conservativehome--2020-06-23--Javid delivers the Budget he never got a chance to – via the Centre for Policy Studies. He wants to

Javid delivers the Budget he never got a chance to – via the Centre for Policy Studies. He wants to go for growth.

Sajid Javid ’ s resignation earlier this year ensured that he became only the second Chancellor in modern times not to deliver a Budget .
So he has taken the next best course and , the Treasury being unavailable , he has issued one instead from the Centre for Policy Studies .
This is good news for at least three reasons .
First , it helps British politics when former senior Ministers , instead of just going off to make money , keep thinking , going and contributing .
Second , because the thrust of the CPS proposals is sensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail , he wants the Government as we enter “ the new normal ” to go for growth .
Third , Javid will have been shaped by his Treasury experience while writing .
Don ’ t be surprised to see his successor , Rishi Sunak , take bits of this Javid Budget into his Sunak Budget , whenever it comes .
On this site today , James Heywood of the CPS sets out some of the report ’ s main ideas .
It contains some 60 recommendations , but the thrust of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the macro side , Javid and company want to ease up on the fiscal rules until the economy returns to pre-Coronavirus levels of GDP , and for the Bank of England to target nominal GDP rather than just inflation .
This would go hand in hand with tax cuts rather than tax rises – such as a reduction in VAT , and aligning the threshold for Employer ’ s National Insurance with the £12,500 personal allowance for Income Tax .
Essentially , the CPS is suggesting that borrowing takes the strain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully bring in the tax receipts to reduce it in the medium-term , bringing the Budget back into balance .
On the micro side , the measures the report suggests include a time-limited labour market programme focused on young people living in unemployment hotspots , a car scrappage scheme , and a broader “ skills levy ” .
Those who remember Stephen Crabb ’ s leadership bid in 2017 may recall Javid ’ s enthusiasm then for infrastructure spending .
The report wants more of it , including a major road improvement programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially anticipates Treasury thinking is in its support for “ shifting the burden of taxation away from income and investment in favour of fairer property taxes and tightening reliefs for high earners ” .
The former Chancellor has always seemed to us , for all his real interest in social justice , to be a bit of a Thatcherite at heart , so it ’ s interesting to see this shift in thinking .
Our sympathies were with him when he left government , and Boris Johnson doesn ’ t seem to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mordaunt can be rehabilitated , we don ’ t see why others can ’ t too , including Javid .
The Prime Minister doubtless wouldn ’ t want the former Chancellor too near his successor , so the latter may have to see others pick up his ideas .
But “ the Saj ” could do a job at Work and Pensions , or at Transport if Grant Shapps moves up , and still has a lot to offer , as this report suggests .

Sajid Javid’s resignation earlier this year ensured that he became only the second Chancellor in modern times not to deliver a Budget. So he has taken the next best course and, the Treasury being unavailable, he has issued one instead from the Centre for Policy Studies.
This is good news for at least three reasons. First, it helps British politics when former senior Ministers, instead of just going off to make money, keep thinking, going and contributing.
Second, because the thrust of the CPS proposals is sensible. Like this site though in more detail, he wants the Government as we enter “the new normal” to go for growth.
Third, Javid will have been shaped by his Treasury experience while writing. Don’t be surprised to see his successor, Rishi Sunak, take bits of this Javid Budget into his Sunak Budget, whenever it comes.
On this site today, James Heywood of the CPS sets out some of the report’s main ideas. It contains some 60 recommendations, but the thrust of its macro and micro thinking seems clear enough.
On the macro side, Javid and company want to ease up on the fiscal rules until the economy returns to pre-Coronavirus levels of GDP, and for the Bank of England to target nominal GDP rather than just inflation.
This would go hand in hand with tax cuts rather than tax rises – such as a reduction in VAT, and aligning the threshold for Employer’s National Insurance with the £12,500 personal allowance for Income Tax.
Essentially, the CPS is suggesting that borrowing takes the strain in the short-term, because growth will hopefully bring in the tax receipts to reduce it in the medium-term, bringing the Budget back into balance.
On the micro side, the measures the report suggests include a time-limited labour market programme focused on young people living in unemployment hotspots, a car scrappage scheme, and a broader “skills levy”.
Those who remember Stephen Crabb’s leadership bid in 2017 may recall Javid’s enthusiasm then for infrastructure spending. The report wants more of it, including a major road improvement programme.
Where we suspect that the CPS especially anticipates Treasury thinking is in its support for “shifting the burden of taxation away from income and investment in favour of fairer property taxes and tightening reliefs for high earners”.
The former Chancellor has always seemed to us, for all his real interest in social justice, to be a bit of a Thatcherite at heart, so it’s interesting to see this shift in thinking.
Our sympathies were with him when he left government, and Boris Johnson doesn’t seem to have wanted him to go. If Penny Mordaunt can be rehabilitated, we don’t see why others can’t too, including Javid.
The Prime Minister doubtless wouldn’t want the former Chancellor too near his successor, so the latter may have to see others pick up his ideas.
But “the Saj” could do a job at Work and Pensions, or at Transport if Grant Shapps moves up, and still has a lot to offer, as this report suggests.


conservativehome--2020-06-23--Radical: The BBC, Pink News and how, in reporting on the Gender Recognition Act, the media has shown

Radical: The BBC, Pink News and how, in reporting on the Gender Recognition Act, the media has shown shocking inaccuracy

