conservativehome--2020-10-16--‘We need to talk about the Union’: An inside look at the new group of Conservative MPs fighting for

‘We need to talk about the Union’: An inside look at the new group of Conservative MPs fighting for Britain

Amongst the many changes wrought by the pandemic , one which people might not have predicted has been the way it has brought the constitutional conflict back up to the boil .
For several years after the Brexit referendum the question of Scottish independence remained relatively quiescent , even as the SNP fought tooth and nail to prevent the UK ’ s exit from the European Union because of how difficult it made their ultimate ambition .
But the breakdown of the ‘ four nations ’ consensus on Covid-19 has changed all that .
Less than a year out from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to enjoy the ‘ rally round the flag ’ effect that Boris Johnson has lost ( despite a growing laundry list of woes ) .
Both Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford , her Welsh counterpart , are talking seriously about introducing internal movement restrictions inside the UK .
After decades of complacency and a blithe assumption that conceding more powers to Holyrood and Cardiff Bay could buy them off indefinitely , the Government has at least started to wake up to the scale of the challenge .
The UK Internal Market Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to defend the legitimate role of Westminster in national life .
But there will be much more to do over the next few years – and the new Conservative Union Research Group aims to make sure the Party is equipped to do it .
CURG is the brainchild of Robin Millar , the newly-elected MP for Aberconwy in North Wales .
A committed unionist – he set out his thinking on the Union in a recent piece for the Daily Express – he was spurred to organise after realising how badly devolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his .
When raising questions about flooding , for example , a response from DEFRA was simply forwarded from the Welsh Government , and at one point the Secretary of State expressed sympathy only for English constituencies affected .
Millar says he isn ’ t an instinctive centraliser .
He ’ s a fan of subsidiarity and pushed for greater local power whilst a county councillor in Suffolk .
But whilst he might be sceptical about Westminster ’ s capacity to directly run North Wales , he believes that it has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens – but , after decades of ‘ devolve and forget ’ , that it sometimes forgets that .
After speaking to other Welsh colleagues , Millar reached out to MPs from other parts of the country including Andrew Bowie , the MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine .
The goal was to set up a “ simple , focused , and open ” group to help backbench Tory MPs ( although there were ministers who wished to join ) work more effectively in Parliament on Union issues .
Membership has reportedly grown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as of today , the URG apparently counts more than 70 of them amongst its membership .
Crucially , four fifths of these represent English constituencies .
Whilst the name obviously invites comparisons with the European Research Group , Millar is clear that the URG is not a “ disgruntled caucus ” .
The Government ’ s stated goal is to defend the Union , and the URG intends to help .
One way of doing this is simply making sure that MPs know more about the Union .
Many MPs don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the constitution , and Millar ended up setting himself a lot of reading up over lockdown to make sure he was across the issues .
That ’ s perhaps one reason why the URG is geared towards mobilising people with shared convictions , rather than advocating for a specific and detailed set of solutions .
In Parliament , the group will hopefully help pro-UK MPs to make better-informed and more coordinated interventions on relevant issues by preparing briefing notes and other support .
The UK Internal Market Bill is an obvious example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to highlight that there is a Union dimension to a huge range of issues .
Ministers aiming to raise the Government ’ s profile in devolved policy areas won ’ t disagree .
Over the longer term , Millar hopes the group will be able to hone the intellectual arguments unionists need to take on the separatists .
This involves tackling misleading comparisons between the British and European unions , challenging misleading attacks on the ‘ English Government ’ , defending Westminster ’ s role in overseeing legitimately UK-wide initiatives such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that support for the Union is nostalgic or reactionary .
It also means pressing the SNP on the inconsistencies in their vision , including the increasingly salient question of whether territories such as Orkney and Shetland should have the right to go their own way in the event of an independence vote : “ Where does separation stop ?
” They might also try to persuade ministers to broaden and deepen their arguments against granting Sturgeon a re-run referendum after next year ’ s Holyrood election .
Simply repeating the “ once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be enough , but better arguments are available .
It is too soon to say what sort of ideas might come out of this process .
But even if it just gets minds concentrated on the problem and people talking about the Union , the URG would be doing the Party and the country a service .
For too long , nationalism has enjoyed the advantage of having permanently-established parties and caucuses focused exclusively on attacking the United Kingdom .
It is past time that unionism counter-organised .

Amongst the many changes wrought by the pandemic, one which people might not have predicted has been the way it has brought the constitutional conflict back up to the boil.
For several years after the Brexit referendum the question of Scottish independence remained relatively quiescent, even as the SNP fought tooth and nail to prevent the UK’s exit from the European Union because of how difficult it made their ultimate ambition.
But the breakdown of the ‘four nations’ consensus on Covid-19 has changed all that. Less than a year out from crucial Holyrood elections, the Scottish Government continues to enjoy the ‘rally round the flag’ effect that Boris Johnson has lost (despite a growing laundry list of woes). Both Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford, her Welsh counterpart, are talking seriously about introducing internal movement restrictions inside the UK.
After decades of complacency and a blithe assumption that conceding more powers to Holyrood and Cardiff Bay could buy them off indefinitely, the Government has at least started to wake up to the scale of the challenge. The UK Internal Market Bill was a welcome sign that ministers were prepared to defend the legitimate role of Westminster in national life.
But there will be much more to do over the next few years – and the new Conservative Union Research Group aims to make sure the Party is equipped to do it.
CURG is the brainchild of Robin Millar, the newly-elected MP for Aberconwy in North Wales. A committed unionist – he set out his thinking on the Union in a recent piece for the Daily Express – he was spurred to organise after realising how badly devolution had affected government attitudes towards constituencies such as his. When raising questions about flooding, for example, a response from DEFRA was simply forwarded from the Welsh Government, and at one point the Secretary of State expressed sympathy only for English constituencies affected.
Millar says he isn’t an instinctive centraliser. He’s a fan of subsidiarity and pushed for greater local power whilst a county councillor in Suffolk. But whilst he might be sceptical about Westminster’s capacity to directly run North Wales, he believes that it has not lost its ultimate responsibility towards all British citizens – but, after decades of ‘devolve and forget’, that it sometimes forgets that.
After speaking to other Welsh colleagues, Millar reached out to MPs from other parts of the country including Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. The goal was to set up a “simple, focused, and open” group to help backbench Tory MPs (although there were ministers who wished to join) work more effectively in Parliament on Union issues.
Membership has reportedly grown “organically” since the launch, and as of today, the URG apparently counts more than 70 of them amongst its membership. Crucially, four fifths of these represent English constituencies.
Whilst the name obviously invites comparisons with the European Research Group, Millar is clear that the URG is not a “disgruntled caucus”. The Government’s stated goal is to defend the Union, and the URG intends to help.
The Committee: Selaine Saxby, Fay Jones, Robin Millar, Andrew Bowie, and James Davies.
One way of doing this is simply making sure that MPs know more about the Union. Many MPs don’t come into politics to talk about the constitution, and Millar ended up setting himself a lot of reading up over lockdown to make sure he was across the issues. That’s perhaps one reason why the URG is geared towards mobilising people with shared convictions, rather than advocating for a specific and detailed set of solutions.
In Parliament, the group will hopefully help pro-UK MPs to make better-informed and more coordinated interventions on relevant issues by preparing briefing notes and other support. The UK Internal Market Bill is an obvious example, but the URG leadership are keen to highlight that there is a Union dimension to a huge range of issues. Ministers aiming to raise the Government’s profile in devolved policy areas won’t disagree.
Over the longer term, Millar hopes the group will be able to hone the intellectual arguments unionists need to take on the separatists. This involves tackling misleading comparisons between the British and European unions, challenging misleading attacks on the ‘English Government’, defending Westminster’s role in overseeing legitimately UK-wide initiatives such as the Shared Prosperity Fund, and combating the idea that support for the Union is nostalgic or reactionary.
It also means pressing the SNP on the inconsistencies in their vision, including the increasingly salient question of whether territories such as Orkney and Shetland should have the right to go their own way in the event of an independence vote: “Where does separation stop?”
They might also try to persuade ministers to broaden and deepen their arguments against granting Sturgeon a re-run referendum after next year’s Holyrood election. Simply repeating the “once in a generation” mantra won’t be enough, but better arguments are available.
It is too soon to say what sort of ideas might come out of this process. But even if it just gets minds concentrated on the problem and people talking about the Union, the URG would be doing the Party and the country a service. For too long, nationalism has enjoyed the advantage of having permanently-established parties and caucuses focused exclusively on attacking the United Kingdom. It is past time that unionism counter-organised.


conservativehome--2020-10-16--Iain Dale: The number of people who tell me that they would ignore the rules of any new national loc

Iain Dale: The number of people who tell me that they would ignore the rules of any new national lockdown is troubling

