conservativehome--2020-11-27--Johnson’s 50:50 target for women in parliament. An important pledge – but Conservatives should avoid

Johnson’s 50:50 target for women in parliament. An important pledge – but Conservatives should avoid quotas.

How do you get more women into politics ?
This is the question that Boris Johnson delved into last week when he called for the “ biggest ever recruitment drive ” for female candidates , activists and potential MPs .
Johnson made the announcement as part of “ Ask Her To Stand Day ” , which marked the 102th anniversary for the Qualification of Women Act .
In a video for the occasion , he spoke of the importance of achieving 50:50 representation among men and women in parliament , a goal he also stated in the run up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a record number ( 220 ) of women elected to parliament that year , they still only make up 34 per cent of Members of the House of Commons , and five members of the current Cabinet , leading to the emergence of groups such as 50:50 Parliament , which aims to boost the figures .
As of yet , no details have been released about what the plan for 50:50 representation is .
One paper reports that Johnson is not considering selection quotas for Tory candidates .
However , his announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government will take affirmative action .
Frances Scott , Director of 50:50 Parliament , said of Johnson ’ s video “ We have never before heard a Conservative Party leader publicly state their support for fully equal representation of women at Westminster ” .
After the Government took a more interventionist role in its obesity strategy , anything is possible now… But how do you reach 50:50 ?
And should you set quotas at all ?
As a woman in political journalism , who did psychology at university , the question of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in uneven numbers , is one I have always found extremely interesting .
There are all sorts of hypotheses about why this is , but I believe the answer is a complicated mixture of personal preference and societal factors , hence why imbalances are so hard to remedy .
One point that often gets overlooked is that disparities between men and women shouldn ’ t always be taken as evidence of sexism or gender inequality .
There is a tendency to pathologise anything other than 50:50 representation , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in some of the most gender equal societies , women are much less likely to go into science , technology , engineering and maths ( STEM ) than men , whereas the STEM gap isn ’ t as pronounced for those in more oppressive societies .
This phenomenon is called called the “ gender equality paradox ” .
That ’ s why it ’ s important for politicians and society to focus on “ equality of opportunity ” , not “ equality of outcome ” when assessing gender equality .
In short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same opportunities , but we shouldn ’ t expect these to neatly convert into equal representation across industries .
Freedom means being able to choose different things .
As far as parliamentary careers go , there are some very big reasons why women might not choose to go into politics .
Personally , I am wary of the long hours , thankless tasks , and especially put off by the abuse and media intrusion .
Perhaps if the Government could magic away the latter , I might give politics a try – but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the job description that has become worse with social media .
Of course , there are some things the Government and society can do to make things better for women .
I suspect one positive step is more education about it in schools , so that girls can build experience in political campaigning .
Clare Ambrosino , who stood as the Conservative candidate for Easington last year , tells me “ I think if women started being active in politics earlier , we ’ d have a better chance of having more women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weekends away and after work hours can make things particularly challenging for mothers .
Given that women are still expected to take the brunt of childcare , trying to manage the many demands of an MP is a mammoth challenge .
Anything that makes life easier here should be implemented – indeed , Johnson has previously pledged to make flexible working and childcare more accessible .
Organisations such as 50:50 Parliament , too , are playing a vital role in promoting women ’ s participation in politics , offering networking and support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference , as so much of success – in many fields – comes down to building contacts .
There are many small steps we can take that have a big effect on participation .
But the Government should not force the issue by trying to emulate Labour ’ s quotas .
Not least because it is anti-Conservative , undermining the values of self-determination .
It will , too , backfire on Johnson ; seen , alongside his obesity strategy ( and all the other Coronavirus measures ) as another sign of too much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not the right way of looking at things .
The focus should be on equality of opportunity .
Are women receiving the same access to politics as men ?
The answer to that is where we begin .

How do you get more women into politics? This is the question that Boris Johnson delved into last week when he called for the “biggest ever recruitment drive” for female candidates, activists and potential MPs.
Johnson made the announcement as part of “Ask Her To Stand Day”, which marked the 102th anniversary for the Qualification of Women Act. In a video for the occasion, he spoke of the importance of achieving 50:50 representation among men and women in parliament, a goal he also stated in the run up to 2019’s election.
Despite there being a record number (220) of women elected to parliament that year, they still only make up 34 per cent of Members of the House of Commons, and five members of the current Cabinet, leading to the emergence of groups such as 50:50 Parliament, which aims to boost the figures.
As of yet, no details have been released about what the plan for 50:50 representation is. One paper reports that Johnson is not considering selection quotas for Tory candidates.
However, his announcement might raise hopes among campaigners that the Government will take affirmative action. Frances Scott, Director of 50:50 Parliament, said of Johnson’s video “We have never before heard a Conservative Party leader publicly state their support for fully equal representation of women at Westminster”. After the Government took a more interventionist role in its obesity strategy, anything is possible now…
But how do you reach 50:50? And should you set quotas at all? As a woman in political journalism, who did psychology at university, the question of why women and men go into different sectors, in uneven numbers, is one I have always found extremely interesting. There are all sorts of hypotheses about why this is, but I believe the answer is a complicated mixture of personal preference and societal factors, hence why imbalances are so hard to remedy.
One point that often gets overlooked is that disparities between men and women shouldn’t always be taken as evidence of sexism or gender inequality. There is a tendency to pathologise anything other than 50:50 representation, but it’s more complicated than that. For instance, in some of the most gender equal societies, women are much less likely to go into science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) than men, whereas the STEM gap isn’t as pronounced for those in more oppressive societies. This phenomenon is called called the “gender equality paradox”.
That’s why it’s important for politicians and society to focus on “equality of opportunity”, not “equality of outcome” when assessing gender equality. In short, men and women should have the same opportunities, but we shouldn’t expect these to neatly convert into equal representation across industries. Freedom means being able to choose different things.
As far as parliamentary careers go, there are some very big reasons why women might not choose to go into politics. Personally, I am wary of the long hours, thankless tasks, and especially put off by the abuse and media intrusion. Perhaps if the Government could magic away the latter, I might give politics a try – but it’s an unfortunate part of the job description that has become worse with social media.
Of course, there are some things the Government and society can do to make things better for women. I suspect one positive step is more education about it in schools, so that girls can build experience in political campaigning. Clare Ambrosino, who stood as the Conservative candidate for Easington last year, tells me “I think if women started being active in politics earlier, we’d have a better chance of having more women politicians.”
She adds that some of the weekends away and after work hours can make things particularly challenging for mothers. Given that women are still expected to take the brunt of childcare, trying to manage the many demands of an MP is a mammoth challenge. Anything that makes life easier here should be implemented – indeed, Johnson has previously pledged to make flexible working and childcare more accessible.
Organisations such as 50:50 Parliament, too, are playing a vital role in promoting women’s participation in politics, offering networking and support, and this will make a big difference, as so much of success – in many fields – comes down to building contacts.
There are many small steps we can take that have a big effect on participation. But the Government should not force the issue by trying to emulate Labour’s quotas. Not least because it is anti-Conservative, undermining the values of self-determination. It will, too, backfire on Johnson; seen, alongside his obesity strategy (and all the other Coronavirus measures) as another sign of too much state intervention.
And fundamentally, targets are not the right way of looking at things. The focus should be on equality of opportunity. Are women receiving the same access to politics as men? The answer to that is where we begin.


conservativehome--2020-11-27--Carsten Jung: Why Sunak’s budget is at odds with mainstream macroeconomics

