UCU STRIKES- from an international perspective

Today, strikes have begun across 56 universities today including the University of Liverpool. The University and College Union (UCU) have demanded a £2,500 pay increase for members, an end to “pay injustice”, a re-evaluation of the pensions scheme and zero-hours contracts action to tackle “unmanageable workloads”. But what does this mean for students? Do they attend or avoid classes, or should they join the picket itself?

On the one hand, the message from University of Liverpool’s Pro Vice-Chancellor Gavin Brown asks students in an open email to “assume all activities are going ahead and attend as planned unless you hear definitively from your lecturer or School Office that a teaching event will not take place”. On the other hand, the guild announced last night that their ‘preferendum’ (a referendum with more than one choice) on whether to support lecturers’ strikes passed. This was with 2184 points to fully support, 1564 votes to support UCU in their disputes but not in industrial action and 885 votes against. Subsequently they are calling on students to support the strike and not cross the picket line. Here are their six resolutions for the coming days:

  1. To officially support any industrial action that may take place.
  2. To release an immediate public statement showing support if staff take industrial action.
  3. To help educate students about any industrial action and explain why they should support it.
  4. To organise ‘teach-out’ events to bring staff and students together to learn and discuss a range of topics including the industrial action, trade unionism and higher education.
  5. To lobby the university to meet the demands made the University and College Union. 
  6. To not cross the picket line and safeguard students without ‘breaking the strike.’

But for international students and lecturers, even if they wanted to, striking isn’t really an option. International students with VISAS are required to have an 80% attendance rate to comply with their VISA. This means that they cannot miss out on more than just sixteen days of lessons. As a result, students are forced to decide between crossing the picket line to achieve attendance or risking deportation. For years, calls have been made for universities to stop monitoring the attendance of students during strikes by staff. Last year, the University of Liverpool came under criticism for warning undergraduates in an open email that it was “unlawful” to join pickets and for international students to remember they would be jeopardising their visa by not crossing the picket line.

 Ex- Liverpool University student Yidan Gao from Suzhou, China wrote to me about her troubles with VISAs and strikes in her time at the University. “I was really worried about my VISA situation, from first year to last I would be scared about getting ill and missing university and then when the strikes started me and my friends didn’t know what to do, we wanted to strike but how could we do that and risk getting sent back home?”

As these new strikes begin, whether you choose to cross the picket line or not, it’s important to remember our privilege in being able to decide whether or not we want to support the strike. Additionally, we should remember when seeing international students crossing the picket that the consequences for them are far more severe than for non-international students.

If you’d like to find out more on strikes, why they are happening and what students think, tune in to our podcast from last week to hear more:

An alternative look at COP26: Who is missing?

The 26th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, or COP26, took place between the 31st of October and the 12th of November and was meant to be a holistic event bringing together all those on the planet who have a stake in the damage being done by climate change. With COP being such an important event, the question has to be asked about who isn’t there? Who doesn’t have ‘a stake’ in the climate?

With most large scale media focusing on who was at COP and what was happening, on the show I chose to examine who isn’t part of COP26’s goal to “coordinate action to tackle climate change”. The three groups I cover that are not at COP26 are political leaders, major fossil fuel companies, and climate activists deemed too radical.

A theme can be found within the leaders who chose not to attend in that they are authoritarian politicians with their power and support linked to their respective states economic performance. This issue is especially applicable to Vladamir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China, with both men leading countries that export and produce coal, oil and gas and any climate change commitments would almost certainly involve scaling back of these industries.

The real interesting part of this story is examining climate activists and why they oppose COP26, especially when considering the conference is meant to be a huge step forward in platforming activists and the pushing of green politics and agendas. In the aftermath of COP, it is clear world leaders did little to address activists claims that COP is pointless so long as many of the political parties and politicians involved receive lobbying money and campaign donations from fossil fuel companies. No major commitments in that area were discussed let alone considered for passing.

Furthermore more nothing has been done to address climate activists issues with the lack of developing state representation at COP due to vaccine shortages. While most developed economies have been able to use the vaccine to stop the spread of Covid-19 to allow attendance at COP, many developing nations have vaccine programs still in their infancy.

