Skip to main content
Category

Coronavirus

Adam Kearns: The crisis in London’s public spaces

By Centre Write, Coronavirus

Of many lessons Londoners can take from the COVID-19 crisis, one of the more salient observations is the extent to which our community relies on public spaces. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that an open, trusting and harmonious society revolves around free and accessible space for citizens. These public spaces are where we gather to relax, socialise, exercise, study and think. The sanctity of such areas should be built into our social contract.

The Greater London Authority and local councils do not, rather surprisingly, hold reliable data on our civic spaces. From the London Environment Strategy of 2018, we can see that Greater London has approximately 3,000 parks covering approximately 18% of land. Frustratingly, however, there is no dataset covering the extent to which these parks are privately owned public spaces, or even closed to the public. In the aftermath of the current national crisis it will be important for City Hall to gather this vital information.

Studies have shown that trust and civic participation are increased where populations have opportunities to interact, much of this taking place in our city’s parks and open spaces. An obvious example for the role of public space in democracy is Speaker’s Corner on the edge of Hyde Park. At a time when only a third of the population has trust in government or the media, and anecdotal evidence from the COVID-19 epidemic suggests our trust in each other as citizens may also be low, it is of heightened importance that we are given opportunities to observe and interact with one another.

Yet despite public space playing a clear role in citizenship and urban life, there is scant political will to defend parks and recreational facilities as a public right. Open spaces across Central London have been privatised, including around King’s Cross, the Olympic Stadium and even City Hall. These privately-owned sites restrict fundamental freedoms such as the right to protest and the ability for journalists to conduct their work, as well as employing security guards who drive away young people, artists and others who seek a space for recreation and activity.

The COVID-19 crisis has heightened existing tensions, with local authorities facing disdain after moving to shut-down beloved parks and restrict the public’s ability to go about their lives. As conservatives, such measures to restrict freedoms and confiscate public areas should strike a blow at the heart of our beliefs. It is high time that authorities democratise our green space, protect it from development, and invest in civic areas within all communities.

In Greater London it is clear that Mayor Sadiq Khan has failed to defend our green spaces from encroachment on several fronts whilst he’s played politics and tinkered with policy. Instead, upon defeating this virus Londoners will be asked to choose their next mayor, and all candidates must be pressed on their plans for preserving and democratising public land. Of critical importance, London authorities need to agree a citizen’s contract to hold themselves accountable for the preservation and upkeep of our community spaces for generations to come. If we fail in this task, London will never be the same.

Adam is a member of Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. 

Ivan Tarkhanov: How coronavirus has propelled the surveillance society

By Centre Write, Coronavirus

Security measures taken to combat COVID-19 are growing not dissimilar to those taken in the aftermath of 9/11. Initially many politicians minimised or even dismissed the threat of the pandemic in their speeches. However, increasingly, governments are resorting to metaphors of war and conflict to underline the urgency of new emergency measures, and to justify them. 

In Britain there is talk of the Blitz spirit, while French President Macron started one of his most viewed addresses with the words ‘we are at war’. This jingoistic language is a reflection of the climate of fear surrounding the pandemic, and acts to mobilise the population behind government efforts, while also preparing citizens for measures that will restrict their civil liberties.

Despite confessing to an initial cover-up, China claims to have dealt with COVID-19 using a combination of decisive action and draconian measures. The Chinese surveillance regime was already one of the most extensive in the world: with the onset of the coronavirus, it has been strengthened, and even potentially legitimised

Many tools in China’s arsenal against the pandemic are decisively authoritarian in character, not least the ‘neighbourhood watches’ verifying the compliance of citizens with lockdowns, but also mass government intrusion into mobile phone data. Yet, the World Health Organisation has praised China’s handling of COVID-19, which seemed to underline the connection between authoritarian measures and good public health practice.

In a move that worried experts around the world, many governments have opted for a radical expansion of state powers in order to tackle the crisis. This has often manifested itself through restrictions on civil society, the convenient silencing of critical voices, and an expansion of the surveillance potential of government agencies. Stressing the need for extreme measures, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel were the first democratic governments to explicitly authorise contact tracking and spyware. Many other governments are increasingly following suit, including France, the UK, Poland, Spain, Romania and Slovakia. 