On June 15 , The Sunday Times reported that , according to leaked documents , “ Plans to allow people to change their legal gender and ‘ self-identify ’ as a different sex have been scrapped ” .
These plans had been developed under Theresa May ’ s government , and would have allowed people to change the sex on their birth certificate without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria .
Readers of this column won ’ t have been surprised by the news of a U-turn on these plans , however .
Such a move was strongly hinted at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible , in a speech this April , in which she underlined that the present government ’ s approach to the future of the Gender Recognition Act ( GRA ) would be guided by the need to protect single-sex spaces , and maintain “ proper checks and balances ” in the system .
Subsequently , last week ’ s leak – the details of which remain unconfirmed by the Government – provoked anger from LGBT groups in all the main UK parties .
Representatives from the Conservatives , Labour , SNP , Liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Plaid Cymru , published a joint letter .
However , the letter ’ s substance – and media reportage of it – exemplifies the way in which so many public statements about these matters are rife with bad information , particularly regarding current law and practice .
In their letter , the LGBT groups bemoan a “ rollback on trans rights ” , even though there has been no suggestion that the existing right to change one ’ s birth certificate will be amended .
And the BBC ’ s report on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of errors , it had to be corrected .
The BBC report – before correction – claimed that the GRA currently requires “ a long and medical process ” for a change of sex to be recognised , and contrasted this with the way in which gaining recognition of “ acquired gender ” under the Equality Act “ does not have to include surgery ” .
In fact , the GRA doesn ’ t require surgery or any medical treatment to have taken place – only a diagnosis of dysphoria .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process as particularly lengthy , considering the seriousness of the outcome : 75 per cent of applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate receive a decision within 20 weeks , and many with 6–11 weeks ; 90 per cent of applications are successful .
Moreover , the Equality Act does not mandate recognition of a person ’ s acquired gender : unless they have acquired a gender recognition certificate , self-identifying transgender people are still to be treated as a member of their biological sex ( although they mustn ’ t be discriminated against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workplace , for example ) .
It should also be noted that , at the time of writing this column , the BBC report still contains an error : the claim that trans people may only be excluded from single-sex services for the opposite sex , after a “ case-by-case ” assessment , is a misinterpretation of the Equality Act .
Sadly , these kinds of mistakes pervade media commentary and the public claims of activists .
In the wake of JK Rowling ’ s recent intervention in the debate , the editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rowling ’ s assertion that “ A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law ” .
However , when the Pink News report was itself independently fact checked , Pink News had to make its own corrections , because Rowling had indeed been right : no medical procedure or treatment is necessary to secure a certificate .
Rowling ’ s claim , therefore , that “ many people aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindicated .
But are the activists peddling this disinformation genuinely ignorant of the laws they ’ re campaigning to change ?
Or are they , at best , simply ambivalent about the truth – so focused on pushing for self-ID and the mandatory recognition of gender identity for all purposes , that they don ’ t care that the current law is not what they seem to find it in their interests to claim ?
The cynic might fear that these people ’ s “ disinformation ” would be better described as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intention , it is clearly a worrying state of affairs when a supposed expert – the editor of a magazine describing itself as ‘ the brand [ sic ] for the global LGBT+ community and the next generation ’ – is making such basic factual errors .
Unfortunately , bad information can travel fast .
Too many people who should know better have taken these misreadings of the law at face value , and this includes those in positions of great influence .
We have written here before , for instance , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials for schools that have been withdrawn when subjected to legal challenge , owing not least to their inclusion of serious mistakes regarding guidance on what the law currently is .
And it is also the case that high-profile commentators , entering the debate to attempt to pour the oil of compromise on troubled waters , have found themselves floundering .
Not only does this kind of well-meant intervention typically serve to spread bad information further , it also often perpetuates a frustrating straw-man approach in which the realities of the debate are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is Daniel Finkelstein ’ s recent discussion on the matter in his Times column – best filed under the classic ‘ but nobody ’ s claiming biological sex doesn ’ t exist ’ category .
Finkelstein ’ s claim that “ it ’ s hard to find anyone who thinks that there isn ’ t… such a thing as sex as well as gender ” clearly shows him to be in the extremely lucky position of both never having met a Judith Butler fan , or having read pretty much any Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestion that “ the chances… are effectively zero ” that a man might claim to be a trans women for personal gain shows Finkelstein to be in the even luckier position of never having been a vulnerable women in a “ single-sex ” prison or refuge .
Now , presumably , he is just attempting to be kind by weighing in in this conciliatory manner .
But it ’ s like what they used to say about communism : “ Well , it ’ s a nice idea , I suppose… ” Except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you take the time to find out the truth , it ’ s really not .
Since writing this column , and beginning our campaign , we ’ ve taken every chance to stress our commitment to equal respect for all human beings .
And we ’ ve promised to die on the hill for the right of adults to conduct themselves as members of the opposite sex .
But amplifying lies about the content of the law is wrong .
And denying biological truth is wrong .
And these wrongs come with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole , and to the vulnerable , in particular .
The recent Newsnight report on an NHS gender clinic reveals what can happen when mistruths and deceptive power-play become the foundation of a medical service – leading to doctors harming the children they have been trusted to help .
And the Pink News editor ’ s blatant disregard for basic fact-checking shows what happens when the fourth estate is turned against the people .
We know some of our readers think we ’ re talking about fairy tales in these columns .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think these things matter at all .
But they do – and we need to keep talking about them , or the real-world consequences will continue to escalate .