Click the Spotify link below to here to the full segment on this topic and the full Liverpool Politics International Show here – https://open.spotify.com/episode/1qJKEw1f3zGe8BHcmXLI33?si=B36PDqvrSTO7iGO0wcpufg

Featured Image Credit – Alamy Stock Photo https://www.newscientist.com/article/2293938-cop26-news-daily-updates-from-the-global-climate-summit-in-glasgow/

A Fortnight On: How hopeful can we be of change following the tragic death of Sir David Amess?

By Scott Duke-Giles

Almost two weeks on from the shocking murder of David Amess, a Conservative MP since 1983 and in the constituency of Southend West since 1997, politics seems to have predictably returned back to normal.

The 2021 budget announcement and the regrettable (if seemingly inevitable) resurgence of covid-19 cases dominate the headlines this morning, with little to no mention of the deceased MP. Of course, this is to be expected – stories cannot stay in the news forever. However, those hoping for some improvements to be made in bolstering the protection of our representatives are worried that there will be no positive change following this tragic incident.

The inquest hearing, held yesterday Wednesday 27th October 2021, lasted under five minutes as it was adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Ali Harbi Ali, a 25-year-old from North London, has been charged with murder of Sir David Amess and preparing terrorist acts.

Last week I sat down with Professor Andrew Russell, Head of the Politics Department at the University of Liverpool, to discuss the political impacts of the murder and whether we can expect any positive change from it:

“Any reset that would actually make it more difficult for members of the public to have contact with MPs would be hard. But they might have to look at the security of these meetings and ensure that maybe people are vetted or searched on the way into surgeries.”

“There’s always a moment where you think change might be possible. Although I have to say in 2016 when Jo Cox was murdered when campaigning for the 2016 European Union referendum, that did not fundamentally change things. In both the murders of Cox and Amess, what we have seen are deaths of pretty ordinary, nice people.”

“There’s a lot of stuff in the press in the last couple of days about the need to take the hatred out of politics, but perhaps that’s a lesson that newspaper editors need to bare in mind as well. I am relatively optimistic that there is an opportunity here to ask a fundamental question about the regard in which we hold our political rulers and whether we show enough respect for those who put themselves forward for public service.”

Listen to the full interview with Professor Andrew Russell and the rest of last week’s show here – https://open.spotify.com/episode/3yxlgPWH80yRkGffBtBHR5?si=1acdb6f0a92c4a4c

Feature Image Credit: HCA Barbieri News – https://hcabarbieri.it/2021/10/16/boris-johnson-and-keir-starmer-lay-flowers-at-david-amess-murder-scene-in-show-of-unity/

Liverpool’s pilot events scheme shows no significant rise in cases in the area

Liverpool Public Health officials and scientists revealed there was no significant increase in COVID cases following the pilot events that took place in the city

The series of events included a three-day business festival commencing on the 28th April, a two day nightclub event taking place on the 30th April and 1st May, and concluded with a Sefton Park gig on 2nd May.

Attendees were required to take a test prior to the events, and up to seven days after the events. Once inside the venues, attendees were not required to socially distance or to wear face coverings.

More than 13,000 people attended events across all venues and dates. Only eleven out of the 13,000 who attended tested positive for COVID at or after these events took place. Those who tested positive were followed up by track and trace.

The research team behind the COVID pilot events said that between 25% and 43% of respondents returned a PCR tests after the events took place. The 43% that returned a PCR test were attendees of the Blossoms Sefton Park gig. Organisers at the event had created an incentive that meant those who returned a PCR test could win tickets to a future gig, which increased test returns.

Examining the data of the Cheshire and Merseyside regions saw no significant increase in the spread of COVID, in what is encouraging news for the hospitality and night-time industry, which Liverpool’s economy largely relies on.

Matt Ashton, of Liverpool Public Health, said that the events were “undoubtably a success” and that the pilot scheme was “incredibly important” in the reopening of the entertainment and hospitality industry.

As part of our special features programme, we spoke to Liverpool student and event goer Tom Haslam, who described the event as “quality” and one of the best moments of the year. He was able to return negative tests both before and after the event.

We also spoke to 24 Kitchen Street venue manager Josiah Worth, who told us of 24 Kitchen Street’s own struggles with the pandemic, changes and improvements to the venue and what’s next for 24 Kitchen Street after reopening.