On one hand , some consider the overall bill of £400 billion of the pandemic so far is evidence enough that spending now needs to be trimmed back .
But on the other , the fundamental insight gained from a century of economic crises is : that the state is uniquely able to boost economic activity when other economic players – businesses , workers and households alike – are still licking their wounds .
The human cost of doing too little could be large .
A stimulus too modest , that does too little to strengthen the economy , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young and future generations .
On Wednesday the Chancellor announced a spending review that was bold in ambition but actually surprisingly timid in numbers .
Rishi Sunak may have political reasons for holding back , but mainstream economic thinking suggests that there are questions we should ask about the size of the Treasury ’ s response .
Developed by Keynes , and reflected in economic theory almost ever since , is the finding that public spending can keep bad things from happening , and that this can be economically optimal .
Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their workers from going under is economically superior to the train crash of an economic disaster , with otherwise viable businesses going to the wall amid a wave of bankruptcies .
Of course this isn ’ t just theory – it ’ s been generally accepted in practice by governments of all political stripes .
The Chancellor understands that it ’ s the Treasury ’ s job , especially in a crisis like this one , to stabilise the economy and help it back on a path to sustained growth .
The question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures achieve that ?
Arguably not .
The IPPR estimates that the economy will receive only just over a quarter of the boost it needs to fully stabilise and restore the economy .
We calculate that a total stimulus of £164 billion would be needed to achieve this – at first sight an eye-watering sum , and of course subject to margins of error .
But whatever the exact numbers , there is a strong case to argue that the Chancellor ’ s measures are too modest .
Some might argue that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way and allow business to drive the recovery instead .
But this ignores the harsh environment in which businesses currently find themselves .
With demand still well below the pre-crisis trend , and balance sheets ballooning with debt , it would take an unusually brave entrepreneur to embark on an investment spree right now .
For this reason , business investment is still a hefty 20 per cent below its pre-pandemic level – itself far below our international peers – and is not expected to recover until 2023 .
No wonder many business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supporting demand .
Many might agree that a much bigger boost would be desirable for the economy , commerce and jobs , but ask : can we really afford it ?
As some commentators observed this week , the UK appears already to be running up debt so great that at first sight it appears dangerously unaffordable .
Moreover , experience shows that spending less can actually be counterproductive for the public purse .
That is because the longer the crisis is allowed to run , the more permanent the damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fewer profits , lower wages , less consumption , and significantly lower future tax returns .
Our calculations , based on widely-used economic modelling , suggest that public debt as a proportion of GDP could actually fall , were the Government to embark upon a more major investment package that further boosted jobs and growth .
It could be 0.5 per cent lower at the end of the first year , and more so over time , because faster and more resilient growth would mean the economy growing more than government borrowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finances are not at all akin to a household ’ s .
They are more like those of an entrepreneur who spots a lucrative business opportunity .
For them , it can be more profitable to borrow , invest , and reap the benefits of increased growth later .
The same applies to the state .
Smart investments today mean more tax revenues in the future .
The economic potential is even greater while interest rates are low , and likely to stay that way for years to come .
The IMF makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tightening too fast could undermine the recovery ” and says “ a further increase in debt in the short term would appropriately balance the pro-growth and debt sustainability objectives over the medium term ” .
In other words , spending more now will make it easier to manage government debt later .
As counter-intuitive as it may sound , borrowing more to spend now would make it easier to balance the books later .
Surprisingly , fiscal stimulus is fiscal responsibility .
What could we invest in ?
None of this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
There are many projects in dire need of investment , starting with our hospitals and social care infrastructure .
Three quarters of buildings are falling short of energy efficiency standards .
Much public transport infrastructure is suffering from years of neglect , not least in the towns and cities of the North and other English regions .
Last week , the Prime Minister announced a ten-point plan to tackle the climate and emergency and restore nature ; in March we calculated that the UK needs to invest an extra £33 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only a small part of this gap has been plugged by the welcome announcements so far .
Because doing too little now will also come a great human cost .
We have all been hit hard by the pandemic , but for the young in particular it has been a disaster .
They face a future with an economy severely damaged and permanently below potential , without enough good jobs , and with permanently over-stretched public services .
Not only are they having to endure the rigours of social isolation during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a future denied .
Little wonder that their mental health has fallen more than that of any other group during this crisis .
So in addition to having benefits for the long-term health of our economy , a bigger fiscal stimulus could prevent us committing a historic mistake : leaving the next generation without enough jobs , without an intact environment , often without the financial means to move out of their parents ’ homes – and for some , without hope .
From the Chancellor , that would have been a @ @ @ @ @ @

On one hand, some consider the overall bill of £400 billion of the pandemic so far is evidence enough that spending now needs to be trimmed back. But on the other, the fundamental insight gained from a century of economic crises is:that the state is uniquely able to boost economic activity when other economic players – businesses, workers and households alike – are still licking their wounds.
The human cost of doing too little could be large. A stimulus too modest, that does too little to strengthen the economy, would disastrously dampen the economic ambitions of the young and future generations.
On Wednesday the Chancellor announced a spending review that was bold in ambition but actually surprisingly timid in numbers. Rishi Sunak may have political reasons for holding back, but mainstream economic thinking suggests that there are questions we should ask about the size of the Treasury’s response.
Developed by Keynes,and reflected in economic theory almost ever since, is the finding that public spending can keep bad things from happening, and that this can be economically optimal. Right now, this means that keeping firms and their workers from going under is economically superior to the train crash of an economic disaster, with otherwise viable businesses going to the wall amid a wave of bankruptcies.
Of course this isn’t just theory – it’s been generally accepted in practice by governments of all political stripes. The Chancellor understands that it’s the Treasury’s job, especially in a crisis like this one, to stabilise the economy and help it back on a path to sustained growth. The question is: will this week’s measures achieve that?
Arguably not. The IPPR estimates that the economy will receive only just over a quarter of the boost it needs to fully stabilise and restore the economy. We calculate that a total stimulus of £164 billion would be needed to achieve this – at first sight an eye-watering sum, and of course subject to margins of error. But whatever the exact numbers, there is a strong case to argue that the Chancellor’s measures are too modest.
Some might argue that the state ought to get out of the way and allow business to drive the recovery instead. But this ignores the harsh environment in which businesses currently find themselves. With demand still well below the pre-crisis trend, and balance sheets ballooning with debt, it would take an unusually brave entrepreneur to embark on an investment spree right now. For this reason, business investment is still a hefty 20 per cent below its pre-pandemic level – itself far below our international peers – and is not expected to recover until 2023. No wonder many business groups strongly favour the government catalysing investment and supporting demand.
Many might agree that a much bigger boost would be desirable for the economy, commerce and jobs, but ask: can we really afford it? As some commentators observed this week, the UK appears already to be running up debt so great that at first sight it appears dangerously unaffordable.
But that is the appearance, not the reality. Ultra-low interest rates mean that the UK will pay £20 billion pounds less – not more – to service its debt next year than before the crisis.
Moreover, experience shows that spending less can actually be counterproductive for the public purse. That is because the longer the crisis is allowed to run, the more permanent the damage to the economy. That means less investment, fewer profits, lower wages, less consumption, and significantly lower future tax returns.
Our calculations, based on widely-used economic modelling, suggest that public debt as a proportion of GDP could actually fall, were the Government to embark upon a more major investment package that further boosted jobs and growth. It could be 0.5 per cent lower at the end of the first year, and more so over time, because faster and more resilient growth would mean the economy growing more than government borrowing.
Contrary to widespread belief, government finances are not at all akin to a household’s. They are more like those of an entrepreneur who spots a lucrative business opportunity. For them, it can be more profitable to borrow, invest, and reap the benefits of increased growth later. The same applies to the state. Smart investments today mean more tax revenues in the future. The economic potential is even greater while interest rates are low, and likely to stay that way for years to come.
The IMF makes a similar argument. It argues that “tightening too fast could undermine the recovery” and says “a further increase in debt in the short term would appropriately balance the pro-growth and debt sustainability objectives over the medium term”. In other words, spending more now will make it easier to manage government debt later. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, borrowing more to spend now would make it easier to balance the books later. Surprisingly, fiscal stimulus is fiscal responsibility.
What could we invest in? None of this would be about building ‘bridges to nowhere’. There are many projects in dire need of investment, starting with our hospitals and social care infrastructure. Three quarters of buildings are falling short of energy efficiency standards. Much public transport infrastructure is suffering from years of neglect, not least in the towns and cities of the North and other English regions. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a ten-point plan to tackle the climate and emergency and restore nature; in March we calculated that the UK needs to invest an extra £33 billion a year to meet our environmental targets. Only a small part of this gap has been plugged by the welcome announcements so far.
Such investment in future growth prospects can unlock job opportunities and is the best way to address the widely-feared economic “scarring” from the pandemic. And these are no moon-shot projects either. We already have the technology. We can start tomorrow.
All this suggests a question we should sincerely ask the Chancellor. Could more spending bring the economy back quicker? And apart from all the other advantages, wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to ensure public finances are on a sustainable footing?
Because doing too little now will also come a great human cost. We have all been hit hard by the pandemic, but for the young in particular it has been a disaster. They face a future with an economy severely damaged and permanently below potential, without enough good jobs, and with permanently over-stretched public services. Not only are they having to endure the rigours of social isolation during the pandemic, they also face the prospect of a future denied. Little wonder that their mental health has fallen more than that of any other group during this crisis.


