Can you live for a month using only an iPhone to pay for things?

Christina Bonnington sure hopes so.

According to the tech press, one of the "missing features" in the iPhone 5 was the lack of "near-field communications", or NFC, technology. The promise of such tech is that it allows you to turn a phone into a programmable contactless card, and wave it at readers to make payments all day long.

As Matt Drance writes, there was never really any doubt that Apple would not introduce the tech in the iPhone, because although it's a promising technology, it doesn't actually have any use. At least, not today. And so Apple is waiting until it does have some practical applications before moving to roll-out.

In the meantime, one Wired reporter is finding out that it's perfectly possible to make payments with your iPhone today, NFC be damned. Well, not perfectly possible; but doable with a little graft.

Christina Bonnington is living walletless for a month:

You never realize how handy cash is until you don’t have any.

I learned this lesson one day last week when, overcome by hunger, I wandered into the Wired kitchen to grab a bagel for breakfast. I reached into my pocket and suddenly remembered I couldn’t pay for it. See, I’ve decided to spend a month living without a wallet, using my smartphone and various apps to pay for everything. We’re pretty wired here at Wired, but the kitchen still demands cash. Luddites.

Dejected, I went back to my desk and, facing a deadline and unable to venture out into the world, grabbed the first thing that came to hand: a granola bar that’s been sitting in the bottom of my backpack since CES. This culinary disaster was the one setback in what’s been an otherwise flawless week without a wallet, and it taught me a valuable lesson: Be prepared.

We'll see if she can pull it off.

A woman uses Square, a US-only app enabling any iPhone to make mobile payments. Photograph:squareup.com

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.