Our Liverpool Pilot Events special feature is available on Spotify and Soundcloud streaming platforms now.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Considerate or negligent to fundamental rights?

Photo by Kyle Bushnell on Unsplash.

Tomorrow on the 18th of May the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will reach its committee stage in the House of Commons. The controversial Bill passed its first reading in the House on the 9th Of March and has drawn much ire ever since.

In the last two months thousands of people across the country have filled to the streets to express their disapproval of the Bill’s proposals. Their biggest gripe? The section of the Bill which they feel threatens their ability to do just that. Potentially the most unpopular section of the Bill, the recommendations of changes to how protests are policed has received substantial criticism. With a motive for reducing disruption caused by protests, this part of the Bill looks at setting limitations on how they are conducted.

The UK show’s segments on the Bill featured an interview with Matt Parr, who the Home Secretary commissioned to lead a report on the policing of protests. In this discussion he stressed the importance of finding the right balance between accommodating the right to protest and protecting the public from disruption.

Its fair to say that based on some of the public reaction,  there is at least a large vocal group that feel the Bill has failed to strike this balance. Chants of “Kill the Bill” have echoed across different cities in the last several weeks, demonstrating the perceived threat felt by some regarding right to protest peacefully. This has seen various activist groups speak out in the name of protecting their future capacity to create change by encouraging and organising protests against the Bill.

The UK team’s feature also included discussions from campaigners from Friends of the Earth and the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. Comments from these campaigners further illustrated the concern of this legislation imposing on fundamental rights. They also spoke of the importance of calling people to action to dispute the potential legislation, stressing their hope that enough disapproval from the public could lead to a U-turn from the government.

With there still being several stages to pass before these proposals would be implemented it seems likely that more backlash against the Bill will take place. A week on from the Queen’s speech which outlined future legislation, one cannot help but wonder what the future of protesting within the UK will look like as well as how tumultuous the issue may continue to be.

Listen to the feature on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill here: https://youtu.be/nCePrnVxSMI

Why The COVAX Scheme Must Succeed

The global pandemic has led to the loss of over 3 million lives, whilst disrupting the lives of billions. Although the World Health Organisation (WHO) has played an advisory role throughout the pandemic, it has not been completely immune from criticism, as we have seen its approach in issuing advice criticised by world leaders. However, there seems to be a degree of confusion as to how far the WHO can go in terms of influencing policy. As with all other intergovernmental organisations, the reality is that it is only as strong as its member states want it to be.

Politics Hour International spoke to Dr. Tom Loney, an epidemiologist and former Director in the WHO, as part of our Covid special. This insightful interview clarified the importance and limitations of the WHO. Dr. Loney described the world as village, where all countries are connected, which can be clearly seen with how Covid-19 has spread. All countries want to vaccine the large proportion of the population as quickly as possible, in order to potentially move to a herd immunity and reduce the strain on their health systems. Vaccine herding, another issue discussed in the show, will significantly hinder any global effort to protect the vulnerable from the virus. It is therefore important that a platform to distribute vaccines is established.

The COVAX scheme is one of three pillars of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator. It was launched in April 2020 by the WHO in order to ensure that every country in the world has fair and equitable access to the Covid-19 vaccine.

So why is it so important for the COVAX scheme to succeed?

“No one is safe till everyone is safe”

Dr. Tom Loney

If there are large amounts of the virus circulating in certain countries, naturally, due to the global connectivity nowadays, the virus will mutate, leading to another potential outbreak. Hence it is essential to vaccinate as much of the global population as possible, in order to truly return to a state of normality.

However, governments will largely be focused on inoculating their own populations at first, and we have seen plenty of volatility and political conflict regarding vaccine stocks. Unfortunately, in the short term, it will be those poorer nations that suffer the most during this phenomenon of vaccine nationalism. Dr. Loney stresses the importance of aiding the vaccine production capacity of these nations as a sustainable policy, in order to protect populations from the virus in the long run. A vaccine patent waiver would also be hugely beneficial in terms of increasing the production of the jabs, however, this remains a decisive issue.

But, in the short term, the wealthy nations must remain committed to COVAX, as the urgent need for vaccines is very clear in a lot of countries, India being a stark example. The world has a duty to protect those most vulnerable to this virus, no matter where they are.