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
The number of people who tell me they would ignore the rules of any new national lockdown is troubling indeed .
Despite YouGov reporting that 68 per cent of the nation support such an initiative , were to be in any way successful it would need the full co-operation of the British people , and I now wonder whether that would be forthcoming .
Dominic Cummings ’ trip to Barnard Castle back in the spring did an enormous amount of damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ well , if it ’ s one rule for them and another for us , that ’ s it .
I ’ ve done my bit ’ .
However ludicrous the logic might appear , it ’ s a view many people take .
The story of Matt Hancock drinking in a bar after 10pm didn ’ t help either , no matter what the truth of it was .
It was a clever move by Keir Starmer to break with the Government and side with the scientists who want a circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps not from any other standpoint .
For as Boris Johnson pointed out at PMQs , SAGE recognised , in the minutes of the meeting in September , that although it recommended a so-called ‘ circuit-breaker ’ lockdown , it also that recognised the Prime Minister has to weigh this up with other considerations , not least economic and behavioural .
On the face of it , it seems more logical to adopt a regional and local approach to lockdowns .
That ’ s the one that the Opposition leader wants to adopt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s set on a national lockdown , even for areas with comparatively few cases .
No Labour spokesperson I have interviewed has been able to tell me how to explain to a business in North Norfolk why it should close , when in the whole of the area there are only 19 cases as I write .
Sometimes , we are led to believe that we ’ re the only country going through this .
We hear very little in the media about what ’ s happening elsewhere in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virtually every other country in Europe is introducing new restrictions and experiencing high rates of new infections – yes , even the sainted Germany .
As I write , France has hit 26,000 new infections .
Emmanuel Macron has announced a curfew from 9pm to 6am in nine cities , including Paris .
He has admitted that many of the country ’ s biggest hospitals are on the verge of being overwhelmed .
Its test and trace system has been even more shambolic than ours , and has been largely abandoned .
Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that ( apart from on my LBC show , natch ) ?
It ’ s as if every failing in the UK system is leapt upon as a further sign of both Johnson ’ s incompetence and deliberate spite towards a population that he clearly wants to die .
It ’ s preposterous , of course .
No one denies that there have been massive failings in all parts of the response to Coronavirus , but why is it that the failings in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures in Scotland in many areas are worse than in England yet , because she does a press conference every day , Nicola Sturgeon is given a largely free pass by a supine Scottish media .
Holding a press conference in which you repeat yourself each day , but talk a good game , is no substitute for effective policy .
And in most areas , Scottish government policy towards Coronavirus has been just as ineffective as that applied in other parts of the UK .
On my Cross Question programme on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to every question on Covid was to trot out a mantra of blaming Boris Johnson for every single failing .
Well , it ’ s a point of view , but to then rely on New Zealand as proof of the Prime Minister ’ s incompetence strikes one as incongruous to say the very least .
He kept saying that New Zealand has done everything right , and if only we had followed its lead we ’ d have been OK .
Sometimes , you have to shake your head at the ignorance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to compare a country with a population density of 16 per square kilometre with another country which a density of 255 per square kilometre ?
How is it possible to compare a country whose biggest city ’ s population is 1.6 million , with one whose capital city has a population of nine million ?
I could go on .
The challenges of fighting a virus in a country like the UK is very different to that of New Zealand .
Having said that , no one can deny the New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I am sure there are things we could learn from their experience .
Similarly , we can learn from other European countries , and you ’ d hope that there ’ s a lot of learning going on in the Department of Health .
Sometimes , one has to wonder , though .
Take test and trace .
Three months ago , I interviewed the Mayor of Blackburn .
Because the National test and trace scheme was failing to trace people in Blackburn and the R rate was increasingly at a worrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council decided to use its own public health people to set up a local test and trace system .
Contrary to some media outlets reported at the time , this was not set up in opposition to the Dido Harding system , it was designed to complement it .
If the national system failed to trace someone in 48 hours , details were handed over to the local public health department .
It worked like a dream .
‘ This is the way forward , ’ I thought to myself after the interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be replicated across the country .
Not a bit of it .
Only now is it beginning to happen – with the Department of Health , PHE and National Test and Trace finally working out that more local input is needed .
Why has it taken so long for the penny to drop ?
Ask me another .
What we are seeing in so many areas is a failure of the machinery of government .
This will be one of main areas for a public inquiry to delve into .
How can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boston Consulting to be paid £7,340 per day for each of its consultants who have been hired to advise on test and trace ?
I do hope there ’ s a performance element to the contract…if so , they ought to be handing the money back Obviously , a private company has to make a profit , but £7,340 per day equates to an annual rate of £1.8 million per consultant .
There ’ s taking the piss , and taking the piss .
And this qualifies on both counts .
Whichever civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some very serious questions to answer .
And don ’ t get me started on the EU and the trade talks .
I ’ d better leave that until next week , I think .
If only for my own sanity and your blood pressure .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
The number of people who tell me they would ignore the rules of any new national lockdown is troubling indeed. Despite YouGov reporting that 68 per cent of the nation support such an initiative, were to be in any way successful it would need the full co-operation of the British people, and I now wonder whether that would be forthcoming.
Dominic Cummings’ trip to Barnard Castle back in the spring did an enormous amount of damage. It allowed people to say: “well, if it’s one rule for them and another for us, that’s it. I’ve done my bit’.
However ludicrous the logic might appear, it’s a view many people take. The story of Matt Hancock drinking in a bar after 10pm didn’t help either, no matter what the truth of it was.
It was a clever move by Keir Starmer to break with the Government and side with the scientists who want a circuit breaker lockdown. Clever politically – though perhaps not from any other standpoint.
For as Boris Johnson pointed out at PMQs, SAGE recognised, in the minutes of the meeting in September, that although it recommended a so-called ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown, it also that recognised the Prime Minister has to weigh this up with other considerations, not least economic and behavioural.
On the face of it, it seems more logical to adopt a regional and local approach to lockdowns. That’s the one that the Opposition leader wants to adopt on test and trace – yet otherwise he’s set on a national lockdown, even for areas with comparatively few cases.
No Labour spokesperson I have interviewed has been able to tell me how to explain to a business in North Norfolk why it should close, when in the whole of the area there are only 19 cases as I write.
Sometimes, we are led to believe that we’re the only country going through this. We hear very little in the media about what’s happening elsewhere in the world, apart from the United States.
Virtually every other country in Europe is introducing new restrictions and experiencing high rates of new infections – yes, even the sainted Germany.
As I write, France has hit 26,000 new infections. Emmanuel Macron has announced a curfew from 9pm to 6am in nine cities, including Paris. He has admitted that many of the country’s biggest hospitals are on the verge of being overwhelmed. Its test and trace system has been even more shambolic than ours, and has been largely abandoned. Where in the British media do you hear about that (apart from on my LBC show, natch)?
It’s as if every failing in the UK system is leapt upon as a further sign of both Johnson’s incompetence and deliberate spite towards a population that he clearly wants to die. It’s preposterous, of course. No one denies that there have been massive failings in all parts of the response to Coronavirus, but why is it that the failings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland aren’t highlighted in the same way?
The figures in Scotland in many areas are worse than in England yet, because she does a press conference every day, Nicola Sturgeon is given a largely free pass by a supine Scottish media.
Holding a press conference in which you repeat yourself each day, but talk a good game, is no substitute for effective policy. And in most areas, Scottish government policy towards Coronavirus has been just as ineffective as that applied in other parts of the UK.
– – – – – – – – – –
On my Cross Question programme on Wednesday night, Richard Burgon’s answer to every question on Covid was to trot out a mantra of blaming Boris Johnson for every single failing.
Well, it’s a point of view, but to then rely on New Zealand as proof of the Prime Minister’s incompetence strikes one as incongruous to say the very least. He kept saying that New Zealand has done everything right, and if only we had followed its lead we’d have been OK.
Sometimes, you have to shake your head at the ignorance of some people. How is it possible to compare a country with a population density of 16 per square kilometre with another country which a density of 255 per square kilometre? How is it possible to compare a country whose biggest city’s population is 1.6 million, with one whose capital city has a population of nine million?
I could go on. The challenges of fighting a virus in a country like the UK is very different to that of New Zealand. Having said that, no one can deny the New Zealand government has done a brilliant job, and I am sure there are things we could learn from their experience.
Similarly, we can learn from other European countries, and you’d hope that there’s a lot of learning going on in the Department of Health. Sometimes, one has to wonder, though.
Take test and trace. Three months ago, I interviewed the Mayor of Blackburn. Because the National test and trace scheme was failing to trace people in Blackburn and the R rate was increasingly at a worrying pace, the Mayor and his local council decided to use its own public health people to set up a local test and trace system.
Contrary to some media outlets reported at the time, this was not set up in opposition to the Dido Harding system, it was designed to complement it. If the national system failed to trace someone in 48 hours, details were handed over to the local public health department. It worked like a dream.
‘This is the way forward,’ I thought to myself after the interview. And I assumed that arrangement this would be replicated across the country.
Not a bit of it. Only now is it beginning to happen – with the Department of Health, PHE and National Test and Trace finally working out that more local input is needed. Why has it taken so long for the penny to drop? Ask me another.
What we are seeing in so many areas is a failure of the machinery of government. This will be one of main areas for a public inquiry to delve into.
How can it be right for example, for Boston Consulting to be paid £7,340 per day for each of its consultants who have been hired to advise on test and trace? I do hope there’s a performance element to the contract…if so, they ought to be handing the money back
Obviously, a private company has to make a profit, but £7,340 per day equates to an annual rate of £1.8 million per consultant. There’s taking the piss, and taking the piss. And this qualifies on both counts. Whichever civil servant or minister signed this off has some very serious questions to answer.
And don’t get me started on the EU and the trade talks. I’d better leave that until next week, I think. If only for my own sanity and your blood pressure.


