conservativehome--2020-02-09--Rudd and the reshuffle. Not the best woman to make the case for women

The thrust of Amber Rudd ’ s argument in today ’ s Sunday Times about women and government is right .
For example , Therese Coffey has been Work and Pensions Secretary for a day over five months .
This is not long enough for Boris Johnson to assess whether or not she is capable of running a department .
Yet Coffey is rumoured to be for the chop in this week ’ s reshuffle .
So is almost every other female Cabinet Minister .
Which has stirred Rudd into writing in protest .
Then again , linger on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that last paragraph .
Boris Johnson is always secretive and often indecisive – or , rather , he will chew over a decision , as sailors once chewed tobacco , before intuiting it one way or the other .
For this reason , almost everything you are reading about the coming shuffle is rumour – no more , no less .
For example , the Sunday Times says that Geoffrey Cox is “ understood to be preparing for a return to the bar ” …where his earnings as a a barrister outstripped those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sunday Telegraph reports that he is “ desperate to hang on to his job ” .
The Prime Minister will make his decisions today at Chequers and maybe tomorrow or even later .
No-one will be “ in the room ” – other than Carrie Symonds , and maybe not even her .
We will write more about all this in due course , but go back in the meantime to Coffey , and Rudd ’ s article .
If Rudd wants to sound off , fine .
But she must know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person to influence Boris Johnson as he ponders his plans .
In 2018 , she resigned as Home Secretary after misleading the Home and Pensions Select Committee on deportation targets .
True , the error was unintentional .
And she may not have been well served by her civil servants .
But ultimately Ministers are responsible for their departments , and are paid to be on top of their brief .
Johnson then brought her back as Work and Pensions Secretary , roughly two and a half years later .
She resigned from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I no longer believe that leaving with a deal is the Government ’ s main objective ” .
This was singularly ungrateful .
More importantly , it was wrong .
The Prime Minister always wanted a deal with the EU .
Which is why he got one the very next month .
Rudd had succummed to Johnson Derangement Syndrome .
She also resigned the whip .
If she believed that the Conservatives would lose her Hastings and Rye seat in a forthcoming general election , she was mistaken about that , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by over four thousand votes .
So Rudd could , like Greg Clark and Steve Brine , have made her peace with the Government , regained the whip and then , almost certainly , get re-elected to Parliament .
She would thus have been a reasonable position to lobby for her successor at Work and Pensions .
Instead , she has no seat , let alone a Ministerial post – and is wretchedly placed to do Coffey any good .
Or anyone else .
ConHome will return to the shuffle tomorrow .

The thrust of Amber Rudd’s argument in today’s Sunday Times about women and government is right. For example, Therese Coffey has been Work and Pensions Secretary for a day over five months. This is not long enough for Boris Johnson to assess whether or not she is capable of running a department.
Yet Coffey is rumoured to be for the chop in this week’s reshuffle. So is almost every other female Cabinet Minister. Which has stirred Rudd into writing in protest.
Then again, linger on the fourth word in the first sentence of that last paragraph. Boris Johnson is always secretive and often indecisive – or, rather, he will chew over a decision, as sailors once chewed tobacco, before intuiting it one way or the other.
For this reason, almost everything you are reading about the coming shuffle is rumour – no more, no less. For example, the Sunday Times says that Geoffrey Cox is “understood to be preparing for a return to the bar”…where his earnings as a a barrister outstripped those of all other MPs”. But the Sunday Telegraph reports that he is “desperate to hang on to his job”.
The Prime Minister will make his decisions today at Chequers and maybe tomorrow or even later. No-one will be “in the room” – other than Carrie Symonds, and maybe not even her. We will write more about all this in due course, but go back in the meantime to Coffey, and Rudd’s article.
If Rudd wants to sound off, fine. But she must know that she is just about the last person to influence Boris Johnson as he ponders his plans. In 2018, she resigned as Home Secretary after misleading the Home and Pensions Select Committee on deportation targets.
True, the error was unintentional. And she may not have been well served by her civil servants. But ultimately Ministers are responsible for their departments, and are paid to be on top of their brief.
Johnson then brought her back as Work and Pensions Secretary, roughly two and a half years later. She resigned from the Government last September, claiming that “I no longer believe that leaving with a deal is the Government’s main objective”.
This was singularly ungrateful. More importantly, it was wrong. The Prime Minister always wanted a deal with the EU. Which is why he got one the very next month. Rudd had succummed to Johnson Derangement Syndrome.
She also resigned the whip. If she believed that the Conservatives would lose her Hastings and Rye seat in a forthcoming general election, she was mistaken about that, too. Sally-Ann Hart held it in December by over four thousand votes.
So Rudd could, like Greg Clark and Steve Brine, have made her peace with the Government, regained the whip and then, almost certainly, get re-elected to Parliament.
She would thus have been a reasonable position to lobby for her successor at Work and Pensions. Instead, she has no seat, let alone a Ministerial post – and is wretchedly placed to do Coffey any good. Or anyone else. ConHome will return to the shuffle tomorrow.


conservativehome--2020-02-08--Local elections 2020: Holding the mayoralties in the Tees Valley and the West Midlands will be key C

Local elections 2020: Holding the mayoralties in the Tees Valley and the West Midlands will be key Conservative challenges

On Thursday May 7th , for most of us , there will be yet more elections .
Police and Crime Commissioner elections are being held in England and Wales .
Most of England will also be having Mayoral or council elections of one sort or another .
I expect that when the results are extrapolated to offer a national political verdict , it will focus on an early test for the new Labour leader , who will have been elected just over a month earlier , on April 4th .
Most of the seats were last contested in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ made slight losses .
The projected national vote share was Labour 31 per cent , Conservatives 30 per cent , Lib Dems 15 per cent , UKIP 12 per cent .
But two of the highest profile contests last took place in 2017 .
The local elections that year went very well for the Conservatives , even though the General Election that followed was rather disappointing .
The projected national vote share for the 2017 local elections was 38 per cent for the Conservatives , 27 per cent for Labour , 18 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five per cent for UKIP , with others on around 12 per cent .
Ben Houchen was elected the Mayor of the Tees Valley Combined Authority .
Andy Street was elected Mayor of the West Midlands .
Both these Conservative victories were very narrow .
But it was pretty spectacular that they happened at all .
That does set the bar high , as losing either , or both , would be presented as a “ setback for Boris Johnson ” .
So the expectations are challenging for those contests .
Another election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Mayor of Greater Manchester .
Andy Burnham , the Labour candidate , won last time with a very big majority .
Though the Conservatives made gains in Bury and Bolton in the General Election last December , it would be a huge upset for Burnham to lose .
The most high profile battle will be for Mayor of London – as I have written before Sadiq Khan is expected to win easily despite a lacklustre first term and the election having last taken place in 2016 .
The full list of Mayoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police and Crime Commissioner elections last took place in 2016 .
Labour only narrowly won in Cheshire and Derbyshire .
Lincolnshire was a fairly close Labour victory .
So those will be potential Conservative gains .
Contests will take place in the following areas : It is in the elections for metropolitan boroughs where Labour have most to lose if the last General Election is an indication .
Rotherham and Salford have all their seats up for election .
In the following , a third of the seats are due to be contested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following have all their seats up for election : These unitary authorities have a third of their seats up for election : Attention tends to focus on where control of a council changes hands ; when only a third of seats are being contested the potential for this is more limited .
Labour might do very badly in Sandwell , Wakefield and Wolverhampton – but it is mathematically impossible for them to lose control of the Council this year .
But the changes could still be of long term political significance .
Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have all their seats up for election .
The following have half their seats up for election this year : These district councils have a third of their seats up for election : In the local election last year , it was rather a relief for the Conservatives that so many councils elect by thirds .
The question will be if the big losses to independents and the Lib Dems will be repeated .
A lot can change over three months .
But it seems hard to believe that a new leader will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will be defending council seats in several of the areas where they performed very poorly at the General Election .
So at this stage , it looks likely that Labour will face yet further setbacks .