Listen to our wide ranging special episode on all things Covid:

Fans Fighting Back: is the European Super League the force for social change that will change the football landscape forever?

On Sunday the 18th of April, the news broke that twelve football clubs from England, Spain and Italy had agreed to take part in a new ‘European Super League’, which would work through two groups of ten teams, followed by a play off phase. There would initially be fifteen ‘founding teams’, however Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Paris Saint Germain declined to take part. The other five teams would be made up of European teams on a merit qualifying basis.

These plans, however, would not last long. After quickly being condemned by almost every European footballing body, including UEFA, the FA and the Premier League, as well as intervention from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, by Tuesday evening clubs were beginning to jump ship. With Manchester City being the first, and closely followed by Chelsea. By Wednesday all 6 Premier League clubs involved had dropped out as well as Atletico Madrid and Inter Milan, leaving just four of the initial 1 remaining. 

But what sparked such a hasty exit from something that had clearly been in the woodwork for a while? It was undoubtedly the combatant approach from football fans across England. On Monday evening there was a protest held at Elland Road, just before the Liverpool v Leeds game, where the protestors were made up of fans from many clubs to protest against Liverpool’s decision to enter the ESL. Similar protests were taking place at stadiums across the country, with angry banners being hung by fans at Anfield, The Emirates, and Old Trafford, to name a few. Roars of ‘We Want Kroenke Out’ could be heard from Arsenal’s Emirates stadium, with similar outcries of Manchester United’s famous ‘Glazers Out’ chant being heard from outside Old Trafford. 

Fans protest Chelsea’s decision to enter the ESL outside Stamford Bridge. Source: BBC

We have perhaps never seen fans as mobilised as this on one united issue, however the question to ask now is whether or not fans will choose to forgive and forget, or whether this is the catalyst for reform of the beautiful game in England that many fans have been waiting tentatively for. In all honesty it will more than likely be relative to the club – Manchester United fans have already won a war with the resignation of Ed Woodward, in a long battle of strained relations between owner and fans. However it is a different story for those who have stronger owner/fan relations. I doubt we will see calls for Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour out, the way fans are crying for the Glazers and Kroenke to go.

Since the collapse of the league, last Sunday’s match at Old Trafford for Manchester United v Liverpool was postponed due to fans charging onto the pitch in protest of Glazer ownership. 

Source: The Guardian

But what will all this unrest mean for the future of football ownership? Do fans want more influence in how their clubs are run? Do they want a German 50+1 shares model introduced? Kieran Maguire, expert in football finance at the University of Liverpool, thinks that the model will never work here, instead ‘some form of golden share, or some form of veto that fan groups could be given’ would be a more effective choice. He also discussed some sort of ‘mandate from government’ in the show with us, which can be listened to below.

Despite the collapse of the league – the role that the ESL will play in the future of football can not be understated. Looking back now, at the weeks of unrest that have come since, this may be the turning point of social change that fans of teams such as Manchester United, have been waiting for. 

A special episode of the Politics Hour covering all things Super League can be listened to here: https://youtu.be/a5zpWRfERGg 

The Military Coup of Myanmar: A battle for democracy

Written by Saffron May-B

Myanmar coup: Protesters face up to 20 years in prison under new law - BBC  News
GETTY Images

It has been a heart wrenching  two months for the people of Myanmar since the military usurped the country’s first democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi, along with the rest of the National League for Democracy political party. They had just won their second term when, on February 1st,  army general Min Aung Hlaing seized control and imprisoned several high ranking officials along with the leader.

Since then, civilians have flooded the streets in protest of the uprising and have been met with some horrific acts of violence by the newly emboldened military.  An international student from Myanmar told the Politics Hour that civilians in her home country were being wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, and killed on a regular basis. As I am writing this, the death toll is over 700 people, with the deadliest day on record having 114 citizens, 11 of which were children, losing their lives. 

“We’re exposed to a lot of atrocities on a regular basis…the Burmese people around the world are seeing bleeding people on social media or in front of their eyes every day”

This is a humanitarian crisis unfolding before our eyes and the sentiment felt by the people of Myanmar is that the world at large does not care. Or at the very least, does not care enough to warrant a meaningful response. In spite of statements made against the actions of the military made by state leaders around the world, including Boris Johnson, they are still being acknowledged as the government of Myanmar, as opposed to the National Unity Government, which is the leadership that the citizens at large actually recognise. This means that they have an even bigger platform from which they can push their own agendas and propaganda.