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. Together they found Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate.
On June 15, The Sunday Times reported that, according to leaked documents, “Plans to allow people to change their legal gender and ‘self-identify’ as a different sex have been scrapped”.
These plans had been developed under Theresa May’s government, and would have allowed people to change the sex on their birth certificate without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Readers of this column won’t have been surprised by the news of a U-turn on these plans, however.
Such a move was strongly hinted at by Liz Truss, the minister now responsible, in a speech this April, in which she underlined that the present government’s approach to the future of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) would be guided by the need to protect single-sex spaces, and maintain “proper checks and balances” in the system.
Subsequently, last week’s leak – the details of which remain unconfirmed by the Government – provoked anger from LGBT groups in all the main UK parties. Representatives from the Conservatives, Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Alliance Party, and Plaid Cymru, published a joint letter.
However, the letter’s substance – and media reportage of it – exemplifies the way in which so many public statements about these matters are rife with bad information, particularly regarding current law and practice.
In their letter, the LGBT groups bemoan a “rollback on trans rights”, even though there has been no suggestion that the existing right to change one’s birth certificate will be amended. And the BBC’s report on the groups’ letter was so full of errors, it had to be corrected.
The BBC report – before correction – claimed that the GRA currently requires “a long and medical process” for a change of sex to be recognised, and contrasted this with the way in which gaining recognition of “acquired gender” under the Equality Act “does not have to include surgery”.
In fact, the GRA doesn’t require surgery or any medical treatment to have taken place – only a diagnosis of dysphoria. It’s also hard to conceive of the process as particularly lengthy, considering the seriousness of the outcome: 75 per cent of applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate receive a decision within 20 weeks, and many with 6–11 weeks; 90 per cent of applications are successful.
Moreover, the Equality Act does not mandate recognition of a person’s acquired gender: unless they have acquired a gender recognition certificate, self-identifying transgender people are still to be treated as a member of their biological sex (although they mustn’t be discriminated against for identifying as transgender – in the workplace, for example).
It should also be noted that, at the time of writing this column, the BBC report still contains an error: the claim that trans people may only be excluded from single-sex services for the opposite sex, after a “case-by-case” assessment, is a misinterpretation of the Equality Act.
Sadly, these kinds of mistakes pervade media commentary and the public claims of activists. In the wake of JK Rowling’s recent intervention in the debate, the editor of Pink News purported to ‘correct ’ Rowling’s assertion that “A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law”.
However, when the Pink News report was itself independently fact checked, Pink News had to make its own corrections, because Rowling had indeed been right: no medical procedure or treatment is necessary to secure a certificate. Rowling’s claim, therefore, that “many people aren’t aware of this” has seemingly been vindicated.
But are the activists peddling this disinformation genuinely ignorant of the laws they’re campaigning to change? Or are they, at best, simply ambivalent about the truth – so focused on pushing for self-ID and the mandatory recognition of gender identity for all purposes, that they don’t care that the current law is not what they seem to find it in their interests to claim?
The cynic might fear that these people’s “disinformation” would be better described as “misinformation”, but, regardless of intention, it is clearly a worrying state of affairs when a supposed expert – the editor of a magazine describing itself as ‘the brand [sic] for the global LGBT+ community and the next generation’ – is making such basic factual errors.
Unfortunately, bad information can travel fast. Too many people who should know better have taken these misreadings of the law at face value, and this includes those in positions of great influence. We have written here before, for instance, about the widespread adoption of “informative” materials for schools that have been withdrawn when subjected to legal challenge, owing not least to their inclusion of serious mistakes regarding guidance on what the law currently is.
And it is also the case that high-profile commentators, entering the debate to attempt to pour the oil of compromise on troubled waters, have found themselves floundering. Not only does this kind of well-meant intervention typically serve to spread bad information further, it also often perpetuates a frustrating straw-man approach in which the realities of the debate are further obscured.
A sad example of this is Daniel Finkelstein’s recent discussion on the matter in his Times column – best filed under the classic ‘but nobody’s claiming biological sex doesn’t exist’ category. Finkelstein’s claim that “it’s hard to find anyone who thinks that there isn’t… such a thing as sex as well as gender” clearly shows him to be in the extremely lucky position of both never having met a Judith Butler fan, or having read pretty much any Twitter debate on these matters.
And his suggestion that “the chances… are effectively zero” that a man might claim to be a trans women for personal gain shows Finkelstein to be in the even luckier position of never having been a vulnerable women in a “single-sex” prison or refuge. Now, presumably, he is just attempting to be kind by weighing in in this conciliatory manner. But it’s like what they used to say about communism: “Well, it’s a nice idea, I suppose…” Except, of course, as soon as you take the time to find out the truth, it’s really not.
Since writing this column, and beginning our campaign, we’ve taken every chance to stress our commitment to equal respect for all human beings. And we’ve promised to die on the hill for the right of adults to conduct themselves as members of the opposite sex. But amplifying lies about the content of the law is wrong. And denying biological truth is wrong. And these wrongs come with great costs – to society as a whole, and to the vulnerable, in particular.
The recent Newsnight report on an NHS gender clinic reveals what can happen when mistruths and deceptive power-play become the foundation of a medical service – leading to doctors harming the children they have been trusted to help. And the Pink News editor’s blatant disregard for basic fact-checking shows what happens when the fourth estate is turned against the people.
We know some of our readers think we’re talking about fairy tales in these columns. We know some of you don’t think these things matter at all. But they do – and we need to keep talking about them, or the real-world consequences will continue to escalate.