On Thursday May 7th, for most of us, there will be yet more elections. Police and Crime Commissioner elections are being held in England and Wales. Most of England will also be having Mayoral or council elections of one sort or another. I expect that when the results are extrapolated to offer a national political verdict, it will focus on an early test for the new Labour leader, who will have been elected just over a month earlier, on April 4th.
Most of the seats were last contested in 2016. That was a year when the Conservatives made slight losses. The projected national vote share was Labour 31 per cent, Conservatives 30 per cent, Lib Dems 15 per cent, UKIP 12 per cent.
But two of the highest profile contests last took place in 2017. The local elections that year went very well for the Conservatives, even though the General Election that followed was rather disappointing. The projected national vote share for the 2017 local elections was 38 per cent for the Conservatives, 27 per cent for Labour, 18 per cent for the Liberal Democrats, and five per cent for UKIP, with others on around 12 per cent. Ben Houchen was elected the Mayor of the Tees Valley Combined Authority. Andy Street was elected Mayor of the West Midlands. Both these Conservative victories were very narrow. But it was pretty spectacular that they happened at all. That does set the bar high, as losing either, or both, would be presented as a “setback for Boris Johnson”. So the expectations are challenging for those contests. Another election that last took place in 2017 was for Mayor of Greater Manchester. Andy Burnham, the Labour candidate, won last time with a very big majority. Though the Conservatives made gains in Bury and Bolton in the General Election last December, it would be a huge upset for Burnham to lose.
The most high profile battle will be for Mayor of London – as I have written before Sadiq Khan is expected to win easily despite a lacklustre first term and the election having last taken place in 2016.
The full list of Mayoral elections this year is as follows:
Mayor of London (and London Assembly)
Greater Manchester (combined authority)
Liverpool City Region (combined authority)
Tees Valley (combined authority)
West Midlands (combined authority)
Bristol (single authority)
Liverpool (single authority)
Salford (single authority)
Police and Crime Commissioner elections last took place in 2016. Labour only narrowly won in Cheshire and Derbyshire. Lincolnshire was a fairly close Labour victory. So those will be potential Conservative gains. Contests will take place in the following areas:
Avon and Somerset
Cheshire
Derbyshire
Devon & Cornwall
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Gwent
Hampshire
Humberside
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Merseyside
Northamptonshire
North Yorkshire
South Wales
Staffordshire
Surrey
Sussex
Thames Valley
West Mercia
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Wiltshire
It is in the elections for metropolitan boroughs where Labour have most to lose if the last General Election is an indication. Rotherham and Salford have all their seats up for election. In the following, a third of the seats are due to be contested:
Barnsley
Bolton
Bradford
Bury
Calderdale
Coventry
Dudley
Gateshead
Kirklees
Knowsley
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
Newcastle upon Tyne
North Tyneside
Oldham
Rochdale
Sandwell
Sefton
Sheffield
Solihull
South Tyneside
St Helens
Stockport
Sunderland
Tameside
Trafford
Wakefield
Walsall
Wigan
Wirral
Wolverhampton
Among the unitary authorities, the following have all their seats up for election:
Bristol
Buckinghamshire ( a new council)
Halton
Hartlepool
North Northamptonshire (a new council)
West Northamptonshire ( a new council)
Warrington
These unitary authorities have a third of their seats up for election:
Blackburn with Darwen
Derby
Hull
Milton Keynes
North East Lincolnshire
Peterborough
Plymouth
Portsmouth
Reading
Slough
Southampton
Southend-on-Sea
Swindon
Thurrock
Wokingham
Attention tends to focus on where control of a council changes hands; when only a third of seats are being contested the potential for this is more limited. Labour might do very badly in Sandwell, Wakefield and Wolverhampton – but it is mathematically impossible for them to lose control of the Council this year. But the changes could still be of long term political significance.
Among the district councils, Gloucester and Stroud have all their seats up for election.
The following have half their seats up for election this year:
Adur
Cheltenham
Fareham
Gosport
Hastings
Nuneaton and Bedworth
Oxford
These district councils have a third of their seats up for election:
Amber Valley
Basildon
Basingstoke and Deane
Brentwood
Broxbourne
Burnley
Cambridge
Cannock Chase
Carlisle
Castle Point
Cherwell
Chorley
Colchester
Craven
Crawley
Daventry (postponed in 2019 pending reorganisation in Northamptonshire)
Eastleigh
Elmbridge
Epping Forest
Exeter
Harlow
Hart
Havant
Hyndburn
Ipswich
Lincoln
Maidstone
Mole Valley
North Hertfordshire
Norwich
Pendle
Preston
Redditch
Reigate and Banstead
Rochford
Rossendale
Rugby
Runnymede
Rushmoor
South Lakeland
St Albans
Stevenage
Tamworth
Tandridge
Three Rivers
Tunbridge Wells
Watford
Welwyn Hatfield
West Lancashire
West Oxfordshire
Winchester
Woking
Worcester
Worthing
In the local election last year, it was rather a relief for the Conservatives that so many councils elect by thirds. The question will be if the big losses to independents and the Lib Dems will be repeated.
A lot can change over three months. But it seems hard to believe that a new leader will dramatically enhance Labour’s standing. They will be defending council seats in several of the areas where they performed very poorly at the General Election. So at this stage, it looks likely that Labour will face yet further setbacks.


conservativehome--2020-02-08--Bercow was the rudest Speaker of modern times, yet by the end he had degenerated into an Establishme

Bercow was the rudest Speaker of modern times, yet by the end he had degenerated into an Establishment stooge

Liberty depends on rudeness , and John Bercow is the rudest Speaker of modern times .
He has defied the tyranny of good manners by which the British Establishment seeks to control those who aspire to rise into its ranks .
Bercow never did know how to behave .
His conduct from his earliest years was atrocious .
In a generally favourable profile of him which I wrote for ConservativeHome in 2014 , I quoted this account by his first biographer , Bobby Friedman , of how Bercow became the most unpopular boy in his year at school : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindication of our system , that Bercow was able , thanks to his extraordinary gifts as a debater , to force his way from modest beginnings to the top , while declining , for most of the time , to behave towards grander figures with the deference they expected of him .
But it also looks as if from his earliest years he was open to the charge of being a bully , who used his superior mental powers to torment his duller contemporaries .
Freedom of speech clashes here with the duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in some way vulnerable , with kindness and consideration .
Bercow ’ s critics say he is unfit to become a peer , because he bullied his staff while serving as Speaker .
I have no doubt that he was at times atrociously rude to people who were unable to answer back .
Two days ago the House authorities condemned Bercow for naming in his autobiography “ a number of staff who have never spoken publicly about their experiences or sought to gain publicity as a result “ .
Bullying is horrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes place within the Palace of Westminster , where frustrated MPs sometimes vent their spleen by behaving as mini dictators towards their own staff .
Parliament ’ s Behaviour Code makes clear there should be zero tolerance for abuse or harassment .
But although I agree that workplace bullying is despicable , and should not be tolerated , I can not help worrying that we shall end up in a mealy-mouthed world where passive aggression has supplanted plain speaking , and the atmosphere is more poisonous than it was before because the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of us are inclined to be a bit hypocritical about this .
While deprecating bad behaviour , we are also grateful for it , because it is so much more amusing than good behaviour .
Bercow was proud of behaving badly , for as the ConHome profile reported , having managed at the third attempt to become an MP , In Unspeakable , Bercow writes that his early approach in debate “ was best summarised as crude and unrestrained attacks on the other side at all times ” .
He says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private life , where he had at last persuaded Sally Illman to move in with him : But in 2002 , by which time he was 39 and they had known each other for 13 years , he at last persuaded her to marry him .
They have remained married through various difficulties , and when he came to write this book , “ Sally willingly typed the bulk of the manuscript , offering advice on style and substance in the process ” .
This may have been of benefit to the Bercows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit to his , or their , readers .
For we are presented with an approved text in which he is exceptionally hard on the Conservative urges he felt as a teenager , condemnation driving out comprehension .
So he writes that “ foolishly ” he was drawn towards Enoch Powell , and in January 1981 , when he turned 18 , he reached “ the most shameful decision I have ever made ” and applied to join the Monday Club , a hard-right Conservative pressure group : He remarks also , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rat-like and somewhat intense.
” There is an uneasiness about Bercow which one may guess is one reason why he lashes out at other people .
So it would be more charitable to pity Bercow than to condemn him .
He makes life hard for himself , and has a thin skin .
When he lashes out , he does so because he himself feels wounded .
He is remarkably rude about various of his colleagues .
Patrick McLoughlin , at this point serving as Deputy Chief Whip , is described as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Of Michael Howard , for whom Bercow works in the shadow Treasury team at the start of Iain Duncan Smith ’ s leadership , Bercow writes : This book runs to 435 pages of text , and the original manuscript was far longer , an “ overlong stream of consciousness ” as the author himself admits .
He wrote it “ at crack of dawn ” and at weekends over the last 18 months of his speakership .
One can not fault his energy , nor his fluency , but these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write a good autobiography .
The text is splattered with superfluous adverbs and adjectives , which detract from the words to which they are attached .
He begins by describing Geoffrey Cox , as Attorney General , becoming “ more florid of face , hyper in tone and undilutedly pompous ” .
The author could be describing himself .
This is more of a harangue than a book , and he seldom manages to get behind the externals and cast any new light on the main characters involved .
About half-way through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bloody Clerks are trying to take control of your office.
” Bercow proceeds to reject various accusations of bullying : “ In my opinion , the disagreement between us did not constitute bullying in any way.
” Indeed , he had “ superb staff ” in his office and “ the team spirit was outstanding ” .
The trouble , in Sally ’ s words , was that “ the Clerks want to pack your office with their Oxbridge-educated clones , for God ’ s sake ” .
And yet he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The business of the House moved more briskly under Bercow than it had under his somnolent and at the end overwhelmed predecessor Michael Martin .
It also became easier to debate events which were actually taking place , by means of Urgent Questions and other devices .
The essential task of holding the Government to account was carried out much better .
One way in which Bercow would hurry up long-winded MPs was by saying , “ We have got the gist.
” The same might be said of this book : we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Hague and various other Tories , but that does not stop him repeating himself .
Here he is on the present Tory leader : Bercow ’ s desire to cut Johnson down to size tells us more about the author of this book than it does about the Prime Minister .
The vanity of Johnson ’ s rivals is one reason why they made the mistake of writing him off .
This Speaker ’ s critics will probably never forgive him for bending the rules of procedure in such a way as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislate against a cliff-edge Brexit , and if possible to avoid Brexit altogether .
But by taking sides , and bending over backwards to help Oliver Letwin , Dominic Grieve and other would-be Remainers , Bercow did not attain his end .
He and his allies were outwitted by Johnson , that “ passably adequate politician ” , who saw the stage set for an election in which , despite leading a party which had been in power for almost a decade , he could be the heroic insurgent who could be trusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the end had degenerated into an Establishment stooge .
He has not yet admitted this even to himself .