conservativehome--2020-10-16--Ian Hudspeth: Test and trace needs to be local by default

Cllr Ian Hudspeth is Chairman of the Local Government Association ’ s Community Wellbeing Board and Leader of Oxfordshire County Council Good community relations are an essential part of public life , something which has been proved even more crucial during the pandemic .
When it comes to dealing with authorities , people tend to trust their local council rather than national remote-sounding bodies .
This is because they can relate to their area and circumstances , including what ’ s going on in their street or neighbourhood .
COVID-19 is best understood as a pattern of local outbreaks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar impact in every community .
With the right data and resources , councils can understand where the outbreaks are happening and are able to act swiftly to contain them .
Environmental health officers , alongside public health practitioners , including infection control nurses and those working in sexual health services , are among the existing local authority roles which have unparalleled skills and experience in dealing with other communicable diseases such as measles , meningitis , and food-borne illnesses such as E.coli .
Councils are now increasingly pooling these valuable resources and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trace system , to combat the emerging second wave .
The latest weekly statistics for NHS Test and Trace and coronavirus testing ( for the week ending 7 October ) demonstrate this , with cases handled by local health protection teams showing 97.7 per cent of close contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate .
This compares to 57.6 per cent of close contacts handled either online or by call centres in the national system .
The same figures show that overall , the number of close contacts of people who tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at its lowest weekly rate since Test and Trace began , dipping below 70 per cent .
These worrying figures show that the national test and trace system is failing to track down all those who need to be contacted , to help stop this second wave .
They also prove what we in local government have been saying throughout : that councils are uniquely placed with the local knowledge , skills , and connections , to let people know if they need to self-isolate and can be supported to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the real-time data , funding , and other resources on the ground in order to combat the rising rates of infections .
The Government ’ s new local alert system means that those in the ‘ very high ’ tier will receive extra financial support , including for local testing and contact tracing , to help spot and contain spikes in infection .
To date , more than 90 local authorities have already set up , or are about to launch , their own locally-supported contact tracing systems , to complement the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus that local is best .
We have seen some encouraging developments since the Test and Trace system was launched in May , including better sharing of data with councils compared to the early months of the pandemic ; a substantial increase in testing capacity , with Directors of Public Health having more say over how this is allocated ; and improved recognition of the role and value of councils in promoting messages and advice .
Challenges which remain include integrating the local and national – and treating both with equal respect and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results within reasonable reach of people ’ s homes , and boosting local laboratory capacity .
The latter point is particularly important if we are to reach the Government ’ s stated target of 500,000 tests by the end of this month .
Councils being able to decide where local mobile testing units are placed , for example , is also vital to making it as easy as possible for those who need a test to get one , particularly for people living in rural and sparsely-populated areas where transport links are weaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen across the country , in addition to targeted support for areas with high levels of infection , so that those regions with lower-prevalence can prevent any outbreaks before they begin and escalate .
Local government can play a major part in test and trace , but it must complement the national system rather than duplicate or compete with it .
Using councils ’ local ‘ soft ’ approach and intelligence , they can join up the data received from the national test and trace service with local knowledge , to better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations , acting swiftly to contain them .
This could mean they are able to go to people ’ s homes to make sure they are aware of what they need to do , while also referring anybody who needs to self-isolate to local support services if necessary .
A telephone call or gentle knock at the door from someone at the local council is far more likely to result in someone agreeing to comply with a request to self-isolate , than someone calling from a remote office elsewhere in the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not only the reassurance of seeing somebody in person or a recognisable local number appear on the phone , but it ’ s about speaking to someone who knows and can relate to their area , letting them know what help is available .
Just as we are starting to see different restrictions apply in various parts of the country , we know from our experience to date that one size does not fit all .
By working closely with NHS Test and Trace , including the crucial sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and personnel , councils across all regions can help deliver a complementary system which works in the best interests of all our residents , to suppress the virus and hopefully get our lives back to what we are used to .

Cllr Ian Hudspeth is Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board and Leader of Oxfordshire County Council
Good community relations are an essential part of public life, something which has been proved even more crucial during the pandemic.
When it comes to dealing with authorities, people tend to trust their local council rather than national remote-sounding bodies. This is because they can relate to their area and circumstances, including what’s going on in their street or neighbourhood.
COVID-19 is best understood as a pattern of local outbreaks, rather than a national pandemic with a similar impact in every community. With the right data and resources, councils can understand where the outbreaks are happening and are able to act swiftly to contain them.
Environmental health officers, alongside public health practitioners, including infection control nurses and those working in sexual health services, are among the existing local authority roles which have unparalleled skills and experience in dealing with other communicable diseases such as measles, meningitis, and food-borne illnesses such as E.coli.
Councils are now increasingly pooling these valuable resources and using them to support the national test and trace system, to combat the emerging second wave.
The latest weekly statistics for NHS Test and Trace and coronavirus testing (for the week ending 7 October) demonstrate this, with cases handled by local health protection teams showing 97.7 per cent of close contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate. This compares to 57.6 per cent of close contacts handled either online or by call centres in the national system. The same figures show that overall, the number of close contacts of people who tested positive for COVID-19 reached through the system is at its lowest weekly rate since Test and Trace began, dipping below 70 per cent.
These worrying figures show that the national test and trace system is failing to track down all those who need to be contacted, to help stop this second wave. They also prove what we in local government have been saying throughout: that councils are uniquely placed with the local knowledge, skills, and connections, to let people know if they need to self-isolate and can be supported to do so. To build on this, councils need the real-time data, funding, and other resources on the ground in order to combat the rising rates of infections.
The Government’s new local alert system means that those in the ‘very high’ tier will receive extra financial support, including for local testing and contact tracing, to help spot and contain spikes in infection. To date, more than 90 local authorities have already set up, or are about to launch, their own locally-supported contact tracing systems, to complement the national scheme, building on the growing consensus that local is best. We have seen some encouraging developments since the Test and Trace system was launched in May, including better sharing of data with councils compared to the early months of the pandemic; a substantial increase in testing capacity, with Directors of Public Health having more say over how this is allocated; and improved recognition of the role and value of councils in promoting messages and advice.
Challenges which remain include integrating the local and national – and treating both with equal respect and resources, rapid access to testing and results within reasonable reach of people’s homes, and boosting local laboratory capacity. The latter point is particularly important if we are to reach the Government’s stated target of 500,000 tests by the end of this month. Councils being able to decide where local mobile testing units are placed, for example, is also vital to making it as easy as possible for those who need a test to get one, particularly for people living in rural and sparsely-populated areas where transport links are weaker.
This expansion of testing should also be seen across the country, in addition to targeted support for areas with high levels of infection, so that those regions with lower-prevalence can prevent any outbreaks before they begin and escalate.
Local government can play a major part in test and trace, but it must complement the national system rather than duplicate or compete with it. Using councils’ local ‘soft’ approach and intelligence, they can join up the data received from the national test and trace service with local knowledge, to better spot potential clusters in workplaces and other locations, acting swiftly to contain them.
This could mean they are able to go to people’s homes to make sure they are aware of what they need to do, while also referring anybody who needs to self-isolate to local support services if necessary. A telephone call or gentle knock at the door from someone at the local council is far more likely to result in someone agreeing to comply with a request to self-isolate, than someone calling from a remote office elsewhere in the country, or a message appearing on an app. It’s not only the reassurance of seeing somebody in person or a recognisable local number appear on the phone, but it’s about speaking to someone who knows and can relate to their area, letting them know what help is available.
Just as we are starting to see different restrictions apply in various parts of the country, we know from our experience to date that one size does not fit all. By working closely with NHS Test and Trace, including the crucial sharing of real-time data, providing adequate funding and personnel, councils across all regions can help deliver a complementary system which works in the best interests of all our residents, to suppress the virus and hopefully get our lives back to what we are used to.