conservativehome--2020-06-23--Toby Savage: Local Conservatism is about harnessing the community

Cllr Toby Savage is the Leader of South Gloucestershire Council .
Danny Kruger MP wrote , earlier in this crisis , about ‘ real conservatism ’ and the role of communities in responding to coronavirus .
As Conservative leader of South Gloucestershire Council , and near neighbour to his Wiltshire constituency , I have , over the last few months , seen this philosophy in practice like never before .
In South Gloucestershire , we have long understood the power of community .
The neighbourhood is the most organic unit around which people organise and come together .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense of the world through the communities and places we live in .
As council leader , I see my role as being to support , nourish , and make space for this community spirit to flourish .
As the coronavirus tore through our country , we turned our focus as a local authority to responding to the clinical , social , and economic challenges it set in motion .
Standing alongside us were our communities and community organisations .
Mutual aid groups have sprung up in different postcodes across the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have provided crisis support , continuity of existing services , and a vital layer of infrastructure to support these new groups .
We have long-term strategic commissioning arrangements with local voluntary organisations like Southern Brooks Community Partnership and South Gloucestershire CVS .
Their networks and connections have been mobilised nimbly and effectively to support communities at a time of crisis .
As the lockdown was announced , we pulled together these organisations and senior officials from a range of key council departments , like public health , to coordinate our response , meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
They mobilised partnerships to deliver food and prescriptions via our community transport providers ; Southern Brooks quickly established a seven day a week support phone line .
At times , this has caused challenges .
Citizens want to know what the local authority is doing to tackle the crisis and many want to see us as a visible presence .
Of course , this is part of our role .
But I believe we can have a more effective impact by stepping back at the right time and supporting the community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a challenge for Conservative council leaders everywhere , but one we should lean into .
There is power in every community .
Our role is to unlock it – and we need to find a way to be clear in communicating that this the right way to play our leadership role in our places .
In the context of coronavirus , this has meant supporting our existing community organisations to do the fantastic work they do – providing funding and strategic coordination .
It has meant trusting local people to know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescriptive in the conditions we attach to funding .
It has meant corralling other players in the local system – most notably local colleagues in the NHS and health providers – to buy into this way of working .
Last week , Locality published new research looking at the role of community organisations in the response to coronavirus and how they can be supported to play a central role in the recovery .
As one of the Keep it Local councils , we are looking to recovery with this question in mind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ This could involve building on the stronger links we have created with health colleagues over the crisis .
Practically , we may explore joint commissioning opportunities that harness the power in our communities .
There are also measures that central government can take as we look to recovery .
As Kruger highlighted , recognition from Rishi Sunak and the Treasury of the importance of community is a big step .
One of our greatest strengths as a country is our civil society – those small charities in our villages , our market towns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unsung heroes looking after the vulnerable and holding together our social fabric .
Andy Haldane made a similar point in a recent piece for the FT , estimating the value generated by the UK voluntary and community sector to be more than £200bn or ten per cent of GNP .
So , as we look to recovery , the Government should consider how to actively bolster these organisations .
The charities package of support was a welcome announcement and will tide over many of our local organisations for a few months , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson and Sunak look to the future , we should be asking how to hardwire local communites into the government ’ s recovery strategy .
Will communities be put in charge of local economic development funding ?
Will the devolution white paper involve genuine onward devolution so councils and communities can continue to play a vital role in their places , beyond the crisis ?
These are the questions I will be asking as we look to a future of real conservatism rooted in local places .

Cllr Toby Savage is the Leader of South Gloucestershire Council.
Danny Kruger MP wrote, earlier in this crisis, about ‘real conservatism’ and the role of communities in responding to coronavirus. As Conservative leader of South Gloucestershire Council, and near neighbour to his Wiltshire constituency, I have, over the last few months, seen this philosophy in practice like never before.
In South Gloucestershire, we have long understood the power of community. The neighbourhood is the most organic unit around which people organise and come together. Yes, we’re individuals, but we make sense of the world through the communities and places we live in. As council leader, I see my role as being to support, nourish, and make space for this community spirit to flourish.
As the coronavirus tore through our country, we turned our focus as a local authority to responding to the clinical, social, and economic challenges it set in motion. Standing alongside us were our communities and community organisations. Mutual aid groups have sprung up in different postcodes across the authority and our well-established voluntary and community organisations have provided crisis support, continuity of existing services, and a vital layer of infrastructure to support these new groups.
We have long-term strategic commissioning arrangements with local voluntary organisations like Southern Brooks Community Partnership and South Gloucestershire CVS. Their networks and connections have been mobilised nimbly and effectively to support communities at a time of crisis. As the lockdown was announced, we pulled together these organisations and senior officials from a range of key council departments, like public health, to coordinate our response, meeting twice weekly at the peak of the crisis. They mobilised partnerships to deliver food and prescriptions via our community transport providers; Southern Brooks quickly established a seven day a week support phone line.
At times, this has caused challenges. Citizens want to know what the local authority is doing to tackle the crisis and many want to see us as a visible presence. Of course, this is part of our role. But I believe we can have a more effective impact by stepping back at the right time and supporting the community to take the lead. This will be a challenge for Conservative council leaders everywhere, but one we should lean into. There is power in every community. Our role is to unlock it – and we need to find a way to be clear in communicating that this the right way to play our leadership role in our places.
In the context of coronavirus, this has meant supporting our existing community organisations to do the fantastic work they do – providing funding and strategic coordination. It has meant trusting local people to know what their communities need and not being overly prescriptive in the conditions we attach to funding. It has meant corralling other players in the local system – most notably local colleagues in the NHS and health providers – to buy into this way of working.
Last week, Locality published new research looking at the role of community organisations in the response to coronavirus and how they can be supported to play a central role in the recovery. As one of the Keep it Local councils, we are looking to recovery with this question in mind. There are things we can do. This could involve building on the stronger links we have created with health colleagues over the crisis. Practically, we may explore joint commissioning opportunities that harness the power in our communities.
There are also measures that central government can take as we look to recovery. As Kruger highlighted, recognition from Rishi Sunak and the Treasury of the importance of community is a big step.
One of our greatest strengths as a country is our civil society – those small charities in our villages, our market towns, in pockets of our cities: the unsung heroes looking after the vulnerable and holding together our social fabric.
Andy Haldane made a similar point in a recent piece for the FT, estimating the value generated by the UK voluntary and community sector to be more than £200bn or ten per cent of GNP. So, as we look to recovery, the Government should consider how to actively bolster these organisations. The charities package of support was a welcome announcement and will tide over many of our local organisations for a few months, but not indefinitely.
So, as Boris Johnson and Sunak look to the future, we should be asking how to hardwire local communites into the government’s recovery strategy. Will communities be put in charge of local economic development funding? Will the devolution white paper involve genuine onward devolution so councils and communities can continue to play a vital role in their places, beyond the crisis? These are the questions I will be asking as we look to a future of real conservatism rooted in local places.