Unspeakable: The Autobiography by John Bercow
Liberty depends on rudeness, and John Bercow is the rudest Speaker of modern times. He has defied the tyranny of good manners by which the British Establishment seeks to control those who aspire to rise into its ranks.
Bercow never did know how to behave. His conduct from his earliest years was atrocious. In a generally favourable profile of him which I wrote for ConservativeHome in 2014, I quoted this account by his first biographer, Bobby Friedman, of how Bercow became the most unpopular boy in his year at school:
“He often flaunted his superior ability… Perhaps trying to compensate for his size, Bercow would often try to humiliate bigger kids in his class. One in particular used to make mistakes with his reading and Bercow would write them down and recite them back to him. Incidents like these would certainly have contributed to the view that Bercow was ‘an odious little toad’.”
It is in many ways wonderful, a vindication of our system, that Bercow was able, thanks to his extraordinary gifts as a debater, to force his way from modest beginnings to the top, while declining, for most of the time, to behave towards grander figures with the deference they expected of him.
But it also looks as if from his earliest years he was open to the charge of being a bully, who used his superior mental powers to torment his duller contemporaries.
Freedom of speech clashes here with the duty to treat people, especially if they are in some way vulnerable, with kindness and consideration.
Bercow’s critics say he is unfit to become a peer, because he bullied his staff while serving as Speaker. I have no doubt that he was at times atrociously rude to people who were unable to answer back.
Two days ago the House authorities condemned Bercow for naming in his autobiography “a number of staff who have never spoken publicly about their experiences or sought to gain publicity as a result“.
Bullying is horrible, and quite a bit of it takes place within the Palace of Westminster, where frustrated MPs sometimes vent their spleen by behaving as mini dictators towards their own staff.
Parliament’s Behaviour Code makes clear there should be zero tolerance for abuse or harassment. But although I agree that workplace bullying is despicable, and should not be tolerated, I cannot help worrying that we shall end up in a mealy-mouthed world where passive aggression has supplanted plain speaking, and the atmosphere is more poisonous than it was before because the air is never cleared by outbursts of anger.
Most of us are inclined to be a bit hypocritical about this. While deprecating bad behaviour, we are also grateful for it, because it is so much more amusing than good behaviour. Bercow was proud of behaving badly, for as the ConHome profile reported, having managed at the third attempt to become an MP,
“He at once became a manically active speaker in the Commons, and also an assiduous heckler: he has since conceded, or boasted, that during his first five years as an MP, ‘my behaviour was spectacularly bad – I mean not just sort of bad but bad on an industrial scale’. In the parliamentary session which ended early in 2000, Bercow made 76 speeches, more than any other Member and well ahead of Eric Forth, in second place with 57. He had become one of the relatively small number of MPs who keep the Chamber alive. In my view his remarkable enthusiasm as a backbencher for taking part in debates is one of his greatest qualifications for the Speakership.”
In Unspeakable, Bercow writes that his early approach in debate “was best summarised as crude and unrestrained attacks on the other side at all times”. He says this had a bad effect on his private life, where he had at last persuaded Sally Illman to move in with him:
“Ironically, I had spent years hankering after Sally, but now that she was living with me I barely saw her. I was obsessed with work…”
But in 2002, by which time he was 39 and they had known each other for 13 years, he at last persuaded her to marry him. They have remained married through various difficulties, and when he came to write this book, “Sally willingly typed the bulk of the manuscript, offering advice on style and substance in the process”.
This may have been of benefit to the Bercows’ marriage, but is not of benefit to his, or their, readers. For we are presented with an approved text in which he is exceptionally hard on the Conservative urges he felt as a teenager, condemnation driving out comprehension.
So he writes that “foolishly” he was drawn towards Enoch Powell, and in January 1981, when he turned 18, he reached “the most shameful decision I have ever made” and applied to join the Monday Club, a hard-right Conservative pressure group:
“So here I was, a Jewish boy born and brought up in a free country thanks to the Home Office permitting my paternal grandparents to enter it and thereby escape persecution, en route to flunking my A-levels, contemplating tennis coaching as my life choice, and sidling up to racists.”
He remarks also, “I am not good-looking, but rather rat-like and somewhat intense.” There is an uneasiness about Bercow which one may guess is one reason why he lashes out at other people.
So it would be more charitable to pity Bercow than to condemn him. He makes life hard for himself, and has a thin skin. When he lashes out, he does so because he himself feels wounded.
He is remarkably rude about various of his colleagues. Patrick McLoughlin, at this point serving as Deputy Chief Whip, is described as “a rather unimaginative and slow-moving control freak”.
Of Michael Howard, for whom Bercow works in the shadow Treasury team at the start of Iain Duncan Smith’s leadership, Bercow writes:
“Michael Howard and I worked well together. That is not to say that I ever liked him. Frankly, I didn’t. Some people are cold. Others are oily. Michael’s peculiar distinction was to combine coldness and oiliness in equal measure.”
This book runs to 435 pages of text, and the original manuscript was far longer, an “overlong stream of consciousness” as the author himself admits.
He wrote it “at crack of dawn” and at weekends over the last 18 months of his speakership. One cannot fault his energy, nor his fluency, but these are not the only qualities needed to write a good autobiography.
The text is splattered with superfluous adverbs and adjectives, which detract from the words to which they are attached. He begins by describing Geoffrey Cox, as Attorney General, becoming “more florid of face, hyper in tone and undilutedly pompous”.
The author could be describing himself. This is more of a harangue than a book, and he seldom manages to get behind the externals and cast any new light on the main characters involved.
About half-way through the book, Sally warns him, “The bloody Clerks are trying to take control of your office.” Bercow proceeds to reject various accusations of bullying: “In my opinion, the disagreement between us did not constitute bullying in any way.”
Indeed, he had “superb staff” in his office and “the team spirit was outstanding”. The trouble, in Sally’s words, was that “the Clerks want to pack your office with their Oxbridge-educated clones, for God’s sake”.
And yet he was in many ways an admirable Speaker. The business of the House moved more briskly under Bercow than it had under his somnolent and at the end overwhelmed predecessor Michael Martin.
It also became easier to debate events which were actually taking place, by means of Urgent Questions and other devices. The essential task of holding the Government to account was carried out much better.
One way in which Bercow would hurry up long-winded MPs was by saying, “We have got the gist.” The same might be said of this book: we soon realise he detests David Cameron, William Hague and various other Tories, but that does not stop him repeating himself.
Here he is on the present Tory leader:
“As it happens, I like Boris Johnson. He can be charming and witty. He has never been anything other than courteous to me. We played tennis in January 2017 at his official country residence, Chevening, and he took his 6-0 6-0 6-0 defeat with very good grace. He is not stupid but highly intelligent, very well read and a fine conversationalist. However, he is careless with words and facts and, even by the standards of a profession in which self-regard is not uncommon, he is disproportionately preoccupied with whatever serves the cause of advancement for B. Johnson. As a debater, he is undistinguished….he is, at his occasional best, a passably adequate politician in an age not replete with them.”
Bercow’s desire to cut Johnson down to size tells us more about the author of this book than it does about the Prime Minister. The vanity of Johnson’s rivals is one reason why they made the mistake of writing him off.
This Speaker’s critics will probably never forgive him for bending the rules of procedure in such a way as to favour those MPs who wanted to legislate against a cliff-edge Brexit, and if possible to avoid Brexit altogether.
But by taking sides, and bending over backwards to help Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve and other would-be Remainers, Bercow did not attain his end.
He and his allies were outwitted by Johnson, that “passably adequate politician”, who saw the stage set for an election in which, despite leading a party which had been in power for almost a decade, he could be the heroic insurgent who could be trusted to implement the referendum result.
Bercow by the end had degenerated into an Establishment stooge. He has not yet admitted this even to himself.


conservativehome--2020-02-10--The “Tory press” are keen to show they will provide the real opposition to the Government

