced nearly 3,000 job losses yesterday. Transport networks, including the London Tube, will be battered. And those of us who love the hustle and bustle of the city, that sense of charged dynamism, have to face up to the fact that it'll go into partial decline if this continues. Cities will become quieter places, more mellow, and investment will instead go to the suburbs and even the countryside.
These are big changes. And there are costs – steep ones. But you can now, if you look clearly enough, see a different, better way of life being presented to us by the pandemic. Not one in which everyone always works from home, but one in which the office becomes a place you go to sometimes, for specific reasons, rather than all the time. One in which, to use that dreaded but important phrase, there is a better work/life balance. One in which people are rated on the job they do rather than how they look when they do it, when autonomy and effectiveness are praised more highly than mimicry.
The temptation now, in parts of the press and government, is to stamp on this before it can grow. But in truth, people have glimpsed a better life. And, with a bit of luck, this could be the moment in which we grasp it.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out next month.
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--2020-09-02--Better for people, towns and the environment: The political opportunities of working-from-home

There is another way of handling the back-to-work agenda , one which could help with the 'levelling up ' programme , protect from covid and even help tackle climate change .
But that is not the way the government has approached it .
Over the weekend it emerged that ministers ' drive to encourage people back to work was stalling as surveys and official figures showed few people were heeding government advice and preferred to keep working from home .
One of the overlooked factors behind that resistance is the logistical challenge of getting people back into the office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minimum of 50 % desk capacity and meeting room availability is also affected .
In high-rise buildings , reduced lift capacity caused by social distancing severely limits staff ability to even access the office .
Many in government have failed to recognise that covid merely turbo-charged an existing trend .
Before the crisis , many organisations let their staff work from home one day a week .
The pandemic has shown most employees can work more productively from home than at the office .
That 's because high rents meant office spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was hard for employees to focus .
Managers and finance directors now realise offices often reduce rather than improve productivity and they are rethinking how much space they need .
Some believe the long-term requirement will fall by 30 % to 50 % .
It 's not that the office will cease to exist .
Instead , it will become smaller and the way it 's used will change .
Workplaces will need to be re-designed to become more relevant .
That means an end to the recent trend of high occupational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer be somewhere to go to sit at a desk and stare at a computer screen .
Instead people will go to offices to be with other people .
That could be a team working out how to structure a new project .
Or it could be a new recruit spending time with their manager .
Or it could be a place to meet with a new client to build a relationship .
It 's unlikely the majority of employers will go to the office every day .
Trips to the office could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The reduced demand for travel could be seen as positive rather than a negative .
With no set office hours and journeys happening throughout the day , employees could dodge commutes during peak hours .
Travelling would become more pleasurable and less stressful .
This has long-term ramifications for city centres .
It 's likely the Grade A spaces like Mayfair and the City will still be popular for these new networking spaces .
But the less desirable locations would see a reduction in office demand .
That should n't be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be converted to residential use .
We are already seeing the development of a build-to-rent sector in the UK which offers higher quality housing than that provided by existing rental properties .
This could help to solve some of the UK 's housing crisis without needing to either build on green land or use an algorithm to decide where to construct new homes .
Converting office blocks to affordable flats which include home offices would make it easier for younger generations to work from home without having to fight for a space at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Life could be breathed back into suburbs and towns which were often ghost-towns during the week .
This would help the government with its levelling-up agenda .
With more people working at home , we could provide a steadier demand for local cafes , restaurants and shops .
Empty retail spaces could be converted into shared office spaces offering short-term rents for local businesses and workers .
A government with long-term vision would see this change to working patterns as an opportunity to build a more equitable and less centralised country with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that , unfortunately , does not seem to be how our current government is thinking .
Charlotte Moore is a freelance financial journalist .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Charlotte Moore
There is another way of handling the back-to-work agenda, one which could help with the 'levelling up' programme, protect from covid and even help tackle climate change. But that is not the way the government has approached it.
Over the weekend it emerged that ministers' drive to encourage people back to work was stalling as surveys and official figures showed few people were heeding government advice and preferred to keep working from home. One of the overlooked factors behind that resistance is the logistical challenge of getting people back into the office. Social distancing rules mean most offices lose a minimum of 50% desk capacity and meeting room availability is also affected. In high-rise buildings, reduced lift capacity caused by social distancing severely limits staff ability to even access the office.
Many in government have failed to recognise that covid merely turbo-charged an existing trend. Before the crisis, many organisations let their staff work from home one day a week. The pandemic has shown most employees can work more productively from home than at the office. That's because high rents meant office spaces had become cramped, hot-desking hellholes where it was hard for employees to focus.