conservativehome--2020-10-16--Lord Ashcroft: Trump – “toxic”, “awesome”, both or neither?  My American election focus groups in Mi

Lord Ashcroft: Trump – “toxic”, “awesome”, both or neither?  My American election focus groups in Michigan and North Carolina.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman , philanthropist , author and pollster .
For information on Lord Ashcroft ’ s work , visit www.lordashcroft.com .
This week , our virtual focus-group tour of America takes us to two more swing states , one in the rustbelt and one in the sunbelt : Michigan , which voted for the Democrat in every presidential election for 20 years before narrowly backing Donald Trump in 2016 , and North Carolina , recently a more Republican-leaning state where polls now give Joe Biden a slim lead .
The week has been dominated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s nomination for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg .
The issue is the source of fruitless allegations of hypocrisy on all sides : the Democrats furious that the process is happening at all , given the Senate ’ s refusal to confirm an Obama nominee during the months before the 2016 election , and the Republicans pointing out that the nominee in question would certainly have been confirmed if the Democrats had had the votes in the Senate .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ d be doing the same thing.
” The move annoyed most of Trump ’ s opponents in our groups , as well as some of his former voters .
They suspected Trump of wanting to secure a conservative majority on the Court in advance of a potential dispute over the election result , as in 2000 .
Most Trump supporters in our groups , and even a few opponents , saw nothing wrong in the President making the nomination and the hearings going ahead .
Even some Biden-leaning voters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might appoint more judges to the court to create a liberal majority .
But for some , the Supreme Court question seemed too remote to be very animating .
“ He ’ s had a kind of karma experience… He said it was a hoax and how he ’ s a super-spreader.
” Otherwise , Trump ’ s encounter with Covid-19 continued to preoccupy many voters of all shades .
In Britain , Boris Johnson ’ s illness brought forth expressions of concern and goodwill from across the political divide – had this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s Democrats saying , ‘ we wish him all the best , ’ and I guess they have to mean it because Pence isn ’ t much better .
But then there are those who say ‘ yeah , you deserved it ’ .
” “ He ’ s had a kind of karma experience where he put it off and was saying it was a hoax .
And it did come around , and now he ’ s considered to be a super-spreader.
” Everyday human sympathy was set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to protect himself or other people .
Many felt his wider actions – or lack of them – had led to a higher American death toll than might otherwise have been the case .
“ He wants to come across like he ’ s bigger than the virus.
” Some took a more forgiving view ( “ Everyone is going to get it , regardless , until they come up with a vaccine ; ” “ He was trying to avoid panic ; ” “ I don ’ t think it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House ” ) , but even a number of his former voters saw Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic as the emblematic of his presidency .
“ I thought he would rise to the occasion , that he would elevate himself to the office .
And then it just seems like a circus.
” Some who had not traditionally voted Republican but had switched to Trump in the hope of seeing change saw all this as the latest in a long line of disappointments .
Though he had not seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these 2016 Trump supporters even worried about what a second term might bring .
“ He ’ s the first President I actually paid attention to because the way he comes across is awesome .
If it wasn ’ t for this Covid thing , he ’ s just remarkable.
” But for longer-standing Republican voters , Trump ’ s antics continued to be the price they were willing to pay – albeit though increasingly gritted teeth – for the policy direction they wanted to see .
Relations with China and North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , and three conservative Supreme Court nominations were also mentioned in his defence .
Even so , it was not a decision they all relished : “ He ’ s cognitively not all there .
He ’ s just not.
” Few thought the idea of Biden as president was worrying or inspiring in itself – voters of all persuasions described him as “ mild ” , “ middle-of-the-road , ” “ laid back ” and “ the safe pick ” .
But they were also united in seeing him as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide was between those who feared he would prove to be a bridge to a much more liberal administration under President Kamala Harris – and those who hoped he would be .
For more liberal voters , this was an appealing prospect : There ’ s a lot of effing stupid people in our country Liberal voters who stayed at home or backed third-party candidates rather than vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 were determined to toe the line this time , however uninspired they felt ( “ Another elderly white man in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not enthusiastic ” ) .
Some felt guilty at having failed to keep Trump out of office four years ago .
Some felt Clinton had only herself to blame .
( “ She should have been out campaigning instead of going on Ellen and dancing . )
But others blamed Russia , the electoral college system , or the fact that “ there ’ s a lot of effing stupid people in our country .
Idiots and the frickin ’ old , racist white men.
” At the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden presidency was that America would be less divided and “ more unified.
” Why would Republicans be more united behind Biden than you were behind Trump ?
But you think they were stupid to elect him ?
“ Trump wants to overpower and bully , and he can ’ t do that virtually.
” With less than three weeks to go , several of our participants remained undecided .
These people wanted to hear more about where both candidates stood on policy issues , especially healthcare .
They were therefore disappointed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not take part in the second debate , switched to a virtual format as a precaution against Covid .
Though an appealing idea ( “ It ’ s great because you could mute Trump and he couldn ’ t talk over Biden ” ) , they thought they had the measure of the President ’ s position .
Despite Biden ’ s clear lead in the polls , many of those leaning towards voting for him were notably pessimistic – whether because they thought Trump ’ s support remained stronger than it looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to subvert the democratic result : “ He ’ s appealing to his hardcore base and doesn ’ t realise he needs more than that to win this time .
It ’ s frustrating , because I believe in a lot of what he wants to do.
” Conversely , Republican-inclined voters we spoke to tended to think a Trump victory was unlikely , not least because he seemed to have made no attempt to reach beyond his already committed supporters .

