Annabel Denham

Upheavals in welfare policy have historically followed major crises such as wars, civil unrest, recessions and pandemics – the Ministry of Health itself was established in 1919. The experience of the second world war led to the creation of the contemporary welfare state. If a course of action (a furlough scheme, say) is pursued in an emergency, we know it is possible. Keep the measure in place too long and it can swiftly become an accepted norm — and politically awkward to unwind. But those expecting a post-Covid reboot of the welfare system might be disappointed.

Millions of workers are 'never quite switching off' and are answering emails out of hours, warns Autonomy, a think tank. It suggests that the 1996 Employment Rights Act should be amended to give employees a legal 'right to disconnect'. Unfortunately for Autonomy, Labour’s new deal for workers, outlined last month, somewhat stole its thunder. Spearheaded by deputy leader Angela Rayner, the party’s radical package of labour market reforms includes a default right to flexible working, new worker status for those in the gig economy and, of course, a French-style law barring employers from contacting workers outside strictly regulated hours. Nonetheless, Autonomy’s suggestion has received fawning coverage.

The steady stream of mixed messages coming from government ministers have been one of the few constants during the pandemic. Boris Johnson's numerous u-turns have been well-documented and widely ridiculed. And while the news that the unvaccinated could be offered 'kebabs for jabs' may not constitute a full volte-face, it certainly flies in the face of the government’s 'junk food' advertising ban. Young people could now be offered discounts on Big Macs if they get vaccinated, but McDonald’s soon might not be able to promote the product on TV before 9pm or online at all. Where's the logic in that? This latest approach on encouraging vaccine uptake makes life difficult for public health experts who are keen on building up the nanny state.

When Rishi Sunak turned on the spending taps last March, a triumphant Jeremy Corbyn said he had been proved 'right'. History would be written by the losers. In the 16 months since, government spending on the pandemic has swelled to an eye-watering £372 billion. Wages have been nationalised, along with the railways. Individuals have radically altered their behaviour to shield a state institution. Many now hold the view that coronavirus demonstrates government can borrow and spend a large amount of money quickly and wisely — and that it can therefore continue to do so. But two new reports from the Commons Public Accounts Committee decisively debunk that myth.

If you did an opinion poll about opinion polls, chances are most people would recognise the limitations of market research, offer some unfavourable views of pollsters and deride the uses to which their work is sometimes put. Yet if you asked politicians and the media whether polls deserve our attention, they would almost unanimously agree. Even after Brexit. Or Trump in 2016. Or the eye-popping poll earlier this month that found that one in five Brits support having a nationwide 10 p.m. curfew permanently in place, regardless of whether or not the pandemic is still raging. Polls have major shortcomings. Even if pollsters avoid leading questions and interview the perfect cross-section of society, talk is still cheap.

Could Italy’s triumph on Sunday result not just in a trophy for the azzuri, but a baby boom for a nation with one of Europe’s lowest fertility rates? The anecdotal evidence would support this theory. Nine months after Iceland beat England in a Euro 2016 match, it experienced an unprecedented increase in births. This was the first time the nation had ever qualified for a major European tournament, and close to 10 per cent of its 300,000 population watched the game in person. Spain’s birth rate also shot up 16 per cent nine months after Barcelona won the 2009 Champions League. Yet a new paper from Luca Fumarco and Francesco Principe pours cold water on the idea that sports success euphoria boosts human conception.

After many months of hardship and sacrifice, freedom is finally within grasp. Boris Johnson has reclaimed his buccaneering, libertarian spirit and punctured the hopes of zero Covid zealots who wanted more working from home, social distancing and masks. When it comes to face coverings, however, lockdown fans have been working hard to convince the public that they ought to wear them voluntarily — on the off-chance they have the virus and unwittingly hop on to a tube carriage with the unvaccinated. Are they right? Masks are undeniably inconvenient. They’re a pain to wear and a nuisance if forgotten. They reduce the ability to communicate, interpret and mimic the expressions of those with whom we engage.

Back in October, World Bank chief economist Carmen Reinhart recommended that countries borrow heavily during the pandemic. ‘First, you worry about fighting the war,’ she said, ‘then you figure out how to pay for it’. As thousands of mask-free demonstrators took to the streets of London this weekend to campaign on issues ranging from Palestine to climate change, you have to wonder: are we still at war? And does anyone care about the economy anymore? It has been apparent for some time — though it may continue to confound psephologists — that issues such as identity, patriotism and culture are more important to the electorate than economic concerns.

On the eve of the five-year anniversary of the Brexit referendum, it's hard to shake the feeling that Brexit was the dog that never barked. Project Fear portended half a million job losses – a hard measure to test given a year of lockdowns and furlough, but before Covid hit (and now) the unemployment rate is lower than it was five years’ ago. We were warned of a 'punishment Budget,' as though there is ever any other kind. The hysteria, the stalling of Parliamentary machinery, the well-documented family rifts – was it all for nothing? First, a few caveats. There are many problems that still need fixing – especially in Northern Ireland and the service sectors.

When Boris Johnson announced that unlocking would be guided by ‘data not dates’ he handed detractors ample scope for derision and defiance. In the four months since, lockdown critics have rightly insisted that he uphold the slogan and accelerate a roadmap, designed to move at such a glacial speed, that it risked fraying the DNA of our economy and permanently crushing our joie de vivre.  Why did we spend Easter isolated from loved ones? April in wintry beer gardens? Why did we roll out the vaccine at phenomenal pace only to keep restrictions in place as the number of Covid deaths hit single digits? Contrary to expectation, however, that mantra was probably a good hill to die on.

National Work from Home Day might not be a calendar highlight but it has undoubtedly taken on increased significance during the pandemic. Remote work is du jour and the big question now is: will it become the new normal? Take headlines at face value and we’re living in both a Zoomshock dystopia and a commute-free Shangri-La. We're selfishly contributing to the hollowing out of city centres, and we're righteously boosting the local economy. The same ministers now pushing for hybrid working to become the default unless employers have good reason to forbid it were last summer warning absenteeism risked making people more 'vulnerable' to getting sacked. We should probably be wary of those who say: 'Covid killed the office. Long live hybrid working'.