conservativehome--2020-11-28--Shapps has spotted a once-in-a-lifetime chance to give Britain world-class railways

What a wonderful time to be in charge of Britain ’ s railways .
The pandemic both demands and enables a programme of improvements which would otherwise have taken many years to achieve .
Since March , about £10 billion of public money has been spent to keep the trains running .
At first sight , that looks like an unmitigated disaster .
It is certainly unsustainable .
But it also means the strike weapon has lost its edge .
To threaten to bring empty trains to a halt is no threat at all .
Nor can the rail unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when services were divided between different train operating companies , a system which had already collapsed before the pandemic .
This is a moment of central control , when the Government is paying the bills and can insist that the interests of passengers and taxpayers take precedence over the desire of the unions to prevent change .
Ministers recognise this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to sweep away the accumulated absurdities , ranging from outdated working practices to the ludicrously convoluted fare structure , which are holding the railways back , and to press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of driverless trains , first seen on the Victoria Line in 1968 and the Docklands Light Railway in 1987 .
In March this year , ConHome can reveal , a committee on rail reform was set up within the Department for Transport and began meeting weekly .
It is chaired by Grant Shapps , the Transport Secretary , and attended by the Rail Minister , Chris Heaton-Harris , but nobody supposed the DfT could provide the specialised knowledge of how to run a railway .
So the expertise is provided by members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keith Williams , Andrew Haines and some of the Non-Executive Directors of the DfT , notably Tony Poulter .
Hendy , appointed by Ken Livingstone to run Transport for London , was kept on by the winner of the 2008 mayoral election , Boris Johnson , received a knighthood after the London Olympics of 2012 in recognition of the excellent transport arrangements during the games , and since 2015 has chaired Network Rail .
Williams , a former Chief Executive of British Airways , has since September 2018 chaired the Williams Rail Review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforming the entire structure of the industry , with the interests of passengers and taxpayers put first .
Its work has not been published , but is being drawn on now .
Haines is Chief Executive of Network Rail , a former Chief Executive of the Civil Aviation Authority , and before that was Managing Director of South-West Trains .
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this week that Shapps has asked Haines to produce a 30-year strategy for the railway called the “ The Whole Industry Strategic Plan ” .
And earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haines has been asked by Ruth Hannant and Polly Payne , joint DfT directors general for rail , to report on the future of the East Coast Main Line , and to do so “ from the perspective of a neutral single guiding mind ” , rather than in his capacity as Chief Executive of Network Rail .
Hannant and Payne have for many years operated a job-share , and before arriving at the DfT in December 2017 were joint Directors of Higher Education Reform at the Department for Education .
One does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckon this is perhaps not the best way to run a railway .
Many in the industry think so too .
But the paucity of deep expertise within the DfT , and its propensity to meddle counter-productively with such matters as the timetable , demonstrate the need for another body , or “ neutral single guiding mind ” , to be in overall charge .
We require what the press likes to call a Fat Controller , though one can not help reflecting that the original Fat Controller ’ s safety record was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s railways has in recent years been good .
Some of the credit for that belongs to Mark Carne , Chief Executive of Network Rail from 2014-18 , whose previous career at Shell was coloured by the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 .
Nothing , evidently , must be done to put safety at risk .
But just as it is no longer necessary to check the oil in a car by opening the bonnet and inspecting the dipstick , for there is a light on the dashboard which will tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is no longer necessary for each train to be checked every 24 hours by a driver who walks all round it at ground level , on a path wide enough to keep out of the way of other trains , and well lit enough to be used at night .
The unions insist on this ritual , which has become a ridiculous waste of the highly paid driver ’ s time , and of taxpayers ’ money .
Like modern cars , modern trains tell you when something goes wrong .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the railways appeared to be in inexorable decline , and the most famous figure associated with them was Dr Beeching , who proposed to close a third of the network , which is pretty much what happened .
Since privatisation , passenger numbers have doubled , the network has undergone many improvements , there is a lot of new rolling stock and some of the lines closed by Beeching are being reopened .
Lord Adonis has argued with his usual brio the case for doing this , while Larry Elliott has pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many towns cut off , Brexit might never have happened .
One of the great attractions of creating improved railway services is that this cause appeals far beyond the ranks of Conservatives .
Good railways , railways of which everyone can feel proud , are a quintessentially One Nation policy , levelling up in action , and the 2019 Conservative manifesto rightly promised that There is now every prospect that passenger services between Ashington and Newcastle , lost in the 1960s , will soon be restored .
The line runs through Blyth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservatives last December .
Ashington itself is in the constituency of Wansbeck , held last December by Ian Lavery for Labour with a majority of 814 , compared to a majority of 10,435 in 2017 .
Perhaps the new line will help tip Lavery into oblivion .
Beeching was a blunder of Harold Macmillan ’ s later and less happy years as Prime Minister .
It ought now to be undone , along with the destruction of the Euston Arch .
This can not , however , become an excuse for wasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inefficient ” train drivers , as one source close to the reform committee describes them .
Nor does anyone know how quickly or fully the demand for rail travel will revive .
The likelihood is that some commuters will decide they would rather work from home .
And there are many demands on the Treasury ’ s funds .
Rishi Sunak will heed the calls of the NHS , social care and other good causes before he listens to the railways , especially if he thinks the latter are squandering taxpayers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to be made with the rail unions .
The powers that be are disposed to allow existing drivers , who are mostly quite old , to retain their perks , but not to show the same indulgence to new recruits .