There is always plenty of speculation in the media before a cabinet reshuffle and before a Budget .
With the reshuffle expected on Friday , and the Budget due to be delivered on March 11th , we are presently overloaded .
Sometimes the reports are contradictory and so , by definition , they can not all materialise .
Happily for the correspondents whose predictions prove array , such stories are soon forgotten .
Once the announcements are made , then the hard news is the focus of attention .
Private Eye occasionally provides a disobliging “ hack watch ” recounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moves on .
However , sometimes , even if an item of speculation does not materialise , it does not mean that it was untrue .
It is more complicated than that .
Prime Ministers and Chancellors can change their minds .
Fleet Street subeditors can make a headline “ stronger ” than the caveats in the article below it might justify .
“ Andrea Leadsom is facing the axe in this week ’ s reshuffle after ‘ lecturing ’ Boris Johnson on the dangers of a male-dominated Cabinet .
“ The Business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat , sparked irritation in Downing Street at the weekend by insisting in a newspaper article that gender equality should be ‘ the absolute norm ’ .
” Let us suppose that she is not sacked .
Does it mean the story was pure invention ?
Not necessarily .
The “ irritation ” might well be genuine .
The Prime Minister might be “ minded ” to sack her .
But then he might be persuaded at some meeting tomorrow , or Wednesday , that it would be better for her to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can change .
What might be true on Monday might no longer be true on Thursday .
I suspect most Conservatives will have been more concerned by the Budget speculation .
The Sunday Telegraph yesterday splashed with the headline : “ Boris Johnson has been weighing up shock plans to impose a ‘ mansion tax ’ on owners of expensive homes , in a move which will infuriate the Conservative Party ’ s grassroots and stun MPs .
Severe cuts to pension tax relief enjoyed by millions of voters are also being considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sajid Javid , for the Budget next month in an effort to pay for a huge increase in public spending .
Two separate sources told The Telegraph that ideas to raise more tax from better-off homeowners had been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10 .
Some Treasury officials are understood to be keen on introducing what has been described as a “ recurring ” wealth tax that would primarily affect London and the South East , possibly as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not clear exactly what form the tax would take if it were included in the March 11 Budget , but options range from a levy – first mooted by Ed Miliband , the former Labour leader – to an additional higher band of council tax.
” “ Two separate sources told The Telegraph that ideas to raise more tax from better-off homeowners had been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10.
” The paper followed up today with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response being that they are “ half baked ” , another warned against an “ act of fiscal hooliganism ” .
For many Conservatives , that story will have caused rather more concern than the game of musical chairs around the Cabinet table .
As Tony Benn used to remind us : “ It ’ s not about personalities .
It ’ s about issshues.
” Even if the measures are not introduced it does not mean that the Telegraph story is false .
It could be that someone thought it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea in the media to test reaction .
If so , then the staunchly negative response will have been noted .
Expectation management is sometimes regarded as a cunning wheeze .
Perhaps by threatening us with really severe tax increases , the notion is that we will all be grateful and relieved if only mild tax rises are imposed .
Officially sourced stories are pretty reliable .
“ It will be announced later today….
” or “ The Prime Minister is expected to say to this afternoon in a speech in Bolton… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater risk of unravelling .
So are we merely in a busy season for a most traditional media sport ?
Not quite .
The tone and substance of the “ Tory press ” is markedly lacking in deference for the Conservative Government .
The initiative by Downing Street to disrupt the established “ lobby ” arrangements for reporting may have been – as Andrew Gimson wrote last week – handled in a “ cack handed ” manner .
Or it could be an overdue move to open up a smug closed shop and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media .
It might be both .
At any rate , it won ’ t have helped relations with the press .
There is also a point of pride that newspapers have to assert their independence , most particularly when a Government is strong .
We had a big Conservative majority returned in December – since then the polling suggests that Conservative popularity has risen further .
We have vacancies for the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships .
This is a time when the media ’ s instinct is that it must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Who else will offer “ real opposition ” ?
That instinct is noble .
For the Daily Telegraph it is a particular point of honour .
That is because its association with the Prime Minister is so well known .
He wrote for them for decades .
The paper is not shy about it – it features an archive of his work prominently on its website .
But nor does it wish to be regarded as his poodle .
That is not to suggest that we should be complacent about threats of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after the last decade ?
With the economy already groaning under the weight of the burdens imposed by Gordon Brown we have seen Conservative Chancellors in subsequent years piling on yet more damaging tax rises – sometimes proving counter productive in terms of yield .
It is just worth noting that when the Telegraph catches a whiff of such stories , its inclination , at this stage in the political cycle , will be to offer pretty robust coverage .

Pontius Pilate asked:
“What is truth?”
There is always plenty of speculation in the media before a cabinet reshuffle and before a Budget. With the reshuffle expected on Friday, and the Budget due to be delivered on March 11th, we are presently overloaded. Sometimes the reports are contradictory and so, by definition, they can not all materialise. Happily for the correspondents whose predictions prove array, such stories are soon forgotten. Once the announcements are made, then the hard news is the focus of attention. Private Eye occasionally provides a disobliging “hack watch” recounting past claims – but everyone else quickly moves on.
However, sometimes, even if an item of speculation does not materialise, it does not mean that it was untrue. It is more complicated than that. Prime Ministers and Chancellors can change their minds. Fleet Street subeditors can make a headline “stronger” than the caveats in the article below it might justify.
The Daily Mail reports this morning:
“Andrea Leadsom is facing the axe in this week’s reshuffle after ‘lecturing’ Boris Johnson on the dangers of a male-dominated Cabinet.
“The Business Secretary, whose position was already under threat, sparked irritation in Downing Street at the weekend by insisting in a newspaper article that gender equality should be ‘the absolute norm’.”
Let us suppose that she is not sacked. Does it mean the story was pure invention? Not necessarily. The “irritation” might well be genuine. The Prime Minister might be “minded” to sack her. But then he might be persuaded at some meeting tomorrow, or Wednesday, that it would be better for her to stay. In other words, the truth can change. What might be true on Monday might no longer be true on Thursday.
I suspect most Conservatives will have been more concerned by the Budget speculation. The Sunday Telegraph yesterday splashed with the headline:
“Tories eye mansion tax and raid on pensions”
Its report said:
“Boris Johnson has been weighing up shock plans to impose a ‘mansion tax’ on owners of expensive homes, in a move which will infuriate the Conservative Party’s grassroots and stun MPs. Severe cuts to pension tax relief enjoyed by millions of voters are also being considered by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor, Sajid Javid, for the Budget next month in an effort to pay for a huge increase in public spending. Two separate sources told The Telegraph that ideas to raise more tax from better-off homeowners had been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10. Some Treasury officials are understood to be keen on introducing what has been described as a “recurring” wealth tax that would primarily affect London and the South East, possibly as a quid pro quo for cutting stamp duty. It is not clear exactly what form the tax would take if it were included in the March 11 Budget, but options range from a levy – first mooted by Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader – to an additional higher band of council tax.”
It added;
“Two separate sources told The Telegraph that ideas to raise more tax from better-off homeowners had been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10.”
The paper followed up today with various people attacking the proposals – one response being that they are “half baked”, another warned against an “act of fiscal hooliganism”.
For many Conservatives, that story will have caused rather more concern than the game of musical chairs around the Cabinet table. As Tony Benn used to remind us:
“It’s not about personalities. It’s about issshues.”
Even if the measures are not introduced it does not mean that the Telegraph story is false. It could be that someone thought it would be a good idea to “float” the idea in the media to test reaction. If so, then the staunchly negative response will have been noted. Expectation management is sometimes regarded as a cunning wheeze. Perhaps by threatening us with really severe tax increases, the notion is that we will all be grateful and relieved if only mild tax rises are imposed.
Officially sourced stories are pretty reliable. “It will be announced later today….” or “The Prime Minister is expected to say to this afternoon in a speech in Bolton…” Those with unofficial sources have a greater risk of unravelling.
So are we merely in a busy season for a most traditional media sport?
Not quite. The tone and substance of the “Tory press” is markedly lacking in deference for the Conservative Government. The initiative by Downing Street to disrupt the established “lobby” arrangements for reporting may have been – as Andrew Gimson wrote last week – handled in a “cack handed” manner. Or it could be an overdue move to open up a smug closed shop and adapt to the age of transparency and social media. It might be both. At any rate, it won’t have helped relations with the press.
There is also a point of pride that newspapers have to assert their independence, most particularly when a Government is strong. We had a big Conservative majority returned in December – since then the polling suggests that Conservative popularity has risen further. We have vacancies for the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships. This is a time when the media’s instinct is that it must “hold the Government to account”. Who else will offer “real opposition”? That instinct is noble. For the Daily Telegraph it is a particular point of honour. That is because its association with the Prime Minister is so well known. He wrote for them for decades. The paper is not shy about it – it features an archive of his work prominently on its website. But nor does it wish to be regarded as his poodle.
That is not to suggest that we should be complacent about threats of tax increases. How can we be, after the last decade? With the economy already groaning under the weight of the burdens imposed by Gordon Brown we have seen Conservative Chancellors in subsequent years piling on yet more damaging tax rises – sometimes proving counter productive in terms of yield.
It is just worth noting that when the Telegraph catches a whiff of such stories, its inclination, at this stage in the political cycle, will be to offer pretty robust coverage.


conservativehome--2020-02-10--Sinn Fein in government.  What’s the fuss about?

Some of our co-Brexiteers will be feeling very smug about Ireland ’ s election result .
For the best part of five years , our own pro-Remain fringe here in Britain has delighted in lecturing us to the effect that our neighbour is a modern , progressive , European country in which reactionary nationalism is a thing of the past .
Now a party with a paramilitary wing has topped the ballot .
This site doesn ’ t see it that way .
Though we are struck by the gap between popular images of Ireland here and what is evidently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very early days in which to assess why its people voted as they have .
But the country ’ s housing provision and health service must be in a very bad place for Sinn Fein to be a contender for government this morning .
There will be calls here for the party to be kept out of power .
Why ?
After all , it is deemed suitable to share government in Northern Ireland .
Indeed , the British state has only recently made gargantuan efforts to get it back into co-office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing ovation from almost everyone apart from this site ’ s very own Henry Hill .
Don ’ t get us wrong .
Obviously , ConservativeHome believes that Ireland ’ s voters have made the wrong choice .
But their decisions are a matter for them – and it may well be a mistake to believe that Sinn Fein can somehow be coalitioned out of government .
Perhaps a tottery coalition of the two establishment parties can be spatchcocked together to keep their challenger out .
But all that would be likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vote .
If the people of Ireland are determined to tilt in the party ’ s direction , then so be it .
A Sinn Fein-Fianna Fail coalition would be bad news for the Brexit negotiation .
But would it really be worse than a Fianna Fail-Fine Gael one that felt compelled to play to the nationalist gallery , looking nervously over its shoulder at its rising rival ?
We are sorry for Leo Varadkar , who arguably did more for Brexit , in the last resort , than any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in red , white , blue to help make the point .
If anyone says this was unhelpful , our reply can only be that his own nationalist feints , such as calling Britain “ a small country ” , don ’ t seem to have helped him either .