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For information on Lord Ashcroft’s work, visit www.lordashcroft.com.
This week, our virtual focus-group tour of America takes us to two more swing states, one in the rustbelt and one in the sunbelt: Michigan, which voted for the Democrat in every presidential election for 20 years before narrowly backing Donald Trump in 2016, and North Carolina, recently a more Republican-leaning state where polls now give Joe Biden a slim lead.
The week has been dominated by the Senate hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nomination for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
The issue is the source of fruitless allegations of hypocrisy on all sides: the Democrats furious that the process is happening at all, given the Senate’s refusal to confirm an Obama nominee during the months before the 2016 election, and the Republicans pointing out that the nominee in question would certainly have been confirmed if the Democrats had had the votes in the Senate.
“If the Democrats were in the same position, they’d be doing the same thing.”
The move annoyed most of Trump’s opponents in our groups, as well as some of his former voters.
“The Senate has totally 180’d on their rule that they made up four years ago… [Republican Senate leader] Mitch McConnell himself said you should not do a Supreme Court nomination during an election year when it was Obama’s turn, but now it’s Trump’s turn, let’s shove this woman through as fast as humanly possible before the election.”
They suspected Trump of wanting to secure a conservative majority on the Court in advance of a potential dispute over the election result, as in 2000.
“He’s already saying ‘election fraud!’ when we haven’t even had the election yet, so it feels very suspicious. It feels like they’re doing everything in their power to make sure he wins no matter what, and they need to have that Supreme Court justice confirmed and in place to make sure that happens.”
Most Trump supporters in our groups, and even a few opponents, saw nothing wrong in the President making the nomination and the hearings going ahead.
“The Constitution says it’s his job to do so, so it’s his job to do so.” “I don’t really have a problem with it. The President serves four years, not three.” “If the Democrats were in the same position, they’d be doing the same thing. Obama had the right to do it, and the Republican Senate had the right to say no. It’s the Constitution.”
Even some Biden-leaning voters were worried by the suggestion that the Democrats might appoint more judges to the court to create a liberal majority.
“How many times are we going to be allowed to change the rules? We shouldn’t do something that we would not want them to do either.” “Biden wouldn’t answer that question, so that kind of gets me a little scared.”
But for some, the Supreme Court question seemed too remote to be very animating.
“I don’t care one way or the other. I mean, what difference does it make to me?”
“He’s had a kind of karma experience… He said it was a hoax and how he’s a super-spreader.”
Otherwise, Trump’s encounter with Covid-19 continued to preoccupy many voters of all shades. In Britain, Boris Johnson’s illness brought forth expressions of concern and goodwill from across the political divide – had this been the case with the president?
“There’s Democrats saying, ‘we wish him all the best,’ and I guess they have to mean it because Pence isn’t much better. But then there are those who say ‘yeah, you deserved it’.”
“He’s had a kind of karma experience where he put it off and was saying it was a hoax. And it did come around, and now he’s considered to be a super-spreader.”
Everyday human sympathy was set against the widespread feeling that he had failed to protect himself or other people.
“He greatly increased his chances. He didn’t take precautions; he didn’t wear a mask.” “He gave it to all the White House people and didn’t quarantine himself.”
Many felt his wider actions – or lack of them – had led to a higher American death toll than might otherwise have been the case.
“He basically encouraged his followers to come out and be in close contact and not wear masks. He’s helped kill a lot of people, I think.” “We know that he knew about the dangers of the virus at the very beginning, that it could be spread through the air, and he said ‘it’s not a deal, it’s going to be gone by Easter. Everything’s totally fine’.”
“He wants to come across like he’s bigger than the virus.”
Some took a more forgiving view (“Everyone is going to get it, regardless, until they come up with a vaccine;” “He was trying to avoid panic;” “I don’t think it would have made a difference who was in the White House”), but even a number of his former voters saw Trump’s handling of the pandemic as the emblematic of his presidency.
“Whoever was in charge would have struggled, but he just comes across as too defiant to want to take advice from anybody, the medical profession. His ego just gets in the way the whole time.” “He just puts his foot in his mouth, or he messes up. I’m sure he had a great idea of coming out and saying he can continue with his work and all that, but the way he does it and presents it just makes him look irresponsible.” “He wants to come across like he’s bigger than the virus, he’s going to beat it. And he’s surrounded by yes-men. He’s fine with a doctor standing next to him until they disagree one time, then all of a sudden they’re gone.”
“I thought he would rise to the occasion, that he would elevate himself to the office. And then it just seems like a circus.”
Some who had not traditionally voted Republican but had switched to Trump in the hope of seeing change saw all this as the latest in a long line of disappointments.
“He has done stuff, but I think he is for the rich, he’s not for the working middle class. I thought he was going to be more for all the people;” “For me, what he says doesn’t match what he does. He’ll say, ‘I’m going to pass this executive order’ and it doesn’t actually do anything for the people. Or he’ll say, ‘I’m doing something on healthcare’, but four years later there’s still not a plan to share.”
Though he had not seemed particularly presidential in 2016 –
“I thought he would rise to the occasion. I thought he would elevate himself to the office and he actually wanted to do things for the people. And then it just seems like a circus and it’s accelerating” “I think people are just fed up with Trump. I think he’s so toxic he’s worn out his welcome. Everything that’s coming out of his mouth is the opposite of what everybody expects from a President.”
A few of these 2016 Trump supporters even worried about what a second term might bring.
“I’ve never seen our country so divided and I don’t like it. I don’t feel comfortable. I don’t feel safe.” “What disappoints me most is his refusal to condemn white supremacy. I’m white, but I’m also a Jewish American woman. So that’s terrifying to me – what’s going to happen to me if he gets elected and continues with this rhetoric? I’m afraid for myself. I don’t have a president that I feel cares about me or will stand up for me or protect me – that I’m someone who he dislikes.”
“He’s the first President I actually paid attention to because the way he comes across is awesome. If it wasn’t for this Covid thing, he’s just remarkable.”
But for longer-standing Republican voters, Trump’s antics continued to be the price they were willing to pay – albeit though increasingly gritted teeth – for the policy direction they wanted to see.
“We wanted him to straighten out our economy and get some of our jobs back from these foreign countries and get some more people to work, and yeah, I think he’s done that.”
Relations with China and North Korea, action on immigration and the jobs, and three conservative Supreme Court nominations were also mentioned in his defence.
“It’s just his policies. I know what he wants to do and what I want to stop from happening in the other direction.”
Even so, it was not a decision they all relished:
“I’d say I’m 75 per cent for Trump. But I’ll be taking a good flask of Kentucky bourbon in there to help me colour those dots for him.”
“He’s cognitively not all there. He’s just not.”
Few thought the idea of Biden as president was worrying or inspiring in itself – voters of all persuasions described him as “mild”, “middle-of-the-road,” “laid back” and “the safe pick”. But they were also united in seeing him as a “stop-gap” president.
“If you watch his speeches, he’s cognitively not all there. He’s just not;” “If he doesn’t have a script, he loses his train of thought;” “He’s so super-old!”
The bigger divide was between those who feared he would prove to be a bridge to a much more liberal administration under President Kamala Harris – and those who hoped he would be.
“I think within maybe two years at most, Kamala might be president,” said one Biden-leaning voter. “And then you’ve got one of the most radical people on the left running the country all of a sudden. That’s the one thing that makes me pause about voting for him;” “It’s more and more obvious that the whole point of the left is to get him in office, and then I think his role is going to diminish, and others in the party that a lot more liberal with their agendas are going to be running things.” “It worries me, the whole squad. AOC [left-wing New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and Kamala and Bernie Sanders;” “Biden was the obvious pick to be moderate and just vanilla. If he could get them through to the finish line and win, they’re going to take over and do what they want to do.”
For more liberal voters, this was an appealing prospect:
“I kind of like Kamala and, I mean, he’s 78 years old, so I like my chances of getting her in there.” “Let’s get some distance from this current administration, reset a little bit, and then in the next election let’s hope someone can come in and lead. Like AOC”.
There’s a lot of effing stupid people in our country
Liberal voters who stayed at home or backed third-party candidates rather than vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 were determined to toe the line this time, however uninspired they felt (“Another elderly white man in office is not inviting. No, I’m not enthusiastic”).
Some felt guilty at having failed to keep Trump out of office four years ago.
“Did we not do enough to reach out? Did we not do enough educating people in our lives?”
Some felt Clinton had only herself to blame. (“She should have been out campaigning instead of going on Ellen and dancing.)
“One thing that made it easy not to vote for Hillary was being called deplorable”
But others blamed Russia, the electoral college system, or the fact that “there’s a lot of effing stupid people in our country. Idiots and the frickin’ old, racist white men.”
At the same time, their biggest professed hope for a Biden presidency was that America would be less divided and “more unified.” Why would Republicans be more united behind Biden than you were behind Trump?
“Because having him and Harris in those positions will bring an end to that divisiveness, and because I believe in their intellect and hope they wouldn’t think I’m stupid.”
But you think they were stupid to elect him?
“I do believe there was some lack of knowledge, there was some gap. Some of my friends have Trump signs all over their yard and I still love them, and our children still play together. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think they have received stupid misinformation.”
“Trump wants to overpower and bully, and he can’t do that virtually.”
With less than three weeks to go, several of our participants remained undecided. These people wanted to hear more about where both candidates stood on policy issues, especially healthcare.
They were therefore disappointed by Trump’s insistence that he would not take part in the second debate, switched to a virtual format as a precaution against Covid.
Though an appealing idea (“It’s great because you could mute Trump and he couldn’t talk over Biden”), they thought they had the measure of the President’s position.
“He wants to overpower and bully and he can’t do that virtually.” “Joe reads off a teleprompter when he’s doing stuff in this way. If you’re face to face, Joe has to answer questions.”
Despite Biden’s clear lead in the polls, many of those leaning towards voting for him were notably pessimistic – whether because they thought Trump’s support remained stronger than it looked, or because he would find a way to subvert the democratic result:
“It just feels so unpredictable. I know what I’m going to do, but I have a horrible gut feeling about this.” “Just by looking through Facebook, people are still behind him, still posting memes. It just seems that they are not changing their minds. I have a hard time seeing and thinking that any of his supporters are actually switching sides;” “Biden’s going to come up ahead, but I just think Trump is going to pull something. He’s going to argue, and this thing will go on for weeks, and it’s going to go on until he gets his way.”
“He’s appealing to his hardcore base and doesn’t realise he needs more than that to win this time. It’s frustrating, because I believe in a lot of what he wants to do.”
Conversely, Republican-inclined voters we spoke to tended to think a Trump victory was unlikely, not least because he seemed to have made no attempt to reach beyond his already committed supporters.


conservativehome--2020-10-16--WATCH: Johnson 1) Brexit. “We should get ready for January 1 with arrangements that are more like Au

WATCH: Johnson 1) Brexit. “We should get ready for January 1 with arrangements that are more like Australia’s”

`` Given that they have refused to negotiate seriously for much of the last few months… We should get ready @ @ @ @ @ that are more like Australia 's . ''
Boris Johnson says the UK should get @ @ @ @ @ without a trade deal in January .
pic.twitter.com/MwLkVeqX02

"Given that they have refused to negotiate seriously for much of the last few months… We should get ready for January 1 with arrangements that are more like Australia's."
Boris Johnson says the UK should get ready to leave the EU without a trade deal in January. pic.twitter.com/MwLkVeqX02
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) October 16, 2020