However, the feelings of frustration, anger and sorrow are accompanied by resilience and defiance against the new rule, with citizens still protesting through civil disobedience and key worker strikes, in and amongst all of the chaos.

Even prior to the coup, the military was already very much integrated into many different factions of the government. Making the take over, even from a power prioritising view, unnecessary. The lack of tangible consequence to their actions has only made them secure in the knowledge that they can go even further with their agendas and violence, whilst still remaining comfortable in the international community.

To show the bigger picture of we can and do defer back to international political theorists, whose job it is to find patterns in what seems to be utter chaos. I spoke with Dr Nicholas Lees from the University of Liverpool, who looks at these types of conflicts as they occur around the world. Clearly, internal human rights abuses are nothing new, but the existence of international peacekeeping bodies should in theory have a hand in stopping them. The challenge they face however, is if the state resists involvement from an international body, the only option to continue would be through a forceful military intervention, which are famously unpopular due to a perceived lack of success.

For now, the best thing that we as an international community can do is continue to show support for democratic movements in Myanmar. The people are having to fund their own defence force and federal army in a David and Goliath-esque situation, so falling short of humanitarian intervention, providing aid should be a top priority.

Listen to both interviews in the extended feature here on the Liverpool Politics Hour Spotify page.

Salmond’s Alba Party: Bane or Boon for Scottish Independence?

By Fergus Llewelyn Turtle

Alba Party logo: By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67234612

The last few months have been nothing if not dramatic from Scottish nationalism. Rarely in politics do two figures as close as Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon once were fall out so fiercely or so publicly. Just when Sturgeon must have hoped that the saga was coming to an end, with an independent report clearing her of breaking the ministerial code, Salmond announced he was launching a new political party to fight the Scottish Parliament elections in May. Seemingly this spelled potential disaster for the SNP with a real risk of splitting the pro-independence vote. Salmond, however, claimed it would do no such thing and would instead help produce a ‘supermajority’ for independence which he says will be crucial in getting a second referendum on independence.

How could he credibly make such a claim and how accurate is it?

The answer lies in Scotland’s electoral system; the ‘Additional Member System’ or AMS. This system is a mix between first past the post (FPTP), where 73 districts each elect one person who gets the most votes, and a proportional list (PR) system, where parties are given ‘top-up’ seats to try match their percentage vote. This means that if a party wins lots of FPTP seats, like the SNP, it makes it less likely they will pick up extra seats on the list. On the other hand a party that finds it difficult to break through in individual FPTP seats, like the Scottish Greens, will get more seats from the list.

Crucially the Alba Party has announced they will only stand on the list, urging SNP voters to lend them their votes rather than ‘waste’ them. This idea of ‘gaming the electoral system‘ has been floated for some time in Scottish nationalist circles.

Is this strategy likely to be a success? Well it rather depends, not only on how much support Alba gets, but where that support comes from as they could well cost other pro-independence parties seats.

According to modelling analysis by Oxford University Doctoral candidate Leonardo Carella, if Alba were to take votes only from the SNP they would still need to get about 6% of the list vote before they produced a net negative to the total independence seats. Even then they could cause the SNP to fall short of an overall majority, which could make it harder to get a second independence referendum.

The situation could be even worse if we take into account the Scottish Greens, who also support independence and have long benefited from FPTP SNP voters switching to them on the list. If only 20% of Alba voters would have otherwise voted Green, Alba could need more than 11% before they start help rather than hinder the size of the pro-independence caucus.

Of course all of this could change if Alba can attract voters over from unionist parties They could also concentrate their vote in certain areas as the lists are divided into 8 regions. It does look like the party has a large mountain to climb, however. In the two opinion polls to come out since Alba’s launch the party only registered 3% and 6% support respectively on the list voting intention.

Furthermore Salmond’s personal approval ratings are low and he and Sturgeon’s falling out has cost the independence cause support. It’s very possible him being back on the front line of Scottish politics puts more voters off the idea of independence than it brings on board. It seems then a challenging task for Salmond’s new outfit to achieve what they set out to and become a genuine driving force to get Scottish independence across the line, albeit a challenge the former First Minister seems determined to rise to.