Some of Europe’s richest countries, including France, the UK and Germany, are cooperating in the area of COVID-19 drone surveillance. Across the continent, there is a rise in legislation aimed at using surveillance technology to curb the spread of COVID-19. 

This surveillance is not restricted to the digital world: in many ways, the virus also has provided an intriguing sociological experiment. In the UK for example, some British police forces, including those of Cambridgeshire and the City of London, are encouraging citizens to snitch on their neighbours through online forms, which many are proving more than eager to do. 

Concerns about  new surveillance powers are grounded in the mixed record of surveillance measures undertaken by many Western governments following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, especially the US government . Despite the concerns of the UN, France has vastly increased its agencies surveillance potential following its own devastating terrorist attacks of 2015. In both of these cases, states with significantly diverging privacy cultures and political systems both proved unwilling to give up their expanded surveillance clout once the threat abated.

Yet the measures are mostly popular with citizens. Extreme measures in times of crisis often coincide with extensive public support. In the wake of a deadly terrorist attack or a public health pandemic it is usually much easier to pass surveillance measures ‘packaged in’ with other emergency measures. Such popular support was highlighted when the declarations of emergency measures worldwide were usually followed by a popularity surge for the political executives, indicating a willingness on the part of citizens to see restrictions on their civil liberties as necessary during a crisis.

Surveillance is not novel to most Western democracies. Scholars such as Shoshana Zuboff in her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, stress the prevalence of the commodification of personal information in the world. Corporations are able to unilaterally ‘mine’ users for data, in exchange for ‘free’ use of their services. Governments around the world are now tapping into that data as a resource against COVID-19, for example in the US, where mobile advertising companies are working with public health bodies to analyse the movement of people during the lockdown. While such cooperation might be useful during the pandemic, the case of Cambridge Analytica has demonstrated how valuable data can be directed towards third parties who may abuse it.

The new measures associated with COVID-19 are extensive and build on the pre-existing prevalence of surveillance in Western democracies. They are potentially long-lasting too. States may not willingly give up their expanded surveillance powers when the crisis ends. In a post-coronavirus world, strengthened states wielding heavy surveillance regimes could become the new normal.

Ivan is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: West Midlands Police]

Joseph Silke: The legacy of coronavirus shouldn’t be the expansion of the state

By Centre Write, Coronavirus, Joseph Silke

This week marked 100 days since the first case of disease caused by a novel coronavirus was reported by the Chinese authorities to the World Health Organisation (WHO). In that time, the world has changed beyond recognition, with billions of people now under strict lockdown to slow the spread of the disease now known as COVID-19. What started in Wuhan has spread like a forest fire across the globe, engulfing even the most prosperous of nations in a pestilential inferno. 

The result for the United Kingdom, like in much of the rest of the Western world, has been a massive increase in state intervention in the economy. While we are confined to our homes, left wondering what the ramifications will be for the future, the deficit is once again ballooning by the billions and will need to be addressed. To ensure the nation’s long term prosperity, the legacy of the coronavirus pandemic should not be a lasting expansion of the state.

Boris Johnson, who had seemed so unassailable after his stonking victory in the general election only a handful of months ago, still cannot return to work, though thankfully is now out of hospital altogether. The nation came together, across political divides, to wish the Prime Minister a speedy recovery, with his health personifying the health of the nation at a time of crisis. 

His hospitalisation came as a reminder of the vulnerability of all members of society to the virus. Even those at the top, including the Prime Minister himself, can be afflicted. It is also the case, however, that the virus has posed a disproportionately high risk to the poorer members of our society, and the state has had a vital role to play in protecting them.   

Not all people can work from home, and generally it’s those on lower incomes whose jobs are most at risk from the economic shutdown that containing the transmission of the virus has neccesitated. Some jobs, and indeed whole industries, were at risk of total collapse without a credible plan in place. The Government’s unprecedented interventions to keep businesses running and protect jobs has been impressive, as Bright Blue has stated, even contributing to making the Chancellor an unlikely sex symbol after less than a couple of months on the job. 

The Government has made significant changes to Universal Credit too, upon which so many more people suddenly rely, though there is also room to go further as a recent Centre Write blog highlighted. The Government can be credited for leaving ideology to one side and doing what has been necessary to protect livelihoods. This economic crisis is like no other in history, and while former Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has desperately tried to claim that the pandemic is a vindication of his worldview, the truth is very different. 