What a wonderful time to be in charge of Britain’s railways. The pandemic both demands and enables a programme of improvements which would otherwise have taken many years to achieve.
Since March, about £10 billion of public money has been spent to keep the trains running. At first sight, that looks like an unmitigated disaster. It is certainly unsustainable.
But it also means the strike weapon has lost its edge. To threaten to bring empty trains to a halt is no threat at all.
Nor can the rail unions divide and rule, as they did when services were divided between different train operating companies, a system which had already collapsed before the pandemic.
This is a moment of central control, when the Government is paying the bills and can insist that the interests of passengers and taxpayers take precedence over the desire of the unions to prevent change.
Ministers recognise this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to sweep away the accumulated absurdities, ranging from outdated working practices to the ludicrously convoluted fare structure, which are holding the railways back, and to press ahead with such innovations as the introduction of driverless trains, first seen on the Victoria Line in 1968 and the Docklands Light Railway in 1987.
In March this year, ConHome can reveal, a committee on rail reform was set up within the Department for Transport and began meeting weekly.
It is chaired by Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, and attended by the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, but nobody supposed the DfT could provide the specialised knowledge of how to run a railway.
So the expertise is provided by members of the committee including Sir Peter Hendy, Keith Williams, Andrew Haines and some of the Non-Executive Directors of the DfT, notably Tony Poulter.
Hendy, appointed by Ken Livingstone to run Transport for London, was kept on by the winner of the 2008 mayoral election, Boris Johnson, received a knighthood after the London Olympics of 2012 in recognition of the excellent transport arrangements during the games, and since 2015 has chaired Network Rail.
Williams, a former Chief Executive of British Airways, has since September 2018 chaired the Williams Rail Review, set up to make recommendations for reforming the entire structure of the industry, with the interests of passengers and taxpayers put first. Its work has not been published, but is being drawn on now.
Haines is Chief Executive of Network Rail, a former Chief Executive of the Civil Aviation Authority, and before that was Managing Director of South-West Trains.
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this week that Shapps has asked Haines to produce a 30-year strategy for the railway called the “The Whole Industry Strategic Plan”.
And earlier this month, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Haines has been asked by Ruth Hannant and Polly Payne, joint DfT directors general for rail, to report on the future of the East Coast Main Line, and to do so “from the perspective of a neutral single guiding mind”, rather than in his capacity as Chief Executive of Network Rail.
Hannant and Payne have for many years operated a job-share, and before arriving at the DfT in December 2017 were joint Directors of Higher Education Reform at the Department for Education.
One does not have to be Dominic Cummings to reckon this is perhaps not the best way to run a railway. Many in the industry think so too.
But the paucity of deep expertise within the DfT, and its propensity to meddle counter-productively with such matters as the timetable, demonstrate the need for another body, or “neutral single guiding mind”, to be in overall charge.
We require what the press likes to call a Fat Controller, though one cannot help reflecting that the original Fat Controller’s safety record was poor.
The safety record of Britain’s railways has in recent years been good. Some of the credit for that belongs to Mark Carne, Chief Executive of Network Rail from 2014-18, whose previous career at Shell was coloured by the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988.
Nothing, evidently, must be done to put safety at risk. But just as it is no longer necessary to check the oil in a car by opening the bonnet and inspecting the dipstick, for there is a light on the dashboard which will tell you if more oil is needed, so it is no longer necessary for each train to be checked every 24 hours by a driver who walks all round it at ground level, on a path wide enough to keep out of the way of other trains, and well lit enough to be used at night.
The unions insist on this ritual, which has become a ridiculous waste of the highly paid driver’s time, and of taxpayers’ money. Like modern cars, modern trains tell you when something goes wrong.
In the era of nationalisation (1948-93) the railways appeared to be in inexorable decline, and the most famous figure associated with them was Dr Beeching, who proposed to close a third of the network, which is pretty much what happened.
Since privatisation, passenger numbers have doubled, the network has undergone many improvements, there is a lot of new rolling stock and some of the lines closed by Beeching are being reopened.
Lord Adonis has argued with his usual brio the case for doing this, while Larry Elliott has pointed out that without Beeching, which left so many towns cut off, Brexit might never have happened.
One of the great attractions of creating improved railway services is that this cause appeals far beyond the ranks of Conservatives.
Good railways, railways of which everyone can feel proud, are a quintessentially One Nation policy, levelling up in action, and the 2019 Conservative manifesto rightly promised that
“we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall that have suffered permanent disadvantage since they were removed from the rail network in the 1960s.”
There is now every prospect that passenger services between Ashington and Newcastle, lost in the 1960s, will soon be restored. The line runs through Blyth, long a Labour stronghold but captured by the Conservatives last December.
Ashington itself is in the constituency of Wansbeck, held last December by Ian Lavery for Labour with a majority of 814, compared to a majority of 10,435 in 2017. Perhaps the new line will help tip Lavery into oblivion.
Beeching was a blunder of Harold Macmillan’s later and less happy years as Prime Minister. It ought now to be undone, along with the destruction of the Euston Arch.
This cannot, however, become an excuse for wasting taxpayers’ money on “fantastically overpaid and inefficient” train drivers, as one source close to the reform committee describes them.
Nor does anyone know how quickly or fully the demand for rail travel will revive. The likelihood is that some commuters will decide they would rather work from home.
And there are many demands on the Treasury’s funds. Rishi Sunak will heed the calls of the NHS, social care and other good causes before he listens to the railways, especially if he thinks the latter are squandering taxpayers’ cash.
So a realistic deal has got to be made with the rail unions. The powers that be are disposed to allow existing drivers, who are mostly quite old, to retain their perks, but not to show the same indulgence to new recruits.


conservativehome--2020-11-28--Cardwell is loyal to May and Brokenshire, but does not tell us much about the Prime Minister’s peopl

Cardwell is loyal to May and Brokenshire, but does not tell us much about the Prime Minister’s people

The Secret Life of Special Advisers by Peter Cardwell When Peter Cardwell applied to Fiona Hill , Theresa May ’ s right-hand woman and in the summer of 2016 suddenly one of the most powerful people in Downing Street , to see if he could become a Special Adviser , he claims he possessed “ perhaps the most crucial quality – shamelessness ” .
He is wrong about that .
Hill took him on , and over the next three and a half years he worked as a SpAd for four different Cabinet ministers , before being summoned to Downing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ formally sacked ” by the Director of Communications , Lee Cain , who told him : “ The Prime Minister no long has confidence in your ability to do your job.
” Cardwell reflects that Boris Johnson is probably “ only vaguely aware of my existence ” .
He is amused that Robbie Gibb , Director of Communications during May ’ s last two years in office , had not many months before denounced a SpAd who had caused grave annoyance in Number Ten : Since this book was written , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and whether he will ever again set foot there can not be known .
The reason why Cardwell can not be called shameless is that he remains loyal to the losing side .
He is from Northern Ireland , a part of the United Kingdom where loyalty is a highly esteemed virtue .
Only on page 188 does he confirm that he is a Unionist , who has usually supported the Ulster Unionist Party , now eclipsed ( though he does not mention this ) by the Democratic Unionists .
Here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Happy birthday ” during the 2017 general election campaign : The sentiment is admirably unfashionable , but the tone is almost that of John Major .
Cardwell has a gaucheness which prevents him from being a good writer .
He is , however , a good friend , and forms a particular bond with James Brokenshire , the Cabinet minister for whom he works at the Northern Ireland Office and later at Housing .
Before become a SpAd , Cardwell had spent ten years in broadcast journalism , where at one point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Newsnight : There is nothing terrible about this admission .
Cardwell was right to reject Brokenshire as a guest , because Brokenshire is an astoundingly dull performer .
But once he is Brokenshire ’ s media SpAd , Cardwell becomes “ very prickly ” about attacks on his boss : By early 2019 , “ for Mayites such as James and me it was bleak ” .
In the summer of that year , Brokenshire arrives at a decision about the way ahead : On become Prime Minister , Johnson sacked Brokenshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back into government .
In the reshuffle of February 2020 , Brokenshire duly came back as Security Minister at the Home Office , so outside the Cabinet .
There is a faint echo in all this of Ferdinand Mount ’ s defence , in Cold Cream , of Selwyn Lloyd : “ He was used to being patronised .
He didn ’ t care .
He was proud of the things he was patronised for being .
“ His loyalty was what he was most praised for , but this too was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found loyalty a quality of limited value in their own lives .
He was loyal to Anthony Eden and never expressed any resentment that he had been led into a course of deceit by that vain , hysterical , serious-minded prima donna ( can you be a serious-minded prima donna ?
Yes , I think you can and Eden certainly was ) .
A few months before Eden married his second wife , the cool and witty Clarissa Churchill , Selwyn had been a guest at a house party given by John Wyndham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He had been horrified by the way everyone present had said how ghastly Eden was , while Selwyn stuck up loyally for his boss .
When the engagement was announced , the others desperately tried to cover their tracks , but Selwyn had no malicious words to swallow , ” In the Tory leadership contest of 1963 , Lloyd campaigned energetically and effectively for the surprise winner , Alec Douglas-Home , for he felt , in Mount ’ s words , that “ Home was the only one of them whose judgement was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in some future leadership contest , Brokenshire the patronised and disregarded man of government will play a similar role .
If one were contemplating a career as a special adviser , and did not already know what to expect , it would be worth glancing at this book .
There is plenty here about frenetic dealings with the media : nothing much about policy , which at the Northern Ireland Office was in the hands of the vastly more experienced Jonathan Caine .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret life ” of special advisers is overdoing it .
No great secrets are revealed .
Most of what happens is trivial , without being particularly amusing .
One gains a sense of the transitoriness of the role of adviser , for as Cardwell says , This is an inexperienced government , which cast aside the knowledge of how Westminster and Whitehall work which had been accumulated by its predecessors .
On arriving in Downing Street , David Cameron was surrounded by a group of professionals who had acquired , like him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Department – a point which escapes Cardwell in his brief and not very illuminating history of SpAds .
Johnson had no such group around him , pursued a daringly unconventional course and in December 2019 won a famous election victory .
Cardwell hails Dominic Cummings as “ a strategic genius ” , but does not have much to say about how all this happened .
For Cardwell belongs to the May interlude , a period about which nothing brilliant has yet been published .