The Peter Pan-demic

Over the last decade , there ’ s been a recurring question put to our leaders .
That is , “ what about young people ’ s futures ?
” It is a line that has seemed cynical at times ; used by anti-Brexit groups , for instance , to encourage support for overturning the EU referendum result .
More recently it became the favourite among climate change activists .
“ The eyes of all future generations are upon you ” , Greta Thunberg famously told world leaders at the United Nations climate action summit .
And yet , during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been curiously absent – right around the time it is most needed .
What is going to happen to the young with our Coronavirus policies , after all ?
I don ’ t think it ’ s selfish to wonder this ; young people know that the crisis has presented leaders with impossible choices ; they ’ re prepared to take on the huge tax bill coming , and they are deeply concerned about protecting their elders , whatever the newspapers suggest .
Even so , they are not immune to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to know that there is some hope for them at the end .
I don ’ t count myself as young , incidentally , as I ’ m 31 and going steadily grey .
But I ’ m young-ish – a millennial , and I wonder about my future too .
The Government ’ s recent Tier 2 restrictions , which – like many others – I am subjected to from today , has left me with deeper concerns than whether I ’ ll be able to meet friends .
To me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could best be described as “ Economic Neverland ” .
Once my generation had aspirations for homes , families and the rest , but alongside the double whammy of 2008 ’ s financial crisis , it feels that we are unable to grow up .
This crisis has , in many ways , been a “ Peter Pan-demic ” , if I may .
It ’ s devastating for everyone .
But we are consigning multiple generations to not being able to reach the markers of adulthood .
The first sign has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people are moving back home with mum and dad .
I know because I was one of them ( lucky enough to be able to self-isolate first ) .
My studio flat would have been intolerable over lockdown , and several friends made the same decision .
Others are now back because they ’ ve lost their job or had to take a pay cut .
No matter how much you love home , this is not the direction life is meant to go in .
Then there are the other challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch friends cancel weddings this year , and the idea of having babies is almost certainly out of the question ( even though many of us are in the pressing decade of our thirties ) .
Conservatives have made massive advances in changing these facts – the housing algorithm was a very positive sign that MPs want to better the system – and yet the virus is a case of one step forward , two steps back .
I can only write this from a millennial perspective , but 16-24 year olds have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the most hit by job losses , as the number of people made redundant in the UK has risen to the fastest rate on record .
Many can not enjoy a full university experience , with Zoom replacing face-to-face teaching and Fresher ’ s Week now on hold for the foreseeable future .
And it doesn ’ t bear thinking about what lies ahead for children , caught in the middle of school reopenings , which have increasingly become a political football .
Quite simply , I wouldn ’ t mind a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remind leaders that “ the eyes of all future generations are upon you.
” Yes , the priority is to navigate the present – but our sleep-deprived politicians also have a duty to cast their minds to the decades ahead ; to think about the sustainability of their policies , and what ’ s being asked of existing generations , and of those to come .
From young people ’ s job security , to knowing they can settle down , there must be a way out of Neverland eventually .

Over the last decade, there’s been a recurring question put to our leaders. That is, “what about young people’s futures?” It is a line that has seemed cynical at times; used by anti-Brexit groups, for instance, to encourage support for overturning the EU referendum result. More recently it became the favourite among climate change activists. “The eyes of all future generations are upon you”, Greta Thunberg famously told world leaders at the United Nations climate action summit.
And yet, during the pandemic, it is a question that has been curiously absent – right around the time it is most needed. What is going to happen to the young with our Coronavirus policies, after all? I don’t think it’s selfish to wonder this; young people know that the crisis has presented leaders with impossible choices; they’re prepared to take on the huge tax bill coming, and they are deeply concerned about protecting their elders, whatever the newspapers suggest. Even so, they are not immune to the toll of this virus, and need to know that there is some hope for them at the end.
I don’t count myself as young, incidentally, as I’m 31 and going steadily grey. But I’m young-ish – a millennial, and I wonder about my future too. The Government’s recent Tier 2 restrictions, which – like many others – I am subjected to from today, has left me with deeper concerns than whether I’ll be able to meet friends. To me, it signals the continuation of what could best be described as “Economic Neverland”. Once my generation had aspirations for homes, families and the rest, but alongside the double whammy of 2008’s financial crisis, it feels that we are unable to grow up.
This crisis has, in many ways, been a “Peter Pan-demic”, if I may. It’s devastating for everyone. But we are consigning multiple generations to not being able to reach the markers of adulthood.
The first sign has been housing. Forget the picket fence, many people are moving back home with mum and dad. I know because I was one of them (lucky enough to be able to self-isolate first). My studio flat would have been intolerable over lockdown, and several friends made the same decision. Others are now back because they’ve lost their job or had to take a pay cut. No matter how much you love home, this is not the direction life is meant to go in.
Then there are the other challenges. I’ve been sad to watch friends cancel weddings this year, and the idea of having babies is almost certainly out of the question (even though many of us are in the pressing decade of our thirties). Conservatives have made massive advances in changing these facts – the housing algorithm was a very positive sign that MPs want to better the system – and yet the virus is a case of one step forward, two steps back.
I can only write this from a millennial perspective, but 16-24 year olds have been one of the worst affected groups; the most hit by job losses, as the number of people made redundant in the UK has risen to the fastest rate on record. Many cannot enjoy a full university experience, with Zoom replacing face-to-face teaching and Fresher’s Week now on hold for the foreseeable future. And it doesn’t bear thinking about what lies ahead for children, caught in the middle of school reopenings, which have increasingly become a political football.
Quite simply, I wouldn’t mind a Thunberg of the Coronavirus crisis – to remind leaders that “the eyes of all future generations are upon you.” Yes, the priority is to navigate the present – but our sleep-deprived politicians also have a duty to cast their minds to the decades ahead; to think about the sustainability of their policies, and what’s being asked of existing generations, and of those to come. From young people’s job security, to knowing they can settle down, there must be a way out of Neverland eventually.


conservativehome--2020-10-17--This hatchet man in a hurry casts no new light on Johnson, except to show him as a vulnerable child

In his Acknowledgements , buried on page 527 of his book , Tom Bower remarks , in the manner of an author broaching a humorous topic : “ Readers should be aware that Boris Johnson is not a stranger in my home.
” He adds that “ Veronica Wadley , my wife , has known him as a journalist since he joined The Daily Telegraph in 1988.
” Readers are not , however , made aware that during Johnson ’ s second term as Mayor of London , from 2012-16 , Wadley worked for him as a well-paid adviser at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Prime Minister , he has made her a Conservative peer .
These interests really ought to be declared , if only in order for Bower to declare that he has not allowed himself to be swayed by so much as a syllable from what he would have written anyhow .
The peerage is recent news , but not so recent that it could not have been mentioned here .
A few pages earlier , Bower has referred to “ the government ’ s mismanagement of the A level and GCSE examinations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elevation was announced on 31st July .
Bower is billed on the cover of this book as “ Britain ’ s top investigative author ” , yet says of Wadley : “ She played no part in researching or writing this book.
” For a top investigative author , that seems a strange omission .
Only a third-rate investigative author would have failed to ask the woman he lives with for help in explaining Johnson , whom she has known for 32 years .
And she has in fact given some rather unrevealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran for mayor : “ At a summer party in Carlton Gardens , she cornered Boris and suggested that he run for mayor .
Although surprised , he agreed to consider it.
” Wadley was at this point editor of The Evening Standard , which threw its full support behind Johnson in his closely contested battle with the incumbent mayor , Ken Livingstone .
The chief power possessed by any Prime Minister is the power of patronage .
He or she has hundreds of jobs and honours with which to reward his or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as any previous holder of the post .
The chief power possessed by a writer is the power to tell the truth , or at least to try to tell it .
But in order for readers to trust a writer , they have to feel he or she is taking them into his or her confidence .
James Boswell possessed that quality in superabundance .
He really wanted to tell us what he thought about Samuel Johnson , and about those round Johnson .
Bower doesn ’ t have that quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take us into his confidence , and gives us no real sense of what the people round his Johnson are like .
For most of the time , he doesn ’ t sound in the slightest bit interested in them himself .
Anyone can make mistakes , but Bower ’ s mistakes have the curious effect of rendering vivid material less vivid , funny stories less funny .
So he has James Landale , then of The Times , saying of Johnson as a correspondent in Brussels : “ Boris told such dreadful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No mention that Landale was adapting “ Matilda ” , by Hilaire Belloc , for use at a farewell party .
Sonia Purnell , who wrote a generally unfavourable biography of Johnson , has taken to Twitter to dismiss what Bower says about her as “ so inaccurate it ’ s risible ” .
My own regret is that while Bower has paid me the compliment of borrowing extensively from my own life of Johnson , the comic element is almost always lost , and with it an essential part of the explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wider public .
One can , of course , say that Johnson is beyond a joke .
Over the years , many eminent commentators have come round to that view .
Bower quotes Max Hastings in The Daily Mail in October 2012 : So far as one knows , Hastings still lives near Hungerford .
Bower ’ s book serves as a reminder that more journalists have said Johnson could not , and should not , become Prime Minister than has been written of any other figure in recent times .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of future success .
For one does not bother to contend that someone with no hope of getting to the top will not do so .
Johnson ’ s critics were trying to suppress the awful realisation that he might actually make it .
Matthew Parris has been trying to persuade himself .
Bower casts no light on this curious phenomenon .
He made his name writing hatchet jobs about various well-known figures : his last book was an account of Jeremy Corbyn which was so unrelievedly hostile – so disinclined to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – that it rendered Corbyn ’ s ability to win the support of large numbers of voters incomprehensible .
In this new book , Bower still swings his hatchet , every so often settling scores with various extraneous figures without indicating how in the first place they incurred his displeasure .
He has no understanding of the history , workings and mentality of the Conservative Party , which Johnson saved last year from destruction at the hands of Nigel Farage .
About Johnson himself , Bower is quite often positive , not by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinking the hatchet into others .
For example , after relating the unhappy tale of Johnson ’ s evidence , as Foreign Secretary , about Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe , Bower declares : Why does he say this ?
Through his clotted prose , it is impossible to discern his real motives .
We are not taken into his confidence .
It sounds like pure Johnsonian propaganda .
One wishes Bower would tell us what he is trying to achieve , but the answer may be that even he , a hatchet man in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is doing , apart from getting the book finished .
At the end , he deviates into a appallingly prolonged account of the pandemic which tells us virtually nothing about Johnson .
The one person who speaks truth in this book is Johnson ’ s mother , Charlotte Johnson Wahl , who says of his father , Stanley Johnson : According to Bower , Stanley “ feigned ignorance ” about the causes of Charlotte ’ s nervous breakdown in 1974 , for which she was treated for eight months at the Maudsley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unhappy and not very far-off story is related in the first chapter of the book .
Here we see a loving mother ’ s defence of her son against his enemies .
Bower , it may be said , has served her purpose .
An excellent book about Johnson has just been published .
Unfortunately it is in German .
One hopes it will appear in an English translation , but meanwhile anyone who can read the language of Goethe is urged to get hold of Boris Johnson : Porträt eines Störenfrieds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ross in his Portrait of a Contentious Man – more literally of a disturber of the peace – recognises that Johnson ’ s fallibility awakens sympathy and a feeling of togetherness , and that by refraining from idealism , Johnson protects himself against the charge of hypocrisy .
Some of Johnson ’ s own writings sound better in German .
The jokes distract one less from the seriousness , and the debt to classical antiquity is more apparent .
Johnson is serious !
A provocative thesis , with which few members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued here with perfect lucidity .