The pandemic has demonstrated the importance of supporting the wealth creators of the private sector, the productive part of the economy, without which there would not be the resources to pay for the NHS that is on the frontline in the battle against the pandemic. A resurgent private sector will be needed to bounce back from the disease and pay off the support people have received. The money the Government has mustered to support people isn’t free and will need to be paid back, which is why timing the lockdown carefully has been so crucial. 

It simply isn’t feasible to remain in lockdown for months on end, as the bill for doing so would be ruinous for all of us. What this reminds us of is the overwhelming role that the private sector plays in supporting both the livelihoods of individuals, but also the state and its services. Yes, the state is rightly stepping in to plug the gaps during the peak of the disease, but only because the private sector is the backbone of our prosperity, and that is something comrade Corbyn has never understood. 

While it would be naive to think that this crisis will not impact future policy decisions, it would be a mistake for this crisis to be interpreted as cause for greater state control of the economy or as some blueprint for a socialist future for the United Kingdom. We ought to be wary of those who have used the pandemic as an opportunity to push for radical ideas such as a universal basic income. There is still no magic money tree, despite what some might have you believe. 

It is true that when the Government must turn its attention to balancing the books again in the wake of the astronomical new spending, there is a chance to do things differently. Those on the centre-right must ensure that any zeal for reform is used to build a more modern, dynamic, and meritocratic economy with sound market principles at its heart. This is something that will be guiding Bright Blue in the months ahead.

Joseph is Research and Communications Assistant at Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

Anvar Sarygulov: The Government must address the five-week wait for Universal Credit

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write, Coronavirus, Welfare

For all the comparisons of our predicament with war, there is no military to draft people into, no war effort to support through production, no infrastructure that suddenly needs building. Instead, most of us are to play our part by staying home. Hence, entire sectors of our service-driven economy have shut down, with millions facing unemployment and no opportunity to find an alternative job. They are now finding themselves turning to our safety net and claiming Universal Credit.

It is hugely welcome that the Government has acted and strengthened welfare provision by increasing the standard allowance of Universal Credit by a £1,000 for the next 12 months, by removing the minimum income floor for self-employed, and by increasing the housing element of Universal Credit. This will be of significant help to both existing claimants, and those who will soon be claiming it. But there is one more thing that the Government should address: the five-week wait.

Research, including our own, has shown that most claimants struggle with having to wait five weeks for their first payment. Many on low incomes have no savings and have to turn to their friends and family to get through this period, while others rely on assistance through foodbanks or even on short-term loans.

To help with this period, the Government has begun to offer advance payments, which need to be repaid, to those who request them. With these, a payment up to the size of their first award is made at the start of the five-week wait.  A majority of claimants take this up, but it is not universal, with some claimants not even aware of this option, while others are potentially concerned about having to repay their advance.

To repay, claimants are faced with deductions from their payments for many months afterwards. Considering the size of Universal Credit awards, such deductions cause significant financial issues for households in the long run, as their cash flow is reduced for many months. While the 2020 Budget has reduced the maximum possible deduction to 25% of the award and lengthened the period of payment to 24 months, this will only come to force in October 2021 and is not enough in the given circumstances.

The Government is seeking to help the cash flow of businesses, but it also urgently needs to do so for individuals newly out of work. It needs to encourage uptake of advance payments, and in the same way the Government has given businesses and individuals holidays on business rates mortgages, the Government should suspend all deductions for the repayments of advance payments from Universal Credit awards. This should be in place for the foreseeable future, and at the very least until current advice on social distancing ends.

Suspending deductions should apply to both new and existing claimants, to ensure that all claimants who now have to claim Universal Credit can take full advantage of the advance without being concerned about their finances in the months that follow, while also helping 1.3 million Universal Credit claimants who are currently dealing with deductions, primarily due to requesting an advance in the past.

While the increases in generosity of payment will be of substantial and significant help, it is also vital that claiming and managing on Universal Credit is made less painful while the crisis unfolds. Encouraging the uptake of advance payments and suspending repayments for them will allow the Government to support the cash flow of those who are out of work and these changes can be enacted at pace.

Anvar is Senior Researcher at Bright Blue. [Image: J J Ellison]