The Secret Life of Special Advisers by Peter Cardwell
When Peter Cardwell applied to Fiona Hill, Theresa May’s right-hand woman and in the summer of 2016 suddenly one of the most powerful people in Downing Street, to see if he could become a Special Adviser, he claims he possessed “perhaps the most crucial quality – shamelessness”.
He is wrong about that. Hill took him on, and over the next three and a half years he worked as a SpAd for four different Cabinet ministers, before being summoned to Downing Street in February of this year to be “formally sacked” by the Director of Communications, Lee Cain, who told him: “The Prime Minister no long has confidence in your ability to do your job.”
Cardwell reflects that Boris Johnson is probably “only vaguely aware of my existence”. He is amused that Robbie Gibb, Director of Communications during May’s last two years in office, had not many months before denounced a SpAd who had caused grave annoyance in Number Ten:
“Someone who didn’t play the game. Someone who didn’t stick to the grid. Someone who didn’t keep us informed. Someone who will never set foot in this building again: Lee Cain.”
Since this book was written, Cain has once more left the building, and whether he will ever again set foot there cannot be known.
The reason why Cardwell cannot be called shameless is that he remains loyal to the losing side. He is from Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom where loyalty is a highly esteemed virtue.
Only on page 188 does he confirm that he is a Unionist, who has usually supported the Ulster Unionist Party, now eclipsed (though he does not mention this) by the Democratic Unionists.
Here is Cardwell after Theresa May has wished him “Happy birthday” during the 2017 general election campaign:
“It was a fun moment with a lovely woman, a true public servant and someone who I believe was an excellent Prime Minister despite very trying circumstances.”
The sentiment is admirably unfashionable, but the tone is almost that of John Major. Cardwell has a gaucheness which prevents him from being a good writer. He is, however, a good friend, and forms a particular bond with James Brokenshire, the Cabinet minister for whom he works at the Northern Ireland Office and later at Housing.
Before become a SpAd, Cardwell had spent ten years in broadcast journalism, where at one point Hill offered him Brokenshire as a guest on Newsnight:
“I have a terrible, terrible confession to make… I rejected the offer because I had never heard of him.”
There is nothing terrible about this admission. Cardwell was right to reject Brokenshire as a guest, because Brokenshire is an astoundingly dull performer.
But once he is Brokenshire’s media SpAd, Cardwell becomes “very prickly” about attacks on his boss:
“The press can be merciless, with one particularly poisonous description of James when he was Northern Ireland Secretary suggesting he had ‘the personality of a motorway service station car park’. Ouch. “The Daily Mail’s sketchwriter Quentin Letts was especially horrible about James. I will not repeat some of the nasty things he wrote in the Mail, but he tweeted in early 2017, ‘Secretary of State James Brokenshire in Northern Ireland today: not so much a statesman as an ink monitor’.”
By early 2019, “for Mayites such as James and me it was bleak”. In the summer of that year, Brokenshire arrives at a decision about the way ahead:
“James, after a lot of thinking and having consulted his three SpAds, had backed Boris for Conservative leader early in the campaign and wrote an excellent op-ed for the Mail on Sunday, although they published only extracts of it, which annoyed me greatly. To me, it needed to feel like a ‘moment’ when such a May loyalist backed Boris Johnson, and James’s drafted words, which he had sent me to review, were characteristically sincere.”
On become Prime Minister, Johnson sacked Brokenshire, but told him people did sometimes come back into government. In the reshuffle of February 2020, Brokenshire duly came back as Security Minister at the Home Office, so outside the Cabinet.
There is a faint echo in all this of Ferdinand Mount’s defence, in Cold Cream, of Selwyn Lloyd:
“He was used to being patronised. He didn’t care. He was proud of the things he was patronised for being. “His loyalty was what he was most praised for, but this too was a form of condescension from those who found loyalty a quality of limited value in their own lives. He was loyal to Anthony Eden and never expressed any resentment that he had been led into a course of deceit by that vain, hysterical, serious-minded prima donna (can you be a serious-minded prima donna? Yes, I think you can and Eden certainly was). A few months before Eden married his second wife, the cool and witty Clarissa Churchill, Selwyn had been a guest at a house party given by John Wyndham at Petworth, which included Clarissa. He had been horrified by the way everyone present had said how ghastly Eden was, while Selwyn stuck up loyally for his boss. When the engagement was announced, the others desperately tried to cover their tracks, but Selwyn had no malicious words to swallow,”
In the Tory leadership contest of 1963, Lloyd campaigned energetically and effectively for the surprise winner, Alec Douglas-Home, for he felt, in Mount’s words, that “Home was the only one of them whose judgement was not fatally poisoned by ambition”.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in some future leadership contest, Brokenshire the patronised and disregarded man of government will play a similar role.
If one were contemplating a career as a special adviser, and did not already know what to expect, it would be worth glancing at this book.
There is plenty here about frenetic dealings with the media: nothing much about policy, which at the Northern Ireland Office was in the hands of the vastly more experienced Jonathan Caine.
To say that this account reveals the “secret life” of special advisers is overdoing it. No great secrets are revealed. Most of what happens is trivial, without being particularly amusing.
One gains a sense of the transitoriness of the role of adviser, for as Cardwell says,
“SpAds are political mayflies, lasting on average less than two years in government… Apparently, at the time of my defenestration in February 2020 there were just ten of us, out of some 105 SpAds, who had more than two years’ experience. This was partly due to the fact that in the summer of 2019, when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, so many SpAds had left, taking with them much experience and expertise.”
This is an inexperienced government, which cast aside the knowledge of how Westminster and Whitehall work which had been accumulated by its predecessors.
On arriving in Downing Street, David Cameron was surrounded by a group of professionals who had acquired, like him, a mastery of technique in the Conservative Research Department – a point which escapes Cardwell in his brief and not very illuminating history of SpAds.
Johnson had no such group around him, pursued a daringly unconventional course and in December 2019 won a famous election victory. Cardwell hails Dominic Cummings as “a strategic genius”, but does not have much to say about how all this happened.
For Cardwell belongs to the May interlude, a period about which nothing brilliant has yet been published.


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Government must show Covid plans “workable” and “sufficient” – Nandy

Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy tells # Marr Labour isn ’ t convinced that the England tier system is “ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus https : //t.co/1hSKzcKyqk pic.twitter.com/HMxaWioSru

Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy tells #Marr Labour isn’t convinced that the England tier system is “sufficient or workable”#coronavirus https://t.co/1hSKzcKyqk pic.twitter.com/HMxaWioSru
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: ‘I am not worried about Javid taking my job,’ insists Raab

There ’ s been a lot of discussion of a government reshuffle – is @ DominicRaab worried @ sajidjavid might @ @ @ @ @ You have to look at who ’ s doing the talking up ” says the @ @ @ @ @ Sajid ’ s a great guy ” .
# Ridge https : //t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/qkMFHYMPPn

There’s been a lot of discussion of a government reshuffle – is @DominicRaab worried @sajidjavid might take his job?
“You have to look at who’s doing the talking up” says the Foreign Secretary but adds “Sajid’s a great guy”.#Ridge https://t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/qkMFHYMPPn
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Sturgeon says attainment gap in Scotland’s schools is closing

# Marr challenges Scotland ’ s First Minster Nicola Sturgeon on the SNP ’ s record on educationhttps : //t.co/1NLDg3oEUM @

#Marr challenges Scotland’s First Minster Nicola Sturgeon on the SNP’s record on educationhttps://t.co/1NLDg3oEUM pic.twitter.com/BiCkng7Nom
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Labour supports tiered system for Covid rules, says McMahon

Shadow Transport Secretary @ JimfromOldham : “ The principle is right… having an approach that is right for each region @ @ @ @ @ one.
” https : //t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/LeSTeHVthi

“Do you support the tiered system?” – #Ridge
Shadow Transport Secretary @JimfromOldham: “The principle is right… having an approach that is right for each region and sub-region is the right one.”https://t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/LeSTeHVthi
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Latham – “Businesses will go to the wall” if they can only open at Christmas

“ There are many hospitality businesses that have spent tens of thousands of pounds making themselves COVID secure and yet @ @ @ @ @ ” Tory @ Pauline_Latham says many businesses will not survive if they can only open @ @ @ @ @ # Ridge https : //t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/DUy073T23Z

“There are many hospitality businesses that have spent tens of thousands of pounds making themselves COVID secure and yet they can’t open.”
Tory @Pauline_Latham says many businesses will not survive if they can only open for five days at Christmas#Ridge https://t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/DUy073T23Z
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Scots should “stick at home” for Hogmanay – Swinney