Some of our co-Brexiteers will be feeling very smug about Ireland’s election result. For the best part of five years, our own pro-Remain fringe here in Britain has delighted in lecturing us to the effect that our neighbour is a modern, progressive, European country in which reactionary nationalism is a thing of the past. Now a party with a paramilitary wing has topped the ballot.
This site doesn’t see it that way. Though we are struck by the gap between popular images of Ireland here and what is evidently the electoral reality there. These are very early days in which to assess why its people voted as they have. But the country’s housing provision and health service must be in a very bad place for Sinn Fein to be a contender for government this morning.
There will be calls here for the party to be kept out of power. Why? After all, it is deemed suitable to share government in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the British state has only recently made gargantuan efforts to get it back into co-office. Its efforts to do so receieved a standing ovation from almost everyone apart from this site’s very own Henry Hill.
Don’t get us wrong. Obviously, ConservativeHome believes that Ireland’s voters have made the wrong choice. But their decisions are a matter for them – and it may well be a mistake to believe that Sinn Fein can somehow be coalitioned out of government. Perhaps a tottery coalition of the two establishment parties can be spatchcocked together to keep their challenger out. But all that would be likely to do is to further inflate Sinn Fein’s vote.
If the people of Ireland are determined to tilt in the party’s direction, then so be it. A Sinn Fein-Fianna Fail coalition would be bad news for the Brexit negotiation. But would it really be worse than a Fianna Fail-Fine Gael one that felt compelled to play to the nationalist gallery, looking nervously over its shoulder at its rising rival?
We are sorry for Leo Varadkar, who arguably did more for Brexit, in the last resort, than any other politician. The site even decked him out in red, white, blue to help make the point. If anyone says this was unhelpful, our reply can only be that his own nationalist feints, such as calling Britain “a small country”, don’t seem to have helped him either.


conservativehome--2020-02-10--Johnson’s reshuffle.  If he isn’t Thinking Big it should be Kept Small.

Johnson ’ s reshuffle .
If he isn ’ t Thinking Big it should be Kept Small .

What we know:
Earlier this year, it was briefed that a sweeping departmental reorganisation was on the table. The International Development Department would be absorbed into the Foreign Office. The Business and Trade departments would be merged. Migration and security could be split: it followed that prisons might be bundled up with the latter in the Home Office, a new stand-alone department would deal with immigration, and the Justice Department would be wound up, with its legal responsibilities folding into a revived Lord Chancellor’s Department.
It was then re-briefed that large-scale re-organisation was off the table, and that Boris Johnson is inclined to soldier on much as now.
The “big four” are said to be safe: Michael Gove, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid.
However, there is a question mark over Javid’s future. Relations between some of his Special Advisers and some in Number Ten are poisonous. The Chancellor has already seen one of his SpAds fired (Sonia Khan). The Prime Minister may push to dismiss at least two more – Mats Person and Sam Coates. Which Javid would resist. This one may not end well.
Rishi Sunak could be kept on at the Treasury as Chief Secretary to man-mark the Chancellor on Downing Street’s behalf.
Gove may acquire responsibility for the United Nations Climate Change Glasgow summit in November amidst other expanded responsibilites.
The following women members of the Cabinet may be dismissed, in rough order of probability: Theresa Villiers, Andrea Leadsom (whose article on gender equality this weekend may not have helped her cause), Therese Coffey, Liz Truss. Esther McVey who is entitled to attend meetings as Housing Minister, could also be moved.
Nicky Morgan will stand down of her own accord.
Oliver Dowden may replace her as Culture Secretary.
A post will be found for Steve Barclay following the abolition of his job as Brexit Secretary.
Penny Mordaunt may or may not return, depending on who and what you read.
The following women Ministers could be promoted: Kemi Badenoch, Nus Ghani, Chloe Smith, Helen Whateley and possibly Victoria Atkins (if she has been forgiven for offering Johnson help with his “language around women”.)
Ben Wallace and Jacob Rees-Mogg may be dismissed but probably won’t be.
Julian Smith at Northern Ireland is presumed to be safe despite his history of insidery clashes with the Johnson line over Brexit.
Geoffrey Cox could be replaced as Attorney-General by Lucy Frazer.
Last year, it was mooted that the Prime Minister would radically reduce the size of Cabinet, cutting its membership back to about 20 places, with an end to the practice of some other senior Ministers “also attending”.
It was then re-mooted that the former change at least won’t happen, because the Prime Minister would therefore offend the Ministers who lose out.
– – –
What should happen:


conservativehome--2020-02-10--Neil O’Brien: Five ways to help resolve the housing crisis