conservativehome--2020-06-24--What will and won’t be reopening on July 4

We interrupt our political articles with a public service announcement .
Here is a list of facilities that can open @ @ @ @ @ 4 : Here is a list of facilities that will stay closed : Some further @ @ @ @ @ Sky News : • None No date for reopening indoor gyms or restarting concerts • @ @ @ @ @ open – but no live performances .
• None Wedding ceremonies allowed but only one @ @ @ @ @ at the moment .

We interrupt our political articles with a public service announcement.
Here is a list of facilities that can open in England as of July 4:
Adventure parks.
Amusement arcades.
Aquariums.
Bars.
Bed and breakfasts.
Boarding houses.
Campsites
Caravan parks.
Cinemas.
Community Centres.
Cottages.
Fun fairs.
Galleries
Hair salons.
Hotels.
Indoor leisure centres.
Libraries.
Model villages.
Museums.
Outdoor gyms.
Playgrounds.
Social clubs.
Zoos.
Here is a list of facilities that will stay closed:
Bowling alleys.
Conference or exhibition centres.
Indoor fitness centres.
Indoor gyms.
Night clubs.
Skating rinks.
Softplay.
Swimming pools.
Tattoo parlours.
Water parks.
– – –
Some further details via Sam Coates of Sky News:


conservativehome--2020-06-24--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Non-Executive Directors at NHS England – a

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Non-Executive Directors at NHS England – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ DFID leads the UK ’ s work to end extreme poverty , deliver the Global Goals , and tackle global challenges in line with the government ’ s UK Aid Strategy .
We are delivering against the Government ’ s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the preventable deaths of mothers , new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change , protect the environment and preserve biodiversity .
We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit .
We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples ’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.
” “ The Commission operates as an executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate : the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners , senior stakeholders and diverse communities ; knowledge of human rights law , and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland , and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates ; the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues ; and a reputation for personal integrity , professional conduct and credibility , with an exceptional sense of propriety.
” “ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” “ IE : UK is a joint industry and government partnership , strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world .
It is supported by DIT ’ s network of local staff in 116 markets , with the objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach .
The objective of IE : UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill .
The IE : UK Board is co-chaired by DIT ‘ s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader .
The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.
” “ The Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is looking to make two Non-Executive Director ( NED ) appointments to NHS England .
NHS England leads the National Health Service in England and sets its priorities and direction .
It is responsible for arranging the provision of health services and for more than £150 billion of funds .
The primary role of Non-Executive Directors is , as a team , to lead in developing the strategy for , and overseeing the work of NHS England by participating fully in the work of the board , both in the context of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Non-Executive Directors also play a part in representing NHS England externally , alongside the Chief Executive , the Chair and the wider Executive team.
” “ Do you want to play a key role in helping to shape the future of migration issues and support the interests of UK residents ?
If so , you can do this by becoming a Member of the Migration Advisory Committee ( MAC ) .
The MAC advises the government on a range of migration policy issues , offering independent evidence-based advice , and its core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high quality evidence-based , economics focused , reports and policy advice in accordance with the work plan set by the Government ; and help ensure that Government policy and strategy in relation to migration and employment is based on the best possible evidence and analysis .
To date the advice of the Committee has included impacts of migration ; annual limits on , and the design of , Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points-Based System ; and transitional labour market access for nationals of new EU member states.
” “ Non-Executive Directors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department ’ s work .
To complement the existing balance of skills on the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Board and to ensure that it can provide expert advice to Ministers on a wide range of issues and challenges , we would particularly welcome applications from people with experience in the business and commercial @ @ @