Managers and finance directors now realise offices often reduce rather than improve productivity and they are rethinking how much space they need. Some believe the long-term requirement will fall by 30% to 50%.
It's not that the office will cease to exist. Instead, it will become smaller and the way it's used will change. Workplaces will need to be re-designed to become more relevant. That means an end to the recent trend of high occupational density and hot-desking.
Offices will no longer be somewhere to go to sit at a desk and stare at a computer screen. Instead people will go to offices to be with other people. That could be a team working out how to structure a new project. Or it could be a new recruit spending time with their manager. Or it could be a place to meet with a new client to build a relationship. It's unlikely the majority of employers will go to the office every day. Trips to the office could be as little as twice a fortnight.
The reduced demand for travel could be seen as positive rather than a negative. With no set office hours and journeys happening throughout the day, employees could dodge commutes during peak hours. Travelling would become more pleasurable and less stressful.
This has long-term ramifications for city centres. It's likely the Grade A spaces like Mayfair and the City will still be popular for these new networking spaces. But the less desirable locations would see a reduction in office demand.
That shouldn't be seen as a negative. These offices could be converted to residential use. We are already seeing the development of a build-to-rent sector in the UK which offers higher quality housing than that provided by existing rental properties. This could help to solve some of the UK's housing crisis without needing to either build on green land or use an algorithm to decide where to construct new homes.
Converting office blocks to affordable flats which include home offices would make it easier for younger generations to work from home without having to fight for a space at the kitchen table or access to broadband. Life could be breathed back into suburbs and towns which were often ghost-towns during the week. This would help the government with its levelling-up agenda.
With more people working at home, we could provide a steadier demand for local cafes, restaurants and shops. Empty retail spaces could be converted into shared office spaces offering short-term rents for local businesses and workers.
A government with long-term vision would see this change to working patterns as an opportunity to build a more equitable and less centralised country with a reduced impact on the environment. But that, unfortunately, does not seem to be how our current government is thinking.
Charlotte Moore is a freelance financial journalist. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-09-03--Press freedom after Brexit: Will Britain fracture the European alliance?

The informal October deadline for the European parliament to vote on a Brexit deal before the end of the transition period is fast approaching .
The `` serious divergences '' cited by EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in June have persisted .
Brexit talks have yet again - grindingly - failed to make effective progress .
But whatever the outcome of the talks , the UK needs to have a serious think about what it is going to do in the global fight for press freedom after Brexit .
Will it strike off on its own and fracture the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship ?
Or will it stick close to European efforts ?
The likely answer , of course , is the former , but there is still time to influence that debate .
The rising influence of China and Russia and decline of the US under Donald Trump makes the EU one of few international bodies fighting to defend global press freedom .
There 's certainly room for improvement - both the institutions and member states can employ double standards when it comes to criticism of repressive regimes ' violations of press freedom - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be held to .
Post-Brexit , there 's a serious risk that the UK 's urgent need to cement new relations and forge trade deals will mean press freedom is sidelined .
That goes against the UK 's existing international position .
In July 2019 , the UK and Canada established the Media Freedom Coalition , a partnership of countries taking action on press freedom .
The EU is hardly a bastion of press freedom .
Journalists face real physical , psychological , or online threats in EU member states .
Under-supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their work .
Legal threats , including Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation ( or Slapps ) , lead to censorship .
Ownership structures and political influence in countries like Hungary and Poland limit media pluralism and weaken independent journalism .
Hostile rhetoric from populist leaders fuels mistrust of the profession .
Covid has underscored the importance of quality journalism as a means of addressing disinformation and as a matter of public health , but with a funding crisis and declining trust from the public , it has also made clear how vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of investigative journalists Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta and Jan Kuciak in Slovakia shocked the continent .
These losses spurred a powerful call to protect press freedom in Europe - a perceptible shift to anyone advocating for such change in Brussels .
The European Commission and members of the European parliament started to push not only for the perpetrators of these murders to be brought to justice , but for meaningful responses to a range of threats facing journalists in Europe .
The murders made clear the need for action - to guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' access to information , and to ensure EU institutions insulate themselves from some threats , principally those of financial crime , which both journalists had been investigating prior to their murders .
Last year 's European elections brought a new leadership and new agenda .
The new values and transparency commissioner , Vera Jourová , was given an explicit mandate to defend press freedom - a first for the Commission .
Since then , various policy and legislative initiatives have been introduced , including a Rule of Law Mechanism to evaluate member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption and press freedom .