To many Conservative voters , we seem to have built a lot of houses in recent years .
Yet much new development seems poor .
And young people still can ’ t afford to buy a house .
What ’ s going on ?
The last fortnight saw the publication of Roger Scruton ’ s final report – a Government Commission on “ Building Better , Building Beautiful ” .
It tries to answer some of these questions .
There ’ s much in it I agree with .
But if we ’ re really going to “ build better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need massive changes .
We need : A clearer vision of where we want development – with more in cities .
At present , councils have to build enough to meet their “ Objectively Assessed Need ” ( OAN ) .
In practice this means meeting forecast population growth .
But the forecast just reflects recent trends .
Instead of saying that the future should reflect past trends , there are strong arguments for preferring more development within cities : it means more walking , less congestion , less pollution and lower energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown , denser cities are not about grim tower blocks .
The densest places in Britain ( Kensington ) and Europe ( Barcelona ) are nice places to live , dominated by tall terraced houses and low-rise apartments .
Paris is twice as dense as New York .
Britain has the least dense cities in Europe .
And also cities which have grown very little .
Places like Dundee , Glasgow , Liverpool , Sunderland , Birkenhead , Hull and Newcastle all had smaller populations in 2017 than 1981 .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprawl .
Let ’ s change OAN to target building more in cities .
A clear vision of what kind of development we want – with less piecemeal development .
Even if more development happens within cities , there will still be some in suburbs and shires .
Do we want more piecemeal , infill-type development , or a smaller number of larger , properly planned developments ?
Should we stick more estates on the edges of all our villages , or build a stand-alone garden village , or a town extension ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ piecemeal infill .
Developers prefer it , as it ’ s far more profitable .
You don ’ t have to pay for new schools or GPs surgeries , or new roads , or any expensive “ place making ” .
Instead , you can piggy-back off existing facilities .
But infill is the type of development that attracts most opposition .
That ’ s unsurprising : it means building right next to people .
And specifically , to people who chose to live on the edge to get a nice view .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much piecemeal development you can have and still have a nice place .
Roads through the centre of a village ( often not built for cars ) become impossibly congested .
Even if you had money , there ’ s no space to expand the village school , because it ’ s surrounded by houses .
With larger strategic developments , you aren ’ t building next to as many existing residents .
You can plan for the infrastructure properly , get land for that new school .
Build a new main road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it , and so on .
Let ’ s give councils the tools to have genuinely planned development , not a free-for-all .
First of all that means… A better system for making development pay its own way .
Part of the opposition to new housing comes from the fact that too often it comes without the infrastructure required .
So your road and the local school and GP ’ s surgery get overcrowded .
People see developers making huge profits while infrastructure is either not provided at all , or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 106 , the main way councils secure contributions from developers , is utterly dysfunctional .
Councils can not use it to fund recurrent expenditure .
They can not use it to fund anything to meet existing needs in the community , only new needs created by the development .
Contributions are tied to a very specific purpose .
If what people want has changed five or ten years later , tough luck .
Because collection is confusingly fragmented between fire , police , health , county and district councils , sometimes developers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight limits on pooling multiple payments which have been recently eased .
But payments are still time-limited , and developers can hold off payments by keeping construction below certain trigger thresholds .
So if a developer can hold off paying , the opportunity to secure a site for a new village hall may pass .
Or , if there are only enough developments in a given time to pay for half a school , then plans to build up funds may get timed out , meaning developers avoid paying .
For all these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developers .
In 2014 , the BBC found that councils alone had returned £1.5 billion of community funds back to developers .
We need to either take off all restrictions on Section 106 , or replace it altogether .
Give councils the other tools they need to improve development .
In my constituency , there ’ s derelict land on the site of an old factory .
It ’ s two minute ’ s walk from the railway station , which is just an hour ’ s journey from London .
The council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But nothing has happened , and the owners currently lose nothing from sitting on their hands .
We need to learn from Europe and the USA .
Give councils borrowing power to buy land and grant themselves planning permission .
At the moment that ’ s a legal minefield for them .
We should reform the 1961 Land Compensation Act to clarify that local and central government can purchase land at current market use values .
We should stop land prices from being inflated by the expectation that developers will get away without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homes England into a sort of Flying Squad to help councils plan and deliver brownfield regeneration .
And make sure local planning departments can raise money through developer fees to hire and retain good staff .
Use the tax system to boost home ownership .
Home ownership here is fourth lowest in Europe .
While increasing the supply of new homes relative to population growth improves affordability , it does so only in the long term .
France built twice as many homes as Britain since 1970 and real house prices increased half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short term , the effect of more building on house prices is almost zilch , because new supply is so tiny compared to the existing stock .
The only way – and I mean the only way – that we can get home ownership up by the next election is by changing the balance between rented and owner-occupied housing .
From 2002 to 2015 we saw a relentless collapse in home ownership ( from 71 per cent to 63 per cent ) as the growth of buy-to-let outstripped new supply .
In 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the tax treatment of buy to let and second homes .
It worked .
The collapse stopped .
Ownership has even ticked up slightly , to 64 per cent .
But that ’ s still low .
Ten countries in Europe are over 80 per cent .
We don ’ t need to , and shouldn ’ t , change things for existing landlords who have invested on the basis of the current rules .
But we must use the tax system to encourage new investments to flow into companies , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owning over renting .
We either do this , or we will fail to increase ownership , and we ’ ll drive young people into the arms of the Corbynistas .
Simple as that .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
To many Conservative voters, we seem to have built a lot of houses in recent years. Yet much new development seems poor. And young people still can’t afford to buy a house. What’s going on?
The last fortnight saw the publication of Roger Scruton’s final report – a Government Commission on “Building Better, Building Beautiful”. It tries to answer some of these questions.
There’s much in it I agree with. But if we’re really going to “build better” and solve the housing crisis we need massive changes. We need:
A clearer vision of where we want development – with more in cities.
At present, councils have to build enough to meet their “Objectively Assessed Need” (OAN). In practice this means meeting forecast population growth. But the forecast just reflects recent trends.
Instead of saying that the future should reflect past trends, there are strong arguments for preferring more development within cities: it means more walking, less congestion, less pollution and lower energy use.
And as Create Streets has shown, denser cities are not about grim tower blocks. The densest places in Britain (Kensington) and Europe (Barcelona) are nice places to live, dominated by tall terraced houses and low-rise apartments. Paris is twice as dense as New York.
Britain has the least dense cities in Europe. And also cities which have grown very little. Places like Dundee, Glasgow, Liverpool, Sunderland, Birkenhead, Hull and Newcastle all had smaller populations in 2017 than 1981. Let’s choose more regeneration of cities and less sprawl. Let’s change OAN to target building more in cities.
A clear vision of what kind of development we want – with less piecemeal development.
Even if more development happens within cities, there will still be some in suburbs and shires. Do we want more piecemeal, infill-type development, or a smaller number of larger, properly planned developments? Should we stick more estates on the edges of all our villages, or build a stand-alone garden village, or a town extension?
At the moment, we have mainly piecemeal infill. Developers prefer it, as it’s far more profitable. You don’t have to pay for new schools or GPs surgeries, or new roads, or any expensive “place making”. Instead, you can piggy-back off existing facilities.
But infill is the type of development that attracts most opposition. That’s unsurprising: it means building right next to people. And specifically, to people who chose to live on the edge to get a nice view.
There are also physical limits to how much piecemeal development you can have and still have a nice place. Roads through the centre of a village (often not built for cars) become impossibly congested. Even if you had money, there’s no space to expand the village school, because it’s surrounded by houses.
With larger strategic developments, you aren’t building next to as many existing residents. You can plan for the infrastructure properly, get land for that new school. Build a new main road that doesn’t have people living on it, and so on. Let’s give councils the tools to have genuinely planned development, not a free-for-all. First of all that means…
A better system for making development pay its own way.
Part of the opposition to new housing comes from the fact that too often it comes without the infrastructure required.
So your road and the local school and GP’s surgery get overcrowded. People see developers making huge profits while infrastructure is either not provided at all, or the cost is dumped onto the taxpayer.
Section 106, the main way councils secure contributions from developers, is utterly dysfunctional.
Councils cannot use it to fund recurrent expenditure. They cannot use it to fund anything to meet existing needs in the community, only new needs created by the development. Contributions are tied to a very specific purpose. If what people want has changed five or ten years later, tough luck. Because collection is confusingly fragmented between fire, police, health, county and district councils, sometimes developers get away without paying.
There were tight limits on pooling multiple payments which have been recently eased. But payments are still time-limited, and developers can hold off payments by keeping construction below certain trigger thresholds. So if a developer can hold off paying, the opportunity to secure a site for a new village hall may pass. Or, if there are only enough developments in a given time to pay for half a school, then plans to build up funds may get timed out, meaning developers avoid paying.
For all these reasons, huge sums are returned to developers. In 2014, the BBC found that councils alone had returned £1.5 billion of community funds back to developers. We need to either take off all restrictions on Section 106, or replace it altogether.
Give councils the other tools they need to improve development.
In my constituency, there’s derelict land on the site of an old factory. It’s two minute’s walk from the railway station, which is just an hour’s journey from London. The council first granted planning permission in 2004. But nothing has happened, and the owners currently lose nothing from sitting on their hands.
We need to learn from Europe and the USA. Give councils borrowing power to buy land and grant themselves planning permission. At the moment that’s a legal minefield for them. We should reform the 1961 Land Compensation Act to clarify that local and central government can purchase land at current market use values. We should stop land prices from being inflated by the expectation that developers will get away without paying for infrastructure. We should make Homes England into a sort of Flying Squad to help councils plan and deliver brownfield regeneration. And make sure local planning departments can raise money through developer fees to hire and retain good staff.
Use the tax system to boost home ownership.
Home ownership here is fourth lowest in Europe. While increasing the supply of new homes relative to population growth improves affordability, it does so only in the long term.
France built twice as many homes as Britain since 1970 and real house prices increased half as much there. But in the short term, the effect of more building on house prices is almost zilch, because new supply is so tiny compared to the existing stock.
The only way – and I mean the only way – that we can get home ownership up by the next election is by changing the balance between rented and owner-occupied housing.
From 2002 to 2015 we saw a relentless collapse in home ownership (from 71 per cent to 63 per cent) as the growth of buy-to-let outstripped new supply.
In 2015, we started phasing in limited changes to the tax treatment of buy to let and second homes. It worked. The collapse stopped. Ownership has even ticked up slightly, to 64 per cent. But that’s still low. Ten countries in Europe are over 80 per cent.
We don’t need to, and shouldn’t, change things for existing landlords who have invested on the basis of the current rules. But we must use the tax system to encourage new investments to flow into companies, not into inflating house prices. To favour owning over renting.
We either do this, or we will fail to increase ownership, and we’ll drive young people into the arms of the Corbynistas. Simple as that.


conservativehome--2020-02-10--Gareth Bacon: 149 people were murdered in London in 2019. Yet the Mayor will still not accept respon

Gareth Bacon: 149 people were murdered in London in 2019. Yet the Mayor will still not accept responsibility.

Gareth Bacon is the MP for Orpington , the London Assembly member for Bexley and Bromley , and a former leader of the Conservative Group on the London Assembly .
Broken promises are permeating from City Hall .
Since 2016 , Sadiq Khan has overseen a litany of failures – and on no issue has he failed more than on crime .
I say that as someone who has spent over a decade as a London Assembly member , whose job it has been to hold successive mayors to account on all matters within their purview .
From my unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have seen first hand Khan ’ s disinterest in matters regarding the crime emergency – this mayor is more focused on press officers than police officers – and he has an excuse for every occasion .
City Hall is lacking leadership and Londoners are paying the cost of Khan .
The absolute priority , and not something which can wait , is restoring safety in London for all communities .
149 people were murdered in London in 2019 – does it sound like the Mayor is in control of the situation ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single year in over a decade .
That is 149 individual stories and 149 sets of family , friends and communities devastated .
What rankles with me is the lies that come forth from the Mayor .
Khan says that police numbers have been cut heavily .
This is just not true – from May 2016 to September 2019 , police officer levels are down four per cent .
This is an incremental change but the Mayor is in control of the Met ’ s budget : he could give them more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Increasing the PR operation and bureaucratic machinery at City Hall by £83 million does not feel like the Mayor has a grip on the situation , nor a grip on reality .
Where do the priorities lie at City Hall ?
A central part of being a London politician is holding the mayor to account .
I have done this on the London Assembly and will do so now from the House of Commons .
It is no small feat getting successive Mayors to accept responsibility but I can say in every confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who categorically will not accept fault or learn from his mistakes .
This is a dangerous combination as he has no desire to improve his performance or make proper use of the office which he holds – Khan sees the mayoralty as a springboard to further his personal ambitions .
The job of Mayor of London is an executive one – the Mayor is expected to govern .
But Khan has repeatedly shown that he is not interested in governing and making the difficult choices this entails .
Instead he prefers to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grievances , shifting blame , and playing to the gallery .
This simply isn ’ t good enough .
Luckily for Londoners , they have the chance to reject Khan in May and vote for change .
Shaun Bailey is running for Mayor and his platform is built upon his strong plans for fighting crime .
Shaun knows what it takes to tackle violent crime ; he was a youth worker in west London for over 20 years and saved countless young people from going down a dangerous path .
Broken promises are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have paid the cost of Khan .