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
DFID Board – Non-Executive Director
“DFID leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty, deliver the Global Goals, and tackle global challenges in line with the government’s UK Aid Strategy. We are delivering against the Government’s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, to end the preventable deaths of mothers, new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change, protect the environment and preserve biodiversity. We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit. We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – Commissioners
“The Commission operates as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate: the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners, senior stakeholders and diverse communities; knowledge of human rights law, and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland, and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates; the ability to analyse information and exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues; and a reputation for personal integrity, professional conduct and credibility, with an exceptional sense of propriety.”
Time: Approx. 3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,500 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 28 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Infrastructure Exports:UK – Board co-Chair
“IE:UK is a joint industry and government partnership, strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world. It is supported by DIT’s network of local staff in 116 markets, with the objective of identifying, pursuing, and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach. The objective of IE:UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill. The IE:UK Board is co-chaired by DIT‘s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader. The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.”
Time: 3-4 meetings a year.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 June
– – – – – – – – – –
NHS England – Non-Executive Directors
“The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking to make two Non-Executive Director (NED) appointments to NHS England. NHS England leads the National Health Service in England and sets its priorities and direction. It is responsible for arranging the provision of health services and for more than £150 billion of funds. The primary role of Non-Executive Directors is, as a team, to lead in developing the strategy for, and overseeing the work of NHS England by participating fully in the work of the board, both in the context of the board meetings themselves, and more widely. Non-Executive Directors also play a part in representing NHS England externally, alongside the Chief Executive, the Chair and the wider Executive team.”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,883 (£13,137) per annum.
Closes: 02 July
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Members
“Do you want to play a key role in helping to shape the future of migration issues and support the interests of UK residents? If so, you can do this by becoming a Member of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC advises the government on a range of migration policy issues, offering independent evidence-based advice, and its core statement of purpose is to: deliver high quality evidence-based, economics focused, reports and policy advice in accordance with the work plan set by the Government; and help ensure that Government policy and strategy in relation to migration and employment is based on the best possible evidence and analysis. To date the advice of the Committee has included impacts of migration; annual limits on, and the design of, Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points-Based System; and transitional labour market access for nationals of new EU member states.”
Time: “An initial term of three years.”
Remuneration: £275 per diem.
Closes: 06 July
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Office – Non-Executive Director
“Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice, support, constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department’s work. To complement the existing balance of skills on the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Board and to ensure that it can provide expert advice to Ministers on a wide range of issues and challenges, we would particularly welcome applications from people with experience in the business and commercial sector.”
Time: Approx. 10 days per annum.
Remuneration: £7,500 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 10 July


conservativehome--2020-06-24--Friends of Cummings: “A hard rain is coming.”

Readouts from Dominic Cummings ’ Zoom meeting with other SpAds have a way of becoming public .
One made its way to ConservativeHome yesterday which was then posted as a Twitter thread .
The sum of it is that Cummings is against centralistion , not for it ; that his goal is to make the centre smaller , empower departments and change civil service fundamentals ; that “ anybody who has read what I ’ ve said about management over the years will know it ’ s ludicrous to suggest the solution to Whitehall ’ s problems is a bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the centre is already too big , incoherent and adds to the problems with departments .
A smaller and more elite centre is needed ; big changes are coming to Number Ten and the Cabinet Office , and many officials now accepted the need for radical changes .
Anything to the contrary is “ more media inventions ” .
The briefing ended with the words : “ a hard rain is coming ” .
Cue a mass of protests to this site claiming that the readout was simply friends of Cummings throwing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be believed for a moment .
SpAds were told last July that they are to report to Cummings ; their contracts were changed to ensure so formally ; SpAds that he didn ’ t care for have been removed ; big decisions go through him , and so can ’ t always be taken quickly – hence the foul-up over Marcus Rashford ’ s campaign for free meals for children over the summer ; Sonia Khan was removed ; so were Sajid Javid ’ s main SpAds , hence the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Treasury have been joined at the top , and so on .
For what it ’ s worth , here ’ s a view from people inside government who work with him , admire him – but also maintain a critical detachment .
“ Dom is a decentraliser , ” we were told .
“ But he ’ s resistant to decentralising to people who he thinks aren ’ t up to the job .
And there are departments of which he ’ s institutionally suspicious , such as Justice.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff and are capable then he ’ ll leave you alone – one topical example being Munira Mirza , who he rates.
” What can certainly be said is that so far , for better or worse , institutional change in Whitehall has been less sweeping than originally briefed : DfId has been swallowed up by the Foreign Office , and that ’ s about it .
Clearly , changes to the sprawling Cabinet Office , which is not held to have performed well during Coronavirus , are coming , as we wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Cummings rated , perhaps there would be more decentralistion .
But he ’ s on record as taking a low view of most of them : “ PJ Masks will do a greater job than all of them put together.
” Which gives us the chance to republish our illustration of Cummings as the Splat Monster .