Upholding the rule of law , including protecting the media , is now seen as being intrinsically linked to the defence of the `` community of values '' and the functioning of the internal market .
An ambitious European Democracy Action Plan , to be adopted at the end of the year , will include a range of press freedom reforms for EU member states .
It could serve to inspire and help the UK authorities when considering similar measures domestically .
The UK needs to support this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom .
It should guarantee that arguments of economic independence or national sovereignty are separated from defending press freedom and not turn its back on EU engagement .
Citizen access to information is cross-border and important for us all .
Long-terms solutions to the continuous threat of destructive populism , the social impact of economic stagnation , environmental change and the failed aspirations of the younger generation will be found in part in protecting the space for the media in Europe .
It will be found by creating debate and finding solutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Europe , Britain and internationally - must be spared from these `` serious divergences '' .
Tom Gibson is the Committee to Protect Journalists ' lead advocate in Brussels covering the institutions of the European Union .
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 Tom Gibson
The informal October deadline for the European parliament to vote on a Brexit deal before the end of the transition period is fast approaching. The "serious divergences" cited by EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in June have persisted. Brexit talks have yet again – grindingly – failed to make effective progress.
But whatever the outcome of the talks, the UK needs to have a serious think about what it is going to do in the global fight for press freedom after Brexit. Will it strike off on its own and fracture the coalition against fake news, disinformation and censorship? Or will it stick close to European efforts? The likely answer, of course, is the former, but there is still time to influence that debate.
The rising influence of China and Russia and decline of the US under Donald Trump makes the EU one of few international bodies fighting to defend global press freedom. There's certainly room for improvement – both the institutions and member states can employ double standards when it comes to criticism of repressive regimes' violations of press freedom – but at least there is a standard to be held to.
Post-Brexit, there's a serious risk that the UK's urgent need to cement new relations and forge trade deals will mean press freedom is sidelined. That goes against the UK's existing international position. In July 2019, the UK and Canada established the Media Freedom Coalition, a partnership of countries taking action on press freedom.
The EU is hardly a bastion of press freedom. Journalists face real physical, psychological, or online threats in EU member states. Under-supported and isolated, they risk a lot for their work. Legal threats, including Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (or Slapps), lead to censorship. Ownership structures and political influence in countries like Hungary and Poland limit media pluralism and weaken independent journalism. Hostile rhetoric from populist leaders fuels mistrust of the profession.
Covid has underscored the importance of quality journalism as a means of addressing disinformation and as a matter of public health, but with a funding crisis and declining trust from the public, it has also made clear how vulnerable the press is.
The brutal murders of investigative journalists Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta and Jan Kuciak in Slovakia shocked the continent. These losses spurred a powerful call to protect press freedom in Europe – a perceptible shift to anyone advocating for such change in Brussels. The European Commission and members of the European parliament started to push not only for the perpetrators of these murders to be brought to justice, but for meaningful responses to a range of threats facing journalists in Europe. The murders made clear the need for action – to guard against censorship, to protect EU citizens' access to information, and to ensure EU institutions insulate themselves from some threats, principally those of financial crime, which both journalists had been investigating prior to their murders.
Last year's European elections brought a new leadership and new agenda. The new values and transparency commissioner, Vera Jourová, was given an explicit mandate to defend press freedom – a first for the Commission. Since then, various policy and legislative initiatives have been introduced, including a Rule of Law Mechanism to evaluate member states' compliance with judicial independence, corruption and press freedom.
Upholding the rule of law, including protecting the media, is now seen as being intrinsically linked to the defence of the "community of values" and the functioning of the internal market. An ambitious European Democracy Action Plan, to be adopted at the end of the year, will include a range of press freedom reforms for EU member states. It could serve to inspire and help the UK authorities when considering similar measures domestically.
The UK needs to support this new confidence in Europe about protecting press freedom. It should guarantee that arguments of economic independence or national sovereignty are separated from defending press freedom and not turn its back on EU engagement. Citizen access to information is cross-border and important for us all. Long-terms solutions to the continuous threat of destructive populism, the social impact of economic stagnation, environmental change and the failed aspirations of the younger generation will be found in part in protecting the space for the media in Europe. It will be found by creating debate and finding solutions.
The capacity to defend press freedom – in Europe, Britain and internationally – must be spared from these "serious divergences".
Tom Gibson is the Committee to Protect Journalists' lead advocate in Brussels covering the institutions of the European Union.
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--2020-09-04--Week in Review: Tony Abbott and the vortex of international stupidity

So now we know what Global Britain looks like .