The Isolation Podcast: A Politics Hour Reunion Episode

Charlie, Chris and Juliana interview Alistair Campbell for the Isolation Podcast, April 2020.

By Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Reader in Politics, University of Liverpool

Just over a year ago, an abrupt and radical transformation began in how universities deliver education. Covid was, of course, the catalyst. Staff and students alike were forced to adapt to online teaching and learning. Some adapted better than others. There was, and still is, a great deal of innovation, but also much desperation.

This is the story of one of the innovations this sudden ‘pivot’ to online learning gave rise to. Unusually, it was a learning innovation entirely conceived, initiated, and developed by three undergraduate students.

Presented by Juliana Christianson, Chris Flavell and Charlie Millward, The Isolation Podcast first aired on 23 March 2020, shortly before Boris Johnson’s initial ‘stay at home’ order that evening. The podcast was a spin-off from my third year undergraduate module in political broadcasting, which produces The Politics Hour.

Earlier that day, I had caught up with all the students on the module via Zoom. It was the first time we’d been able to meet since they had, mostly, headed back to their parents’ homes. I’d said that we could try to continue broadcasting remotely, but it would be challenging without access to the campus radio studio. Besides, most students had already produced enough content for the module through their weekly shows they had broadcast from early October to mid-March.

But, ever the optimist, I floated the idea of maybe attempting a podcast or two. After all, Covid clearly represented an enormous political challenge, meaning that there would be a great deal to unpack. I wasn’t really expecting an enthusiastic response to this idea. But then I hadn’t counted on Juliana, Chris and Charlie. They didn’t want to make a podcast or two. They had other ideas entirely.

From 23 March to 5 June 2020, the trio released 35 episodes of what came to be known as the Isolation Podcast. The vast majority of these episodes were produced daily between late March and late April. The podcasts covered the unfolding politics of Covid and the impact of the pandemic on schools, universities, broadcasting, the local press, live music, premier league football, charities, the hospitality sector and more.

Guests on the podcast included: Alistair Campbell, Downing Street Director of Communications and Strategy under Tony Blair; Claire Hamilton, BBC Political Reporter for Merseyside; Arif Ansari, Head of News at the BBC Asia Network; Liam Thorp, Political Editor of the Liverpool Echo; Tom Heaton, the Aston Villa goalkeeper; Michelle Langan, founder of the Paper Cup Project; Frank Cottrell-Boyce, novelist and screenwriter; and Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby.

A year on from the launch of the Isolation Podcast, I brought Juliana, Chris and Charlie back together on Zoom to reflect on the experience. In a special episode of the Politics Hour, they detail the origins of the podcast, their motivations in starting it, how it evolved and what they took from the experience. Highlights from the podcasts underline how ambitious the enterprise was and the quality of the output that was produced.

The value of the podcast in sustaining the three of them through lockdown is apparent. Covid robbed an entire cohort of undergraduates of the usual stress, camaraderie, anxiety, thrill and euphoria of their final three months at university. But Juliana, Chris and Charlie found a way to reproduce that emotional rollercoaster via the internet while dispersed across Liverpool, Chester and North Wales during lockdown.

We also learn how Juliana’s A-level Politics teacher challenging her to get a high-profile political figure to speak at her school resulted in Aston Villa fan, Charlie, receiving a 21st birthday video message during lockdown from Villa goalkeeper, Tom Heaton. In a phrase beloved by football manages, sometimes you make your own luck.

I first created the Politics Hour with a different group of undergraduate students in 2016. The idea was to try to grapple with the unpredictable and volatile nature of political developments in a way that conventional approaches to university teaching and assessment can struggle to deal with.

I had obviously never imagined that, in 2020, it would spawn a student-led podcast responding on a daily basis to the politics of a global pandemic. I’m grateful to Juliana, Chris and Charlie, as well as to all the guests who appeared in the episodes of the Politics Hour Isolation Podcast for reassuring me that I was onto something.  

The Isolation Podcast Reunion is available to listen to on SoundCloud or Spotify.

The entire Isolation Podcast series is also still available on SoundCloud and Spotify.