Boris Johnson: The Gambler by Tom Bower
In his Acknowledgements, buried on page 527 of his book, Tom Bower remarks, in the manner of an author broaching a humorous topic: “Readers should be aware that Boris Johnson is not a stranger in my home.”
He adds that “Veronica Wadley, my wife, has known him as a journalist since he joined The Daily Telegraph in 1988.”
Readers are not, however, made aware that during Johnson’s second term as Mayor of London, from 2012-16, Wadley worked for him as a well-paid adviser at City Hall, and now that Johnson is Prime Minister, he has made her a Conservative peer.
These interests really ought to be declared, if only in order for Bower to declare that he has not allowed himself to be swayed by so much as a syllable from what he would have written anyhow.
The peerage is recent news, but not so recent that it could not have been mentioned here. A few pages earlier, Bower has referred to “the government’s mismanagement of the A level and GCSE examinations in mid-August”. His wife’s elevation was announced on 31st July.
Bower is billed on the cover of this book as “Britain’s top investigative author”, yet says of Wadley: “She played no part in researching or writing this book.”
For a top investigative author, that seems a strange omission. Only a third-rate investigative author would have failed to ask the woman he lives with for help in explaining Johnson, whom she has known for 32 years.
And she has in fact given some rather unrevealing help with the question of why Johnson ran for mayor: “At a summer party in Carlton Gardens, she cornered Boris and suggested that he run for mayor. Although surprised, he agreed to consider it.”
Wadley was at this point editor of The Evening Standard, which threw its full support behind Johnson in his closely contested battle with the incumbent mayor, Ken Livingstone.
The chief power possessed by any Prime Minister is the power of patronage. He or she has hundreds of jobs and honours with which to reward his or her followers. Johnson understands this as well as any previous holder of the post.
The chief power possessed by a writer is the power to tell the truth, or at least to try to tell it. But in order for readers to trust a writer, they have to feel he or she is taking them into his or her confidence.
James Boswell possessed that quality in superabundance. He really wanted to tell us what he thought about Samuel Johnson, and about those round Johnson.
Bower doesn’t have that quality. He doesn’t want to take us into his confidence, and gives us no real sense of what the people round his Johnson are like. For most of the time, he doesn’t sound in the slightest bit interested in them himself.
Anyone can make mistakes, but Bower’s mistakes have the curious effect of rendering vivid material less vivid, funny stories less funny.
So he has James Landale, then of The Times, saying of Johnson as a correspondent in Brussels: “Boris told such dreadful lies, it made one gasp.”
No mention that Landale was adapting “Matilda”, by Hilaire Belloc, for use at a farewell party.
Sonia Purnell, who wrote a generally unfavourable biography of Johnson, has taken to Twitter to dismiss what Bower says about her as “so inaccurate it’s risible”.
My own regret is that while Bower has paid me the compliment of borrowing extensively from my own life of Johnson, the comic element is almost always lost, and with it an essential part of the explanation for Johnson’s ability to reach the wider public.
One can, of course, say that Johnson is beyond a joke. Over the years, many eminent commentators have come round to that view. Bower quotes Max Hastings in The Daily Mail in October 2012:
“If the day ever comes that Boris Johnson becomes tenant of Downing Street, I shall be among those packing my bags for a new life in Buenos Aires or suchlike because it means that Britain has abandoned its last pretensions to be a serious country.”
So far as one knows, Hastings still lives near Hungerford.
Bower’s book serves as a reminder that more journalists have said Johnson could not, and should not, become Prime Minister than has been written of any other figure in recent times.
These denunciations now read like so many predictions of future success. For one does not bother to contend that someone with no hope of getting to the top will not do so.
Johnson’s critics were trying to suppress the awful realisation that he might actually make it. Matthew Parris has been trying to persuade himself.
Bower casts no light on this curious phenomenon. He made his name writing hatchet jobs about various well-known figures: his last book was an account of Jeremy Corbyn which was so unrelievedly hostile – so disinclined to give credit even where credit might be due – that it rendered Corbyn’s ability to win the support of large numbers of voters incomprehensible.
In this new book, Bower still swings his hatchet, every so often settling scores with various extraneous figures without indicating how in the first place they incurred his displeasure.
He has no understanding of the history, workings and mentality of the Conservative Party, which Johnson saved last year from destruction at the hands of Nigel Farage.
About Johnson himself, Bower is quite often positive, not by appreciating his good qualities, but by sinking the hatchet into others. For example, after relating the unhappy tale of Johnson’s evidence, as Foreign Secretary, about Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe, Bower declares:
“The real culprit was the Foreign Office, a failing department.”
Why does he say this? Through his clotted prose, it is impossible to discern his real motives. We are not taken into his confidence. It sounds like pure Johnsonian propaganda.
One wishes Bower would tell us what he is trying to achieve, but the answer may be that even he, a hatchet man in a hurry, does not really know what he is doing, apart from getting the book finished. At the end, he deviates into a appallingly prolonged account of the pandemic which tells us virtually nothing about Johnson.
The one person who speaks truth in this book is Johnson’s mother, Charlotte Johnson Wahl, who says of his father, Stanley Johnson:
“He was always hitting me, and Boris saw it.”
According to Bower, Stanley “feigned ignorance” about the causes of Charlotte’s nervous breakdown in 1974, for which she was treated for eight months at the Maudsley Hospital in south London:
“Charlotte corrects Stanley’s recollection: ‘The doctors at the Maudsley spoke to Stanley about his abuse of me. He had hit me. He hit me many times, over many years.’ On one occasion, Stanley had hit Charlotte especially hard. ‘He beat me up and broke my nose,’ she recalls. After that attack, Charlotte was treated in the St John & St Elizabeth Hospital in north-west London. The children were told that a car door had hit their mother’s face. Boris, however, knew the truth.”
This old, unhappy and not very far-off story is related in the first chapter of the book. Here we see a loving mother’s defence of her son against his enemies. Bower, it may be said, has served her purpose.
An excellent book about Johnson has just been published. Unfortunately it is in German. One hopes it will appear in an English translation, but meanwhile anyone who can read the language of Goethe is urged to get hold of Boris Johnson: Porträt eines Störenfrieds by Jan Ross of Die Zeit.
Ross in his Portrait of a Contentious Man – more literally of a disturber of the peace – recognises that Johnson’s fallibility awakens sympathy and a feeling of togetherness, and that by refraining from idealism, Johnson protects himself against the charge of hypocrisy.
Some of Johnson’s own writings sound better in German. The jokes distract one less from the seriousness, and the debt to classical antiquity is more apparent.
Johnson is serious! A provocative thesis, with which few members of the German political establishment will agree, but argued here with perfect lucidity.