Gareth Bacon is the MP for Orpington, the London Assembly member for Bexley and Bromley, and a former leader of the Conservative Group on the London Assembly.
Broken promises are permeating from City Hall. Since 2016, Sadiq Khan has overseen a litany of failures – and on no issue has he failed more than on crime. I say that as someone who has spent over a decade as a London Assembly member, whose job it has been to hold successive mayors to account on all matters within their purview.
From my unique position on the London Assembly, I have seen first hand Khan’s disinterest in matters regarding the crime emergency – this mayor is more focused on press officers than police officers – and he has an excuse for every occasion.
City Hall is lacking leadership and Londoners are paying the cost of Khan. The absolute priority, and not something which can wait, is restoring safety in London for all communities.
149 people were murdered in London in 2019 – does it sound like the Mayor is in control of the situation? That is the highest number of murders in a single year in over a decade. That is 149 individual stories and 149 sets of family, friends and communities devastated.
What rankles with me is the lies that come forth from the Mayor. Khan says that police numbers have been cut heavily. This is just not true – from May 2016 to September 2019, police officer levels are down four per cent. This is an incremental change but the Mayor is in control of the Met’s budget: he could give them more funds and finance a recruitment drive.
Increasing the PR operation and bureaucratic machinery at City Hall by £83 million does not feel like the Mayor has a grip on the situation, nor a grip on reality. Where do the priorities lie at City Hall?
A central part of being a London politician is holding the mayor to account. I have done this on the London Assembly and will do so now from the House of Commons. It is no small feat getting successive Mayors to accept responsibility but I can say in every confidence that in Khan we have a Mayor who categorically will not accept fault or learn from his mistakes.
This is a dangerous combination as he has no desire to improve his performance or make proper use of the office which he holds – Khan sees the mayoralty as a springboard to further his personal ambitions.
The job of Mayor of London is an executive one – the Mayor is expected to govern. But Khan has repeatedly shown that he is not interested in governing and making the difficult choices this entails. Instead he prefers to act like an elected opposition spokesman, nursing grievances, shifting blame, and playing to the gallery. This simply isn’t good enough.
Luckily for Londoners, they have the chance to reject Khan in May and vote for change. Shaun Bailey is running for Mayor and his platform is built upon his strong plans for fighting crime. Shaun knows what it takes to tackle violent crime; he was a youth worker in west London for over 20 years and saved countless young people from going down a dangerous path.
Broken promises are dangerous for us all and too many have paid the cost of Khan.


conservativehome--2020-02-11--Claudia Martinez: Politicians like to boast about new hospitals but primary care should be the prior

Claudia Martinez: Politicians like to boast about new hospitals but primary care should be the priority

Claudia Martinez is the Research Manager of Reform Politicians are like magpies , they covet shiny things .
That ’ s why high-speed rail trumps fixing local roads .
It ’ s also why billions are promised for brand new hospitals , while almost a third of GP surgeries can be found in portacabins , former office units , and converted terrace houses .
But not all that glitters is gold .
If the Prime Minister is serious about transforming people ’ s lives , he should focus on fixing the basics .
Boris Johnson has a particular fascination with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as the Mayor of London .
None of us were surprised when , from day one of the General Election campaign , he made it clear that “ levelling up ” would require a UK “ infrastructure revolution ” .
The words “ building ” and “ infrastructure ” appear a combined total of 46 times in the Conservative election manifesto , and £80 billion has been pledged for infrastructure investment in new roads , rail schemes , and schools .
The NHS is receiving the same treatment .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a £1.8 billion capital injection for the NHS .
Some of that money was meant to support staff to do their jobs better and invest in technical medical equipment , but the lion ’ s share was focused on upgrading hospital buildings .
And hot on the heels of that announcement came the much-touted promise to build 40 brand new hospitals over the next decade ( in fact the money has only been allocated for six ) .
If we ’ re to have a modern health service then this investment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is long overdue , the Prime Minister ’ s grand NHS infrastructure plan has a fatal flaw : it has almost entirely bypassed primary care .
Shockingly , a mere six per cent of the total capital investment committed for the NHS estate has been earmarked for the part of the health service that should be reducing our reliance on the acute end .
Much of the primary care estate hasn ’ t been upgraded for 35 years , and half of GP surgeries are considered to be unfit for purpose and unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not provide the ribbon-cutting photo-op , but the truth is that fixing primary care would do far more to serve patients than sinking yet more cash into hospitals .
Take A & E , for example .
The NHS has long been grappling with the challenge of rising A & E attendances , unacceptably long waiting times , and a shortage of hospital beds forcing patients to wait on trolleys in corridors .
Not only has the number of people presenting to A & E skyrocketed , but one in six patients are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen by a professional or to get admitted to hospital .
Yet instead of focusing on how to reduce demand , with each monthly release of damning A & E statistics we wring our hands and insist that more money is needed to meet that demand .
This is bonkers .
Consider just one fact : over a third of patients who attend A & E do so for non-urgent , minor injuries .
What that means is that one in three people do not , in fact , need the sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide , but would be better treated in their communities , for instance via their GP .
And as well as freeing up much needed A & E capacity for serious cases , caring for someone in a primary care setting costs a fraction of what it costs in hospital .
The problem is that patients end up flocking to A & E because they see no alternative .
Their GP surgery is closed and there are no out-of-hours services in their local area ; or they simply can ’ t get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local surgery lacks basic diagnostic equipment , such as X-rays .
This is why the Prime Minister ’ s failure to commit serious investment into primary care is so short-sighted .
Investing in upgrading primary and community care services would make an outsize difference .
In 2019 , just ten per cent of people thought they could get a GP appointment on a Saturday , two per cent thought they could on a Sunday .
Equipping primary care to undertake basic diagnostic and surgical procedures would also drastically reduce pressure on our hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actually focus on those who require long-term and specialist care .
But that means investment in the boring basics – you can ’ t co-locate services in a portacabin , or perform basic surgery in a space the size of a terrace house .
Nor can you expect an efficient , modern health service without fixing primary care ’ s ‘ digital plumbing ’ – GPs currently spend 17 minutes every morning just logging into a computer .
And many can ’ t share key patient information with other professionals because systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other .
It may not be headline-grabbing , but over 90 per cent of patient interactions take place within primary care and one of the biggest NHS gripes is people ’ s inability to get a GP appointment .
Greater investment into these services would go a long way in ‘ levelling up ’ everyone ’ s experience of the NHS .
That ’ s not just the right thing to do , it ’ s also politically expedient .
Read our briefing paper , A primary care estate fit for the future @ @ @

Claudia Martinez is the Research Manager of Reform
Politicians are like magpies, they covet shiny things. That’s why high-speed rail trumps fixing local roads. It’s also why billions are promised for brand new hospitals, while almost a third of GP surgeries can be found in portacabins, former office units, and converted terrace houses. But not all that glitters is gold. If the Prime Minister is serious about transforming people’s lives, he should focus on fixing the basics.
Boris Johnson has a particular fascination with grand-scale infrastructure projects, born of his time as the Mayor of London. None of us were surprised when, from day one of the General Election campaign, he made it clear that “levelling up” would require a UK “infrastructure revolution”. The words “building” and “infrastructure” appear a combined total of 46 times in the Conservative election manifesto, and £80 billion has been pledged for infrastructure investment in new roads, rail schemes, and schools.
The NHS is receiving the same treatment. One of the Prime Minister’s big pre-election giveaways was a £1.8 billion capital injection for the NHS. Some of that money was meant to support staff to do their jobs better and invest in technical medical equipment, but the lion’s share was focused on upgrading hospital buildings. And hot on the heels of that announcement came the much-touted promise to build 40 brand new hospitals over the next decade (in fact the money has only been allocated for six).
If we’re to have a modern health service then this investment is essential. But while this new cash is long overdue, the Prime Minister’s grand NHS infrastructure plan has a fatal flaw: it has almost entirely bypassed primary care. Shockingly, a mere six per cent of the total capital investment committed for the NHS estate has been earmarked for the part of the health service that should be reducing our reliance on the acute end. Much of the primary care estate hasn’t been upgraded for 35 years, and half of GP surgeries are considered to be unfit for purpose and unable to cope with demand.
It may not provide the ribbon-cutting photo-op, but the truth is that fixing primary care would do far more to serve patients than sinking yet more cash into hospitals. Take A&E, for example. The NHS has long been grappling with the challenge of rising A&E attendances, unacceptably long waiting times, and a shortage of hospital beds forcing patients to wait on trolleys in corridors. Not only has the number of people presenting to A&E skyrocketed, but one in six patients are now waiting more than four hours to be seen by a professional or to get admitted to hospital.
Yet instead of focusing on how to reduce demand, with each monthly release of damning A&E statistics we wring our hands and insist that more money is needed to meet that demand. This is bonkers. Consider just one fact: over a third of patients who attend A&E do so for non-urgent, minor injuries.
What that means is that one in three people do not, in fact, need the sort of care that A&E should provide, but would be better treated in their communities, for instance via their GP. And as well as freeing up much needed A&E capacity for serious cases, caring for someone in a primary care setting costs a fraction of what it costs in hospital.
The problem is that patients end up flocking to A&E because they see no alternative. Their GP surgery is closed and there are no out-of-hours services in their local area; or they simply can’t get a doctor’s appointment; or their local surgery lacks basic diagnostic equipment, such as X-rays.
This is why the Prime Minister’s failure to commit serious investment into primary care is so short-sighted. Investing in upgrading primary and community care services would make an outsize difference. In 2019, just ten per cent of people thought they could get a GP appointment on a Saturday, two per cent thought they could on a Sunday.
Equipping primary care to undertake basic diagnostic and surgical procedures would also drastically reduce pressure on our hospitals, allowing doctors in A&E to actually focus on those who require long-term and specialist care.
But that means investment in the boring basics – you can’t co-locate services in a portacabin, or perform basic surgery in a space the size of a terrace house. Nor can you expect an efficient, modern health service without fixing primary care’s ‘digital plumbing’ – GPs currently spend 17 minutes every morning just logging into a computer. And many can’t share key patient information with other professionals because systems simply don’t talk to each other.
It may not be headline-grabbing, but over 90 per cent of patient interactions take place within primary care and one of the biggest NHS gripes is people’s inability to get a GP appointment. Greater investment into these services would go a long way in ‘levelling up’ everyone’s experience of the NHS. That’s not just the right thing to do, it’s also politically expedient.
Read our briefing paper, A primary care estate fit for the future, here.


conservativehome--2020-02-11--Andy Street: Yes to HS2. But it’s only the start of the transport revolution we need north of Watfor

Andy Street: Yes to HS2. But it’s only the start of the transport revolution we need north of Watford.