Readouts from Dominic Cummings’ Zoom meeting with other SpAds have a way of becoming public. One made its way to ConservativeHome yesterday which was then posted as a Twitter thread.
The sum of it is that Cummings is against centralistion, not for it; that his goal is to make the centre smaller, empower departments and change civil service fundamentals; that “anybody who has read what I’ve said about management over the years will know it’s ludicrous to suggest the solution to Whitehall’s problems is a bigger centre and more centralisation”, and that the centre is already too big, incoherent and adds to the problems with departments.
A smaller and more elite centre is needed; big changes are coming to Number Ten and the Cabinet Office, and many officials now accepted the need for radical changes. Anything to the contrary is “more media inventions”.
The briefing ended with the words: “a hard rain is coming”.
Cue a mass of protests to this site claiming that the readout was simply friends of Cummings throwing up chaff, and that none of it should be believed for a moment.
SpAds were told last July that they are to report to Cummings; their contracts were changed to ensure so formally; SpAds that he didn’t care for have been removed; big decisions go through him, and so can’t always be taken quickly – hence the foul-up over Marcus Rashford’s campaign for free meals for children over the summer; Sonia Khan was removed; so were Sajid Javid’s main SpAds, hence the former Chancellor’s resignation; Number Ten and the Treasury have been joined at the top, and so on.
Who’s right?
For what it’s worth, here’s a view from people inside government who work with him, admire him – but also maintain a critical detachment.
“Dom is a decentraliser,” we were told. “But he’s resistant to decentralising to people who he thinks aren’t up to the job. And there are departments of which he’s institutionally suspicious, such as Justice.”
“If he thinks you know your stuff and are capable then he’ll leave you alone – one topical example being Munira Mirza, who he rates.”
What can certainly be said is that so far, for better or worse, institutional change in Whitehall has been less sweeping than originally briefed: DfId has been swallowed up by the Foreign Office, and that’s about it.
Clearly, changes to the sprawling Cabinet Office, which is not held to have performed well during Coronavirus, are coming, as we wrote recently.
If there were more Ministers that Cummings rated, perhaps there would be more decentralistion. But he’s on record as taking a low view of most of them: “PJ Masks will do a greater job than all of them put together.” Which gives us the chance to republish our illustration of Cummings as the Splat Monster.


conservativehome--2020-06-24--Profile: Robert Jenrick, who rose without trace until he hit two bumps in the road