“ I think all of us are very nervous about the Christmas period.
” Deputy First Minister for Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a sense of “ desperation ” for people to see their families , @ @ @ @ @ “ stick at home ” .
# Ridge https : //t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/lJkWjhC7bG

“I think all of us are very nervous about the Christmas period.”
Deputy First Minister for Scotland @JohnSwinney says he understands there’s a sense of “desperation” for people to see their families, but for Hogmanay Scots should “stick at home”.#Ridge https://t.co/3pjw6RucJ2 pic.twitter.com/lJkWjhC7bG
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--WATCH: Raab insists Government is working hard to avoid third national lockdown

# Marr : Will a third national lockdown happen if # coronavirus infection rates increase ?
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab @ @ @ @ @ everything we can to avoid that ” # Covid_19 https : //t.co/7fjcYASvZQ pic.twitter.com/k7kpI71HVt

#Marr: Will a third national lockdown happen if #coronavirus infection rates increase?
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab: “We are doing everything we can to avoid that”#Covid_19 https://t.co/7fjcYASvZQ pic.twitter.com/k7kpI71HVt
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-29--How our call for a cost-benefit analysis is contributing to Johnson’s Covid climbdown on lockdowns a

How our call for a cost-benefit analysis is contributing to Johnson’s Covid climbdown on lockdowns and tiers

This site first called for a Government breakdown of the economic and healthcare costs of lockdowns and restrictions on October 15 .
We knew well that such an assessment would complicate the debate on Coronavirus policy rather than clarify it .
Why ?
Because the dry figures that such a document would produce could only divide opinion further , since it would inevitably amplify public discussion about policy trade offs .
First , think about what might be called lives v lives .
Should the Government prioritise minimising deaths from Covid-19 at the expense of deaths from other illnesses – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or heart disease , or lung tumours ?
For such was the consequence of the NHS effectively closing its doors during the first lockdown last spring to the treatment of other conditions .
And if so , to what degree ?
Next , move on to lives v livelihoods .
If the ratio of saving a life from Covid , through lockdowns and restrictions , to losing a job is , say , one to a thousand ( the figure is purely illustrative ) , is the exercise worth it ?
If not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever ?
Now seek to apply the same calculation to incidences of domestic abuse , mental health damage , lost education opportunities , and so on .
How can all these be measured ?
Now for some other considerations .
Take the consequences for civil liberties of restrictions and lockdowns .
Jonathan Sumption , the former Supreme Court judge , has written that the state “ has taken effective legal control , enforced by the police , over the personal lives of the entire population : where they could go , whom they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even within their own homes ” .
Did saving lives from Covid-19 justify these measures ?
If not , might it do so at lower number ?
We have so far only cited deaths .
But what about the damage caused by “ Long Covid ” ?
Or for that matter “ long deaths ” – brought about by worsened poverty , or healthcare elsewhere ?
What about the Government ’ s argument that minimising the virus is not an alternative to saving lives elswhere , but a condition of it – since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be able to treat others ?
Essentially , all this is the realm of value judgements – exactly what Ministers and MPs in other contexts have become increasingly wary of making , palming off such difficult decisions to the courts .
Consider , for example , the way in which Parliament created a mass of protected characteristics in the Equality Act…without simultaenously declaring which had primacy over others .
So why did we want to stir up such a hornets ’ nest ?
For the simple reason that public discussion outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countering Covid-19 : on Government websites ; in the coverage of the state broadcaster ; in mainstream media elsewhere .
It needed to be wrenched away , and then widened and deepened .
For without such a broader discussion , rational debate would become impossible .
And although making those value judgements is hard , it isn ’ t impossible .
Indeed , it is already done .
The NICE and other government bodies already deploy the concept of “ quality adjusted life years ” – “ a measure of the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the benefits , in terms of length of life , are adjusted to reflect the quality of life ” .
Graham Brady , Mel Stride , Steve Baker , Daniel Hannan and others all saw the point – writing on this site in support of a cost-benefit analysis .
The trickle of calls for one gradually became a flood .
And now we read in today ’ s papers that the Government is about to surrender its position on the tiering system .
We wrote on Friday that regular votes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now apparently ready to concede them .
Ministers gave way on the cost-benefit analysis late last week , having sought to obfuscate the issue for almost six weeks .
One account reports a Treasury source saying now that : “ we aren ’ t going to sugar-coat things.
” This morning , the Government ’ s position looks chaotic , with Michael Gove out and about in The Times yesterday , making a passionate case for the present tiering arrangements…and this morning ’ s media indicating that these may be gone by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate , the fight over the cost-benefit analysis was one worth having .

This site first called for a Government breakdown of the economic and healthcare costs of lockdowns and restrictions on October 15. We knew well that such an assessment would complicate the debate on Coronavirus policy rather than clarify it.
Why? Because the dry figures that such a document would produce could only divide opinion further, since it would inevitably amplify public discussion about policy trade offs.
First, think about what might be called lives v lives.
Should the Government prioritise minimising deaths from Covid-19 at the expense of deaths from other illnesses – for example, from prostate cancer, or heart disease, or lung tumours? For such was the consequence of the NHS effectively closing its doors during the first lockdown last spring to the treatment of other conditions. And if so, to what degree?
Next, move on to lives v livelihoods.
If the ratio of saving a life from Covid, through lockdowns and restrictions, to losing a job is, say, one to a thousand (the figure is purely illustrative), is the exercise worth it? If not, when might it be, if ever? Now seek to apply the same calculation to incidences of domestic abuse, mental health damage, lost education opportunities, and so on. How can all these be measured?
Now for some other considerations.
Take the consequences for civil liberties of restrictions and lockdowns. Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, has written that the state “has taken effective legal control, enforced by the police, over the personal lives of the entire population: where they could go, whom they could meet, what they could do even within their own homes”. Did saving lives from Covid-19 justify these measures? If not, might it do so at lower number?
Finally, some cross-currents.
We have so far only cited deaths. But what about the damage caused by “Long Covid”? Or for that matter “long deaths” – brought about by worsened poverty, or healthcare elsewhere? What about the Government’s argument that minimising the virus is not an alternative to saving lives elswhere, but a condition of it – since hospitals overwhelmed by Coronavirus patients won’t be able to treat others?
Essentially, all this is the realm of value judgements – exactly what Ministers and MPs in other contexts have become increasingly wary of making, palming off such difficult decisions to the courts. Consider, for example, the way in which Parliament created a mass of protected characteristics in the Equality Act…without simultaenously declaring which had primacy over others.
So why did we want to stir up such a hornets’ nest?
For the simple reason that public discussion outside the right-wing press was almost entirely focused on countering Covid-19: on Government websites; in the coverage of the state broadcaster; in mainstream media elsewhere. It needed to be wrenched away, and then widened and deepened. For without such a broader discussion, rational debate would become impossible.
And although making those value judgements is hard, it isn’t impossible. Indeed, it is already done. The NICE and other government bodies already deploy the concept of “quality adjusted life years” – “a measure of the state of health of a person or group in which the benefits, in terms of length of life, are adjusted to reflect the quality of life”.
Graham Brady, Mel Stride, Steve Baker, Daniel Hannan and others all saw the point – writing on this site in support of a cost-benefit analysis. The trickle of calls for one gradually became a flood. And now we read in today’s papers that the Government is about to surrender its position on the tiering system.
We wrote on Friday that regular votes on the tiering plan are necessary. Boris Johnson is now apparently ready to concede them. Ministers gave way on the cost-benefit analysis late last week, having sought to obfuscate the issue for almost six weeks. One account reports a Treasury source saying now that: “we aren’t going to sugar-coat things.”
This morning, the Government’s position looks chaotic, with Michael Gove out and about in The Times yesterday, making a passionate case for the present tiering arrangements…and this morning’s media indicating that these may be gone by the end of February. At any rate, the fight over the cost-benefit analysis was one worth having.


conservativehome--2020-11-30--Howard Flight: Sunak’s Keynesian interventions are working. Here’s what the Treasury should consider

Howard Flight: Sunak’s Keynesian interventions are working. Here’s what the Treasury should consider next.