conservativehome--2020-10-18--WATCH: Government won’t rule out imposing lockdown on Manchester without local agreement

# Marr : Will you forcibly impose restrictions on Greater Manchester if you don ’ t reach an agreement ?
@ @ @ @ @ : `` Well , yeah , we ’ re going to have to look at @ @ @ @ @ https : //t.co/wRM94mTKtC pic.twitter.com/jY4i42LXi8

#Marr: Will you forcibly impose restrictions on Greater Manchester if you don’t reach an agreement?
Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove: "Well, yeah, we’re going to have to look at the position"#Covid_19 https://t.co/wRM94mTKtC pic.twitter.com/jY4i42LXi8
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 18, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-18--WATCH: Burnham – ‘Protecting health is about more than controlling the coronavirus’

`` Protecting health is about more than controlling the coronavirus '' Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham tells # @ @ @ @ @ tier three will cause real harm '' # Covid_19 https : //t.co/wRM94mTKtC pic.twitter.com/F8xNHXZrqa

"Protecting health is about more than controlling the coronavirus"
Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham tells #Marr "trapping Manchester in tier three will cause real harm"#Covid_19 https://t.co/wRM94mTKtC pic.twitter.com/F8xNHXZrqa
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 18, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-18--WATCH: ‘I want a deal’, says Gove on Brexit, ‘but it takes both sides to compromise’

It 'll be hard to separate economic damage from Brexit from damage from coronavirus .
Is the government using the @ @ @ @ @ no deal Brexit ?
`` No , I want a deal '' says @ michaelgove @ @ @ @ @ sides to compromise '' .
# Ridge https : //t.co/XfcjotWjor pic.twitter.com/5ok9qKjBGX

It'll be hard to separate economic damage from Brexit from damage from coronavirus. Is the government using the crisis as cover for a no deal Brexit?
"No, I want a deal" says @michaelgove but "it takes both sides to compromise".#Ridge https://t.co/XfcjotWjor pic.twitter.com/5ok9qKjBGX
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 18, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-18--The EU trade talks. Whether there’s a deal or not, we will be out of transition soon. Ministers shou

The EU trade talks. Whether there’s a deal or not, we will be out of transition soon. Ministers should be ready to make the most of it.

It is sometimes useful , after a politician has made a statement , to try reversing it – and see if the change makes sense .
“ We should get ready for January 1 with arrangements that are more like Australia ’ s , ” Boris Johnson said last Friday .
So now imagine that he had said instead that “ we should not get ready for January 1″ , etc .
And you will see at once that the Prime Minister could not conceivably have said anything of the kind before the trade negotiation with the EU has concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all .
Perhaps we are being too world-weary – perish the thought – but a talks bust-up was always likely .
But it does not , repeat not , mean that No Deal ( or “ an Australia-type deal ” , as Ministers put it ) is now inevitable , even if Michel Barnier does not come to London for talks this week , which appears to be the case as we write .
Indeed , a flare-up looks suspiciously like part of the diplomatic dance , a piece of choreography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the overnight wait for news ; the bleary-eyed dawn press conferences , and the claim that we have won the “ Canada-style ” trade that we wanted , and that Johnson has “ played a blinder ” .
At any rate , the inevitable Government spin offensive , aimed at pro-Brexit voters , Conservative MPs and members , and ( up to a point ) other European governments and the EU Commission is rolling as we write .
Michael Gove is in the Sunday papers and on today ’ s political shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push is underway .
ConservativeHome ’ s take on the trade talks has consistently been that settling state aid and fishing ought to be easier than squaring the fiendish challenge of the UK-EU land border on the island of Ireland .
And that if both sides of the negotiation want a deal , then a deal there will probably be .
We are in little doubt that such is Boris Johnson ’ s position .
He wants a deal because the fewer obstacles to trading as an independent country , the better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish to grapple with the disruption of No Deal at the same time as he must so do with the problem of Coronavirus , and so much else .
He wants one because not having it wouldn ’ t be an electoral plus in Scotland .
Above all , he wants one because he wants to show the voters he can deliver one – in much the same manner that he cut a deal with Leo Varadkar on the land border in order to deliver the revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be under-estimating the capacity for one or both of the two negotiating sides to miscalculate .
Last time round , the UK was negotiating primarily with one other country , Ireland , and the Commission .
This time , several countries , not least France , have an interest in taking an aggressive position on fishing .
In crude terms , the Government has been signalling concessions on state aid which if the negotiation were to proceed smoothly would be mirrored by EU concessions on fishing .
These haven ’ t come .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ No Deal is still possible though not , we stubbornly repeat , probable .
But even if it happens , a deal there will almost certainly be , sooner or later .
If it does this year , we expect any agreement reached to be light on detail – “ thin ” , as the jargon has it , enabling both sides of the negotiation to claim victory .
A key test of it will be whether or not it allows the UK room in future to diverge if it wants to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit is more like a film , which will develop over time , than a photo , which can ’ t – a point which will apply whether there ’ s a deal or not .
For either way , we will be out of transition next year .
The Government is horribly overburdened in dealing with Covid-19 .
But it ought be mulling some quick Brexit wins come the New Year – ways of using what will be new-found freedoms we didn ’ t have during the implementation period .
For reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of suggestions for this site , including scrapping the tampon tax , banning the export of live animals for slaughter and cutting VAT on domestic electricity .
The UK has Brexited , and we must soon start to make the most of it .

It is sometimes useful, after a politician has made a statement, to try reversing it – and see if the change makes sense. “We should get ready for January 1 with arrangements that are more like Australia’s,” Boris Johnson said last Friday.
So now imagine that he had said instead that “we should not get ready for January 1″, etc. And you will see at once that the Prime Minister could not conceivably have said anything of the kind before the trade negotiation with the EU has concluded. Because there may be No Deal, after all.
Perhaps we are being too world-weary – perish the thought – but a talks bust-up was always likely. But it does not, repeat not, mean that No Deal (or “an Australia-type deal”, as Ministers put it) is now inevitable, even if Michel Barnier does not come to London for talks this week, which appears to be the case as we write.
Indeed, a flare-up looks suspiciously like part of the diplomatic dance, a piece of choreography, before the last-minute dash to Brussels; the overnight wait for news; the bleary-eyed dawn press conferences, and the claim that we have won the “Canada-style” trade that we wanted, and that Johnson has “played a blinder”.
At any rate, the inevitable Government spin offensive, aimed at pro-Brexit voters, Conservative MPs and members, and (up to a point) other European governments and the EU Commission is rolling as we write. Michael Gove is in the Sunday papers and on today’s political shows, always a sign that a big push is underway.
ConservativeHome’s take on the trade talks has consistently been that settling state aid and fishing ought to be easier than squaring the fiendish challenge of the UK-EU land border on the island of Ireland. And that if both sides of the negotiation want a deal, then a deal there will probably be.
We are in little doubt that such is Boris Johnson’s position. He wants a deal because the fewer obstacles to trading as an independent country, the better. He wants one because he will not wish to grapple with the disruption of No Deal at the same time as he must so do with the problem of Coronavirus, and so much else.
He wants one because not having it wouldn’t be an electoral plus in Scotland. Above all, he wants one because he wants to show the voters he can deliver one – in much the same manner that he cut a deal with Leo Varadkar on the land border in order to deliver the revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration.
In saying all this, we may be under-estimating the capacity for one or both of the two negotiating sides to miscalculate. Last time round, the UK was negotiating primarily with one other country, Ireland, and the Commission.
This time, several countries, not least France, have an interest in taking an aggressive position on fishing. In crude terms, the Government has been signalling concessions on state aid which if the negotiation were to proceed smoothly would be mirrored by EU concessions on fishing. These haven’t come. Hence Friday’s events.
So No Deal is still possible though not, we stubbornly repeat, probable. But even if it happens, a deal there will almost certainly be, sooner or later. If it does this year, we expect any agreement reached to be light on detail – “thin”, as the jargon has it, enabling both sides of the negotiation to claim victory.
A key test of it will be whether or not it allows the UK room in future to diverge if it wants to. As we’ve said before, Brexit is more like a film, which will develop over time, than a photo, which can’t – a point which will apply whether there’s a deal or not.
For either way, we will be out of transition next year. The Government is horribly overburdened in dealing with Covid-19. But it ought be mulling some quick Brexit wins come the New Year – ways of using what will be new-found freedoms we didn’t have during the implementation period.
For reference, see Anthony Browne’s list of suggestions for this site, including scrapping the tampon tax, banning the export of live animals for slaughter and cutting VAT on domestic electricity. The UK has Brexited, and we must soon start to make the most of it.