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands , and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
As I write this , we await the Government ’ s final decision on HS2 .
I have made no secret of my support for the high speed rail link from London to Birmingham and beyond – I believe it will be one of the key catalysts in driving the economy , across the UK , post-Brexit .
How ?
HS2 will free up rail capacity , providing the opportunity to transform suburban transport – without HS2 , we risk our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of capacity .
However , if the line is built , carrying investment into the Midlands and the North , it ’ s vital that we look upon it not as the solution to the transport challenges facing the UK ’ s regions but as a jump-start to further ambition .
HS2 and new links between the great centres of the north will provide an arterial flow of investment between our cities , creating extra capacity and promoting the growth of each regional transport network , like neglected organs that are finally receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport links will connect people to opportunity , unlock investment to isolated communities , boost productivity , cut congestion and ultimately drive the economic success of our regions .
To put it simply , while HS2 is the key to unlocking a transport revolution north of Watford , it is only the beginning of what needs to be done .
That ’ s why last week I launched my transport plan for the West Midlands – an ambitious , 20-year vision of how our constituent boroughs of Birmingham , Coventry , Dudley , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will need to be linked in the coming decades .
The plan involves three modes of transport : metro , rail and high-tech vehicles .
In some areas , it is already happening .
We have made impressive advances in our tram-style Metro network .
Right now , the diggers are on site in Dudley , to bring the metro to the town centre – a stretch of line with 17 new stops .
Our city centre tram line past Birmingham Town Hall has now been linked to Centenary Square , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now underway .
However , as the growing population moves away from car usage , I believe the network will need to expand further .
Over the next 20 years , my plan envisions 150 miles of new lines and around 380 new stops .
In addition to the trams running on roads and on rail lines , some sections would run underground , using the kind of ‘ cut and cover ’ tunnelling used in New York and other US cities .
Combining with this would be a reinvigorated rail network .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening of long-closed rail services and reversing the Beeching cuts , with planning applications for stations at Moseley , Stirchley and Kings Heath in South Birmingham , and more in Walsall and Wolverhampton .
I want to see 21 new rail stations across the West Midlands by 2040 .
This includes reopening a line in the north of Birmingham which has only carried freight since the mid-sixties and building new stations along it .
There would be four new stations in Coventry and more across the Black Country .
Finally , in Coventry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light rail ’ trams and driverless autonomous pods would be used to connect key sites such as the University of Warwick , Jaguar Land Rover , Ansty and the City Centre .
To illustrate the ambition of my proposals we have produced a Tube-style map , which lays out just how all of these new networks would knit together to provide the connectivity needed for the West Midlands in the second part of the twenty-first century .
Of course , the symbolism of using an Underground-style map to show what is needed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on many – this is , after all , the kind of transport investment those in the South are used to .
But if we are serious about levelling up our economy , and repaying the trust of voters in the Midlands and the North , this is the kind of vision and ambition that is needed .
Any in Whitehall who balk at the expense of the transport plans on our map should bear in mind that the cost we have projected – £15 billion over 20 years – is the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which forms just one part of London ’ s network .
That would mean around £750 million per year for the next twenty years .
These costs would be met not just by additional funding from central Government , but through contributions from housing and commercial developers and borrowing against the future income from ticket sales on the Metro – a funding model that has already delivered our biggest Metro expansion yet , linking Dudley to our wider network .
We have the expertise to make this work and deliver on budget .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the numerous other schemes on the table to improve cycling , walking and healthier ways of getting around which will also play a part in revolutionising how people move about the conurbation .
It does illustrate how ambition of this level will boost civic pride , shape local identity and unite our communities .
The new Metro lines are named after significant local people , from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah to the great statesman , Joseph Chamberlain .
But of all the lines on the map , the most important one is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant opportunity to level-up the UK economy , and would release the capacity needed to set our plans in motion .
Levelling up isn ’ t just about simply pumping money into new areas outside of London , it ’ s also about recognising why the capital has outperformed everywhere else consistently .
The South East ’ s transport system is one clear reason .
My vision aims to create a similar network here in the West Midlands , and I ’ m sure the leaders of the North will be thinking along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and capacity begin through HS2 .
My 20-year transport plan is ambitious , but there would be no better example of levelling up in action .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
As I write this, we await the Government’s final decision on HS2. I have made no secret of my support for the high speed rail link from London to Birmingham and beyond – I believe it will be one of the key catalysts in driving the economy, across the UK, post-Brexit.
How? HS2 will free up rail capacity, providing the opportunity to transform suburban transport – without HS2, we risk our regional rail revolution being strangled by lack of capacity.
However, if the line is built, carrying investment into the Midlands and the North, it’s vital that we look upon it not as the solution to the transport challenges facing the UK’s regions but as a jump-start to further ambition.
HS2 and new links between the great centres of the north will provide an arterial flow of investment between our cities, creating extra capacity and promoting the growth of each regional transport network, like neglected organs that are finally receiving the nutrients they need.
Those improved transport links will connect people to opportunity, unlock investment to isolated communities, boost productivity, cut congestion and ultimately drive the economic success of our regions.
To put it simply, while HS2 is the key to unlocking a transport revolution north of Watford, it is only the beginning of what needs to be done.
That’s why last week I launched my transport plan for the West Midlands – an ambitious, 20-year vision of how our constituent boroughs of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton will need to be linked in the coming decades.
The plan involves three modes of transport: metro, rail and high-tech vehicles.
In some websites like justcarchecks.co.uk, it is already happening. We have made impressive advances in our tram-style Metro network. Right now, the diggers are on site in Dudley, to bring the metro to the town centre – a stretch of line with 17 new stops. Our city centre tram line past Birmingham Town Hall has now been linked to Centenary Square, with the next phase of construction out to Edgbaston now underway.
However, as the growing population moves away from car usage, I believe the network will need to expand further.
Over the next 20 years, my plan envisions 150 miles of new lines and around 380 new stops. In addition to the trams running on roads and on rail lines, some sections would run underground, using the kind of ‘cut and cover’ tunnelling used in New York and other US cities.
Combining with this would be a reinvigorated rail network. Again, we are already pioneering the reopening of long-closed rail services and reversing the Beeching cuts, with planning applications for stations at Moseley, Stirchley and Kings Heath in South Birmingham, and more in Walsall and Wolverhampton. I want to see 21 new rail stations across the West Midlands by 2040.
This includes reopening a line in the north of Birmingham which has only carried freight since the mid-sixties and building new stations along it. There would be four new stations in Coventry and more across the Black Country.
Finally, in Coventry, new technology such as ‘very light rail’ trams and driverless autonomous pods would be used to connect key sites such as the University of Warwick, Jaguar Land Rover, Ansty and the City Centre.
To illustrate the ambition of my proposals we have produced a Tube-style map, which lays out just how all of these new networks would knit together to provide the connectivity needed for the West Midlands in the second part of the twenty-first century.
Of course, the symbolism of using an Underground-style map to show what is needed in the West Midlands will not be lost on many – this is, after all, the kind of transport investment those in the South are used to.
But if we are serious about levelling up our economy, and repaying the trust of voters in the Midlands and the North, this is the kind of vision and ambition that is needed.
Any in Whitehall who balk at the expense of the transport plans on our map should bear in mind that the cost we have projected – £15 billion over 20 years – is the same as the initial budget for Crossrail, which forms just one part of London’s network.
That would mean around £750 million per year for the next twenty years. These costs would be met not just by additional funding from central Government, but through contributions from housing and commercial developers and borrowing against the future income from ticket sales on the Metro – a funding model that has already delivered our biggest Metro expansion yet, linking Dudley to our wider network.
We have the expertise to make this work and deliver on budget.
What the map doesn’t show are the numerous other schemes on the table to improve cycling, walking and healthier ways of getting around which will also play a part in revolutionising how people move about the conurbation.
It does illustrate how ambition of this level will boost civic pride, shape local identity and unite our communities. The new Metro lines are named after significant local people, from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah to the great statesman, Joseph Chamberlain.
But of all the lines on the map, the most important one is HS2, which represents the first truly significant opportunity to level-up the UK economy, and would release the capacity needed to set our plans in motion.
Levelling up isn’t just about simply pumping money into new areas outside of London, it’s also about recognising why the capital has outperformed everywhere else consistently. The South East’s transport system is one clear reason.
My vision aims to create a similar network here in the West Midlands, and I’m sure the leaders of the North will be thinking along similar lines should the bloodflow of investment and capacity begin through HS2.
My 20-year transport plan is ambitious, but there would be no better example of levelling up in action.