It looks like Tony Abbott .
And that in itself makes a certain degree of sense .
It 's the only kind of international organisation this government can imagine itself pursuing : the replication of its own failings on a global scale , amassing all the most defective , morally bankrupt , intellectually inadequate political figures they can find from around the world and placing them in one team .
The Hapless Avengers .
Abbott , who is on the list of possible candidates for the Board of Trade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if it was so bad that `` that men have more power generally speaking than women '' , has insisted that `` middle class women do not have enough kids '' , says he feels `` a bit threatened '' by homosexuality , insists climate change is `` probably doing good '' and this week suggested that covid might be better handled by people making `` elderly relatives as comfortable as possible while nature takes its course '' .
In short , the man is an imbecile .
Since then , minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment .
`` He 's a homophobe and a misogynist , '' Sky 's Kay Burley told Matt Hancock this week .
`` Well , he 's also an expert in trade , '' the health secretary replied .
Liz Truss , who , by some bleak eclipse of irony , is both trade secretary and equalities minister , responded to criticism of the idea in the Commons by branding it an attempt to `` virtue signal '' from `` those on the left of politics '' .
Those responses tell us something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the own-the-libs strategy - the government 's rejection of the objective point of something in favour of who it upsets .
Abbott is therefore the perfect appointment .
He upsets all the right people - Amnesty International , the Fawcett Society , Stonewall , Greenpeace , etc - and represents the triumph of the plain-speaking , stands-to-reason pub bore over expertise , comprehension or basic suitability .
He is the nonsense dispute over the last night of the Proms in appointment form - just another culture war battleground , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no idea of what it wants to do but a very clear impression of who it wants to enrage .
The government is like a dog chasing a car : loud and determined , but without any idea of what it would do if it were to achieve its aim .
The criticism of Abbott , which is ferocious and wide-ranging , is actually too modest .
Most of it tacitly accepts Hancock 's argument by focusing exclusively on his various comments on gender or sexuality rather than his suitability for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
Abbott is not an expert on trade .
His utterances on this topic have been so feeble and misconceived as to challenge even the most ill-informed of British Brexit commentators .
It 's instructive to read his article in the Spectator - where else - from March last year .
`` Officialdom is warning that a no-deal Brexit would mean trucks backed up for miles at Dover , '' he started , briefly touching on objective reality before , at lightning speed , reaching back for the safety of imperial bombast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off Hitler , the Kaiser , Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU . ''
The rest of the piece bore the classic machine-gun fire of nonsense - a classic of the period .
`` As a former prime minister of a country that has a perfectly satisfactory 'no deal ' relationship with the EU , let me assure you : no deal would be no problem , '' he wrote , seemingly unaware of the way that an existing absence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trading entities differed from existing regulatory and customs harmonisation between two neighbours .
`` Might there be queues at Calais ? ''
he asked .
`` Perhaps , if a vengeful EU imposed one-sided tariff and regulatory burdens on Britain . ''
In fact , the EU would have had no option but to put tariffs on UK goods and impose regulatory checks under no-deal , or else it would break WTO most-favoured-nation rules barring discrimination .
But the real moment of significance in the piece came in a sentence which demonstrated not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade dynamics , but of elementary logic .
Britain , he said , should `` unilaterally '' declare that `` there would be full mutual recognition of standards and credentials '' .
Extraordinary sentence , that .
The unilateral declaration of a mutual arrangement .
You might as well walk into a shop and tell the guy behind the counter that you 've both agreed to pay £5 for the latest smartphone .
You can say it as much as you like , you can announce it with all the trapping of 'unilateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it real .
Deals are different to no deals .
Individual decisions are different to mutually-agreed decisions .
Most people do not need these basic sorts of facts pointed out to them and yet Abbott is seemingly incapable of grasping them .
This is the intellectual record of the man touted as an expert in trade .
In that error , you can see the basic psychological , emotional and ideological instincts which made him attractive to the Vote Leave administration in the first place .
It has the taint of imperial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the days in which Britain could just send out the gunboats and do whatever it liked .
And it has that distinct quality of those who refuse to engage with the complexity of the world , who insist that simple , instinctive , emotionally satisfying , macho solutions will do what all those limp-wristed experts fail to do - the dream that sheer common-sense can penetrate the harshest of conditions and make the universe bend to its will .
That 's Global Britain .