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
Western Governments continued “ Keynesian ” deficit spending in the 1950s/60s and 70s , long after western economies had recovered from the 1930s depression when they needed the economic stimulants .
As a result , the unnecessary public spending caused inflation and damaged Keynes ’ reputation .
We are , however , now back to a depression economy which needs the sort of deficit public spending Keynes advocated and implemented in the 1920s and 1930s depression .
To give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move to provide Keynesian stimulus to keep businesses and employees “ alive ” , as the pandemic hit .
The biggest area of deficit spending has been in the retail and related sectors : here are the largest number of jobs/employees and some 55 per cent of the economy .
I would hope the Treasury has researched which areas of expenditure have the largest spending multiplier effects .
Logically , these should be the first areas in which to increase public spending .
In a different context , infrastructure spending is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending .
Such infrastructure spending has a good economic multiplier and also represents an investment for the future .
With an economic explosion of the size we have experienced this can also help provide the stimulus for major longer-term changes in capital and consumption spending .
Arguably the NHS could do with major changes of the management .
There also needs to be a thorough review of our energy policies .
Is it the right thing to do to for the future to accelerate the supply of offshore wind and solar power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hydrogen cars ; or would such a major shift be risky in terms of being able to assure the supply of the new sources of needed energy ?
We also need to investigate what changes in our economy are going to remain , versus where , in due course , we will broadly revert to previous patterns of behaviour .
It does , however , look very probable that much more work will be done from home , reducing travel costs and travel times .
This must have implications for the volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed , which will likely reduce .
It should also mean pricewise that good quality/suburban residential properties will outperform city centres , pricewise ; although it remains to be seen how much residential housing demand and prices will actually weaken in central London .
Where people live will also affect where more or fewer schools are needed ; the implication is less in city centres and more in country/suburban areas .
Thorough and intelligent research is needed to expose such changes in behaviour consumption and habits , which are likely to stick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to find ourselves building more schools where there is not an increase in pupil demand or increasing electricity power supplies where power demand is reducing .
I think it would be useful to draw up a “ picture/inventory ” forecasting how economies will look in the future versus how they were before the pandemic hit .
As time passes the previous estimates of how economies will change can be compared with what happens .
Largely owing to the Chancellor ’ s timely Keynesian interventions the economy , and in particular , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have held up remarkably well .
It will , however , only be time to turn down and then turn off the Keynesian spending taps when there is the evidence of major economic recovery actually occurring .
On the positive side there is the scope to implement changes to our economy and economic behaviour which support an increase in future economic growth rates .
A friend of mine produced an analysis a few years ago which showed that most of our economic output in terms of value depended on the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population .
Investigation of this sort of information need to be undertaken in earnest .
The significant majority of the nation is under contributing to the economy ’ s performance .
This needs to be addressed in earnest .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Western Governments continued “Keynesian” deficit spending in the 1950s/60s and 70s, long after western economies had recovered from the 1930s depression when they needed the economic stimulants. As a result, the unnecessary public spending caused inflation and damaged Keynes’ reputation.
We are, however, now back to a depression economy which needs the sort of deficit public spending Keynes advocated and implemented in the 1920s and 1930s depression. To give him credit, the Chancellor was quick to move to provide Keynesian stimulus to keep businesses and employees “alive”, as the pandemic hit.
The biggest area of deficit spending has been in the retail and related sectors: here are the largest number of jobs/employees and some 55 per cent of the economy.
I would hope the Treasury has researched which areas of expenditure have the largest spending multiplier effects. Logically, these should be the first areas in which to increase public spending.
In a different context, infrastructure spending is the second area in which to boost public spending. Such infrastructure spending has a good economic multiplier and also represents an investment for the future.
With an economic explosion of the size we have experienced this can also help provide the stimulus for major longer-term changes in capital and consumption spending.
Arguably the NHS could do with major changes of the management. There also needs to be a thorough review of our energy policies. Is it the right thing to do to for the future to accelerate the supply of offshore wind and solar power and to move to a majority of electric and hydrogen cars; or would such a major shift be risky in terms of being able to assure the supply of the new sources of needed energy?
We also need to investigate what changes in our economy are going to remain, versus where, in due course, we will broadly revert to previous patterns of behaviour. It does, however, look very probable that much more work will be done from home, reducing travel costs and travel times. This must have implications for the volume of road, rail and hotel facilities needed, which will likely reduce.
It should also mean pricewise that good quality/suburban residential properties will outperform city centres, pricewise; although it remains to be seen how much residential housing demand and prices will actually weaken in central London. Where people live will also affect where more or fewer schools are needed; the implication is less in city centres and more in country/suburban areas. Thorough and intelligent research is needed to expose such changes in behaviour consumption and habits, which are likely to stick, and the contrary.
We do not want to find ourselves building more schools where there is not an increase in pupil demand or increasing electricity power supplies where power demand is reducing.
I think it would be useful to draw up a “picture/inventory” forecasting how economies will look in the future versus how they were before the pandemic hit. As time passes the previous estimates of how economies will change can be compared with what happens.
Largely owing to the Chancellor’s timely Keynesian interventions the economy, and in particular, the state of individual’s economic affairs, have held up remarkably well. It will, however, only be time to turn down and then turn off the Keynesian spending taps when there is the evidence of major economic recovery actually occurring.
On the positive side there is the scope to implement changes to our economy and economic behaviour which support an increase in future economic growth rates.
A friend of mine produced an analysis a few years ago which showed that most of our economic output in terms of value depended on the work of some 18 per cent only of the population. Investigation of this sort of information need to be undertaken in earnest. The significant majority of the nation is under contributing to the economy’s performance. This needs to be addressed in earnest.


conservativehome--2020-11-30--Ending rough sleeping is for all twelve months – not just for Christmas

ConservativeHome recently ran a series on this site with the Centre for Social Justice .
It consisted of an article a day about one of “ five giants ” : modern equivalents of Beveridge ’ s Want , Squalor , Idleness , Ignorance and Disease .
These were : worklessness , educational underachievement , mental health , homelessness , and serious personal debt ( plus , for the Saturday article , domestic abuse ) .
None of these giants is easy to slay , but the Government is committed to ending one of them – or , to be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them : rough sleeping .
The Conservative Manifesto declares that “ we will…end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament by expanding successful pilots and programmes such as the Rough Sleeping Initiative and Housing First , and working to bring together local services to meet the health and housing needs of people sleeping on the streets ” .
The Government has come very close to doing so already – but in circumstances so peculiar and temporary as to cast light on how the pledge might be fulfilled during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , of course , those of the original Coronavirus lockdown , during which Ministers applied an “ Everyone In ” strategy to get rough sleepers off the streets and lessen the risk of them catching Covid-19 .
In his article for us as part of the series , Brooks Newmark reported that this required finding accommodation for 30,000 rough sleepers and sofa surfers within the space of a few weeks .
The task might have been impossible in normal times ( at least without requisitioning property ) , but in that exceptional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : in hotels and hostels closed for business under the shutdown rules .
But Brooks ’ figures from London suggested that the number of rough sleepers across England is now heading back to pre-original lockdown levels .
Overall , Government statistics show that these climbed from 1,768 sleeping rough on a single night in 2010 to a peak of 4,751 in 2017 , declining to 4,266 last autumn .
For reference , “ people sleeping rough are defined as those sleeping or about to bed down in open air locations and other places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So those figures do not include people in hostels or shelters , sofa surfers , squatter or traveller campsites , or “ those in recreational or organised protest ” .
Part of the reason for the drop during the last two years will have been one of Theresa May ’ s first initiatives as Prime Minister – a £40 million programme to tackle homelessness .
Another aspect will have been Bob Blackman ’ s Homelessness Reduction Act , which placed new duties on local authorities in England to prevent and relieve homelessness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this up with a Rough Sleeping Strategy in August 2018 and a delivery plan in December 2018 , with £100 million in funding committed for two years .
The twin pillars of the Government ’ s plan are the Next Steps Accommodation and Housing First programmes .
The first is concentrated on property ; the second on people .
Next Steps Accommodation Programme has £91.5 million set aside for temporary accommodation and £150 million for 3,300 homes .
Housing First is being trialled in Liverpool , Greater Manchester and the West Midlands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is undertaking an independent review .
At its core is the provision of a stable home and personalised support “ to homeless people with multiple and complex needs ” .
As the House of Commons Library notes , “ a disproportionate number of rough sleepers have experienced institutional life , such as being in local authority care , prison or the armed forces ” .
A London analysis by CHAIN found that 50 per cent of those assessed were in need of support for their mental health , 42 per cent for alcohol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug dependency .
The Centre for Social Justice recommended in a 2017 report , Housing First , that the Housing First programme be scaled up to £110 million a year over the course of a Parliament .
The Conservative Manifesto pledge looks deliverable , but that price tag poses the first of several questions about whether it actually will be .
£110 million a year is the best part of half a billion pounds over the course of a Parliament .
Where will that money come from , as the deficit soars towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year ?
The CSJ ’ s answer is that such a total shows you only what the taxpayer puts in rather what he also gets back , in the savings that follow once a homeless person is off the street , off hard drugs , in a home – and working .
So it is that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated in the Centre for Social Justice ’ s Report that there was a saving to the Government of £2.40 for every £1.00 spent as part of Housing First .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Treasury always wants not to spend now at a time of retrenchment ( and usually at other times too ) .
Mind you , the Chancellor was not exactly in penny-pinching mode in his recent Spending Review statement , announcing that Government spending will rise at its fastest rate for 15 years .
So if the dash for growth on which he appears to be set succeeds , he might well be able to meet that CSJ total .
If it doesn ’ t , he certainly won ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that target of abolishing rough sleeping , concentrated roughly in the areas of work , housing itself and elibigibility .
On work , Harry Phibbs has quoted the Government ’ s homelessness adviser , Jeremy Swain , as follows : “ what we need to be doing , as well as getting people into housing , is to get people into work .
And that is what they are wanting ” .
The economic background against which to do so could scarcely be more challenging , with mass unemployment back for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
The Government could encourage and incentivise employers to take on homeless people , but that would risk protests from other people , many on low incomes , who are also seeking jobs .
The same consideration applies to housing , where one of the five proposals from the voluntary sector is enabling rapid access to both secure private and social rent tenancies .
Which would mean guidance to social housing providers stating that they should prioritise people facing homelessness .
Pushing one group further up a queue means pulling another lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a queue – since the supply of housing is necessarily limited .
Then there is welfare eligibility .
The voluntary sector wants a temporary suspension of both the no recourse to public funds conditions for 12 months , and a suspension of the habitual residence test .
This reflects the fact that , according to the Government ’ s figures , 26 per cent of rough sleepers last year were non-UK nationals , with a further ten per cent being of unknown national origin .
Advent began yesterday , December 1 falls tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a run of newspaper features , like this one , about rough sleeping .
But the Government is unlikely to fulfill its manifesto pledge unless voters maintain that level of interest all year round .
Because it can be done , but only by prioritising that promise .
And Ministers would need public backing to do that .