They have finally found a practical meaning to fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find all the most inadequate minds from around the world and amass a great super-team of imbeciles .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out next month .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

So now we know what Global Britain looks like. It looks like Tony Abbott. And that in itself makes a certain degree of sense. It's the only kind of international organisation this government can imagine itself pursuing: the replication of its own failings on a global scale, amassing all the most defective, morally bankrupt, intellectually inadequate political figures they can find from around the world and placing them in one team. The Hapless Avengers.
Abbott, who is on the list of possible candidates for the Board of Trade, is a walking dinosaur. He once asked if it was so bad that "that men have more power generally speaking than women", has insisted that "middle class women do not have enough kids", says he feels "a bit threatened" by homosexuality, insists climate change is "probably doing good" and this week suggested that covid might be better handled by people making "elderly relatives as comfortable as possible while nature takes its course". In short, the man is an imbecile.
Since then, minister after minister has emerged to defend his appointment. "He's a homophobe and a misogynist," Sky's Kay Burley told Matt Hancock this week. "Well, he's also an expert in trade," the health secretary replied. Liz Truss, who, by some bleak eclipse of irony, is both trade secretary and equalities minister, responded to criticism of the idea in the Commons by branding it an attempt to "virtue signal" from "those on the left of politics".
Those responses tell us something quite revealing. Abbott's appointment is part of the own-the-libs strategy – the government's rejection of the objective point of something in favour of who it upsets. Abbott is therefore the perfect appointment. He upsets all the right people – Amnesty International, the Fawcett Society, Stonewall, Greenpeace, etc – and represents the triumph of the plain-speaking, stands-to-reason pub bore over expertise, comprehension or basic suitability. He is the nonsense dispute over the last night of the Proms in appointment form – just another culture war battleground, in the same endless tawdry administration of nothingness, with no idea of what it wants to do but a very clear impression of who it wants to enrage. The government is like a dog chasing a car: loud and determined, but without any idea of what it would do if it were to achieve its aim.
The criticism of Abbott, which is ferocious and wide-ranging, is actually too modest. Most of it tacitly accepts Hancock's argument by focusing exclusively on his various comments on gender or sexuality rather than his suitability for the role. But in fact Hancock was wrong. Abbott is not an expert on trade. His utterances on this topic have been so feeble and misconceived as to challenge even the most ill-informed of British Brexit commentators.
It's instructive to read his article in the Spectator – where else – from March last year. "Officialdom is warning that a no-deal Brexit would mean trucks backed up for miles at Dover," he started, briefly touching on objective reality before, at lightning speed, reaching back for the safety of imperial bombast. "Apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU."
The rest of the piece bore the classic machine-gun fire of nonsense – a classic of the period. "As a former prime minister of a country that has a perfectly satisfactory 'no deal' relationship with the EU, let me assure you: no deal would be no problem," he wrote, seemingly unaware of the way that an existing absence of a free trade agreement between two distant trading entities differed from existing regulatory and customs harmonisation between two neighbours.
"Might there be queues at Calais?" he asked. "Perhaps, if a vengeful EU imposed one-sided tariff and regulatory burdens on Britain." In fact, the EU would have had no option but to put tariffs on UK goods and impose regulatory checks under no-deal, or else it would break WTO most-favoured-nation rules barring discrimination.
But the real moment of significance in the piece came in a sentence which demonstrated not just a lack of understanding of basic trade dynamics, but of elementary logic. Britain, he said, should "unilaterally" declare that "there would be full mutual recognition of standards and credentials".
Extraordinary sentence, that. The unilateral declaration of a mutual arrangement. You might as well walk into a shop and tell the guy behind the counter that you've both agreed to pay £5 for the latest smartphone. You can say it as much as you like, you can announce it with all the trapping of 'unilateral declarations', but that will not make it real. Deals are different to no deals. Individual decisions are different to mutually-agreed decisions. Most people do not need these basic sorts of facts pointed out to them and yet Abbott is seemingly incapable of grasping them. This is the intellectual record of the man touted as an expert in trade.
In that error, you can see the basic psychological, emotional and ideological instincts which made him attractive to the Vote Leave administration in the first place. It has the taint of imperial nostalgia to it, an echo of the days in which Britain could just send out the gunboats and do whatever it liked. And it has that distinct quality of those who refuse to engage with the complexity of the world, who insist that simple, instinctive, emotionally satisfying, macho solutions will do what all those limp-wristed experts fail to do – the dream that sheer common-sense can penetrate the harshest of conditions and make the universe bend to its will.
That's Global Britain. They have finally found a practical meaning to fit the branding. They're going to find all the most inadequate minds from around the world and amass a great super-team of imbeciles.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out next month.
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.