ConservativeHome recently ran a series on this site with the Centre for Social Justice. It consisted of an article a day about one of “five giants”: modern equivalents of Beveridge’s Want, Squalor, Idleness, Ignorance and Disease.
These were: worklessness, educational underachievement, mental health, homelessness, and serious personal debt (plus, for the Saturday article, domestic abuse).
None of these giants is easy to slay, but the Government is committed to ending one of them – or, to be more precise, an aspect of one of them: rough sleeping.
The Conservative Manifesto declares that “we will…end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament by expanding successful pilots and programmes such as the Rough Sleeping Initiative and Housing First, and working to bring together local services to meet the health and housing needs of people sleeping on the streets”.
The Government has come very close to doing so already – but in circumstances so peculiar and temporary as to cast light on how the pledge might be fulfilled during the rest of this Parliament.
These were, of course, those of the original Coronavirus lockdown, during which Ministers applied an “Everyone In” strategy to get rough sleepers off the streets and lessen the risk of them catching Covid-19.
In his article for us as part of the series, Brooks Newmark reported that this required finding accommodation for 30,000 rough sleepers and sofa surfers within the space of a few weeks.
The task might have been impossible in normal times (at least without requisitioning property), but in that exceptional one there were the spaces to hand: in hotels and hostels closed for business under the shutdown rules.
But Brooks’ figures from London suggested that the number of rough sleepers across England is now heading back to pre-original lockdown levels.
Overall, Government statistics show that these climbed from 1,768 sleeping rough on a single night in 2010 to a peak of 4,751 in 2017, declining to 4,266 last autumn.
For reference, “people sleeping rough are defined as those sleeping or about to bed down in open air locations and other places including tents and make-shift shelters”.
So those figures do not include people in hostels or shelters, sofa surfers, squatter or traveller campsites, or “those in recreational or organised protest”.
Part of the reason for the drop during the last two years will have been one of Theresa May’s first initiatives as Prime Minister – a £40 million programme to tackle homelessness.
Another aspect will have been Bob Blackman’s Homelessness Reduction Act, which placed new duties on local authorities in England to prevent and relieve homelessness.
The May and Boris Johnson governments followed all this up with a Rough Sleeping Strategy in August 2018 and a delivery plan in December 2018, with £100 million in funding committed for two years.
The twin pillars of the Government’s plan are the Next Steps Accommodation and Housing First programmes. The first is concentrated on property; the second on people.
Next Steps Accommodation Programme has £91.5 million set aside for temporary accommodation and £150 million for 3,300 homes.
Housing First is being trialled in Liverpool, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, and the All Party Parliamentary Group is undertaking an independent review.
At its core is the provision of a stable home and personalised support “to homeless people with multiple and complex needs”.
As the House of Commons Library notes, “a disproportionate number of rough sleepers have experienced institutional life, such as being in local authority care, prison or the armed forces”.
A London analysis by CHAIN found that 50 per cent of those assessed were in need of support for their mental health, 42 per cent for alcohol dependency, and 41 per cent for drug dependency.
The Centre for Social Justice recommended in a 2017 report, Housing First, that the Housing First programme be scaled up to £110 million a year over the course of a Parliament.
The Conservative Manifesto pledge looks deliverable, but that price tag poses the first of several questions about whether it actually will be.
£110 million a year is the best part of half a billion pounds over the course of a Parliament. Where will that money come from, as the deficit soars towards an estimated 19 per cent of GDP this year?
The CSJ’s answer is that such a total shows you only what the taxpayer puts in rather what he also gets back, in the savings that follow once a homeless person is off the street, off hard drugs, in a home – and working.
So it is that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated in the Centre for Social Justice’s Report that there was a saving to the Government of £2.40 for every £1.00 spent as part of Housing First.
However, the saving inevitably follows the spending, and the Treasury always wants not to spend now at a time of retrenchment (and usually at other times too).
Mind you, the Chancellor was not exactly in penny-pinching mode in his recent Spending Review statement, announcing that Government spending will rise at its fastest rate for 15 years.
So if the dash for growth on which he appears to be set succeeds, he might well be able to meet that CSJ total. If it doesn’t, he certainly won’t.
But there are other problems in achieving that target of abolishing rough sleeping, concentrated roughly in the areas of work, housing itself and elibigibility.
On work, Harry Phibbs has quoted the Government’s homelessness adviser, Jeremy Swain, as follows: “what we need to be doing, as well as getting people into housing, is to get people into work. And that is what they are wanting”.
The economic background against which to do so could scarcely be more challenging, with mass unemployment back for the first time in the best part of 30 years.
The Government could encourage and incentivise employers to take on homeless people, but that would risk protests from other people, many on low incomes, who are also seeking jobs.
The same consideration applies to housing, where one of the five proposals from the voluntary sector is enabling rapid access to both secure private and social rent tenancies.
Which would mean guidance to social housing providers stating that they should prioritise people facing homelessness. Pushing one group further up a queue means pulling another lower down.
And there will always be a queue – since the supply of housing is necessarily limited. Then there is welfare eligibility. The voluntary sector wants a temporary suspension of both the no recourse to public funds conditions for 12 months, and a suspension of the habitual residence test.
This reflects the fact that, according to the Government’s figures, 26 per cent of rough sleepers last year were non-UK nationals, with a further ten per cent being of unknown national origin.
Advent began yesterday, December 1 falls tomorrow, and the pre-Christmas season always sees a run of newspaper features, like this one, about rough sleeping.
But the Government is unlikely to fulfill its manifesto pledge unless voters maintain that level of interest all year round. Because it can be done, but only by prioritising that promise. And Ministers would need public backing to do that.