Until the age of 38 , which he attained on 9th January this year , Robert Jenrick had ascended the political ladder at remarkable speed while remaining unknown to the wider public .
Nor can one yet say that as Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government he has become a household name , often though he appeared at the Downing Street press conferences on Covid-19 .
For there is nothing distinctive in Jenrick ’ s manner : he does not lodge himself in the memory .
Labour is trying to change that .
It wants people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name , then as the Tory minister who “ auctioned off the planning system to a billionaire donor at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner ” , as Steve Reed , Jenrick ’ s Labour opposite number , recently put it .
And this afternoon in the Commons , Labour will press for the release of all documents to do with that affair .
The fundraising dinner took place last November .
Jenrick found himself sitting next to Richard Desmond , former proprietor of The Daily Express , who is seeking permission for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s disused Westferry Printworks in the Isle of Dogs , to include over 1500 flats .
Jenrick had already called in the scheme , and in January this year he approved it , on the day before Desmond would have become liable to pay Tower Hamlets Council a Community Infrastructure Levy of about £40 million on the scheme .
The council opened legal proceedings against Jenrick , who in May conceded that the timing of his decision “ would lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court said the Housing Secretary had accepted the decision “ was unlawful by reason of apparent bias and should be quashed ” , which it proceeded to do .
Another minister will now decide whether to approve Desmond ’ s development , and Labour is doing all it can to exploit Jenrick ’ s embarrassment , as would the Conservatives if the positions were reversed .
When taking the decision to approve Desmond ’ s plan , Jenrick not only rejected the advice of the local council and planning inspector , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have rejected the advice of his own chief planning officer , which is highly unusual .
Desmond paid £12,000 to attend the dinner , of which Jenrick recently said in the Commons : There is something hapless about the word “ inadvertently ” .
A Tory MP told ConHome with considerable annoyance that Jenrick “ should never have been sitting next to Desmond ” , but blamed the organisers of the dinner , not Jenrick , for this , and described the Housing Secretary as “ well-respected ” .
Another senior Tory backbencher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backbencher , a former minister , said Jenrick is known as “ Generic ” Jenrick has actually hit two bumps .
In March , he repeatedly emphasised , in his role as one of the Government ’ s leading spokesmen on the pandemic , that people “ should stay at home whenever possible ” , but at the start of April he was found to have travelled to his house in Herefordshire : On the same day that report appeared , 9th April , Boris Johnson came out of intensive care at St @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days later he delivered his heartfelt message of thanks to the NHS for saving his life .
Compared to that , the questionable conduct of an unknown Cabinet minister looked unimportant .
It made nothing like the impact of the revelation on 22nd May of Dominic Cummings ’ family trip during lockdown to County Durham .
Cummings presents a wonderful target .
He is blamed by Remainers for steering the Leave campaign to victory , is close to the Prime Minister and loves riling the media .
Piers Morgan and Alastair Campbell were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cummings to be sacked , and Tory MPs found their inboxes flooded by emails from members of the public who were furious that there seemed to be one rule for the ruling class , represented by Cummings , and another for everyone else .
Nobody regards Jenrick as an evil genius , and he has never intentionally riled the media .
He has instead followed the more conventional course of giving the media nothing much to report , and most people have probably already forgotten about his travels during lockdown .
Jenrick was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in Herefordshire and Shropshire , and was educated at Wolverhampton Grammar School , a fee-paying establishment , followed by St John ’ s College , Cambridge , where he took a First in History , after which he spent a year studying Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania .
He proceeded to qualify , in 2008 , as a solicitor , to work for two American law firms in Moscow and in London , and on the international business side of Christie ’ s Auction House .
In the same year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate for Newcastle-under-Lyme , in Staffordshire , where in the general election of 2010 the Conservative vote rose by almost 5,000 , but he was still 1500 votes short of taking the seat , which only went Tory last December .
During one week of the 2010 campaign , he contributed a diary to ConHome which included this passage : We see Jenrick at the age of 28 proud of his ability to network , and remarkably at ease as he does so .
In 2013 , Better Place went bankrupt , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Newark , where it was expected that the scandal-afflicted Tory MP , Patrick Mercer , would stand down at the general election in 2015 .
Mercer instead stood down in April 2014 , precipitating a by-election in Newark where the Conservatives needed to beat off a strong challenge from UKIP in order to look like credible contenders for 2015 .
Tory MPs were ordered to visit Newark three times during the campaign , Cabinet ministers were expected to put in five appearances , members of the House of Lords could be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s depleted reserves of activists were incentivised by the prospect of fighting alongside the officer class .
Jenrick found himself at the centre of a national campaign .
Roger Helmer , the UKIP candidate , accused him of owning three homes , none of them anywhere near Newark .
The formidable Simon Walters , political editor of The Mail on Sunday , arrived to see what he could make of Jenrick : Mr Jenrick presents himself as a ‘ father , local man , son of a secretary and small businessman and state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not quite the whole story .
In fact , he and American wife Michal own not one , but two , £2 million homes in London and a £1 million country pile built by an 18th Century slave-trader .
Their Newark ‘ home ’ is a rented house obtained when he was picked as a candidate six months ago .
And his Party CV omits to say he went to a £13,000-a-year private secondary school .
Together with his director ’ s job at Christie ’ s auction house , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image Cameron and co can ’ t shrug off .
Mr Jenrick , who looks even younger than his 32 years , sticks rigidly to his Tory HQ autocue when asked about national issues .
During our interview at a cafeteria in Tuxford , near Newark , he is finally stirred when I ask whether , in his keenness to come across as a regular guy , he has misled voters .
To win the candidacy , he promised he would move his family lock , stock and barrel to Newark .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MP – quite a commute for a self-proclaimed family man with two young daughters .
How many nights has the family actually spent in their Newark ‘ home ?
’ ‘ Er , it has grown over time.
’ He won ’ t say .
His election leaflets are also silent about the couple ’ s £2 million flat in Marylebone , London .
It went up in value by £300,000 last year , more than twice the average price of a home in Newark .
Last October , the couple splashed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fashionable Vincent Square , Westminster , less than a mile from Parliament , which they plan to move into soon .
On top of that they bought Grade I listed Eye Manor in Herefordshire for £1.1 million in 2009 .
Mr Jenrick says he is ‘ almost sure ’ they will sell it and move to Newark if he becomes MP .
It is to be hoped this interview is not the first Mrs Jenrick , a top commercial lawyer whose professional name is Michal Berkner , eight years Mr Jenrick ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Conservatives won the Newark by-election by 7,403 votes from UKIP , and Jenrick ’ s majority has since risen to 21,816 .
Some vexation is nevertheless expressed in Newark that Jenrick has yet to sell Eye Manor , and appears to prefer going there with his wife and their three daughters .
As one constituent said , “ It ’ s perfectly clear who wears the trousers and it isn ’ t him .
She indulges his little hobby of being an MP.
” But if one were fortunate enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might feel unbearable .
Here is Marcus Binney , singing its praises in The Times before the Jenricks bought it : One of the sympathetic things about Jenrick is his love of history .
When ConHome spoke to him during the Newark by-election , he “ seemed reassuringly dull ” , but At Westminster , Jenrick remarked in his maiden speech that “ there are , after all , no final victories in politics ; all achievements , however hard won , can be and are undone.
” After the 2015 general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esther McVey , Michael Gove , Liz Truss and Amber Rudd , before in January 2018 being appointed Exchequer Secretary by Theresa May .
He was climbing the ladder , and in the summer of 2019 he , Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden questioned Johnson for an hour at Jenrick ’ s house in Vincent Square , and at a well-judged moment put their names to a joint piece for The Times Red Box which appeared under the reasonably clear headline : All three authors are now in the Cabinet .
Jenrick has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical reform of the planning system on which Johnson and Cummings are intent .
Will he still be in office to carry out this work ?
Johnson and Cummings have shown they do not like being pushed around by the newspapers , which are crawling over every planning decision in which Jenrick has been involved .
So perhaps he will hang on .
He will need , however , to learn the art of sometimes saying no to people , including developers such as Desmond .

Until the age of 38, which he attained on 9th January this year, Robert Jenrick had ascended the political ladder at remarkable speed while remaining unknown to the wider public.
Nor can one yet say that as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government he has become a household name, often though he appeared at the Downing Street press conferences on Covid-19.
For there is nothing distinctive in Jenrick’s manner: he does not lodge himself in the memory.
Labour is trying to change that. It wants people to remember him, if not by name, then as the Tory minister who “auctioned off the planning system to a billionaire donor at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner”, as Steve Reed, Jenrick’s Labour opposite number, recently put it.
And this afternoon in the Commons, Labour will press for the release of all documents to do with that affair.
The fundraising dinner took place last November. Jenrick found himself sitting next to Richard Desmond, former proprietor of The Daily Express, who is seeking permission for a one billion pound redevelopment of that paper’s disused Westferry Printworks in the Isle of Dogs, to include over 1500 flats.
Jenrick had already called in the scheme, and in January this year he approved it, on the day before Desmond would have become liable to pay Tower Hamlets Council a Community Infrastructure Levy of about £40 million on the scheme.
The council opened legal proceedings against Jenrick, who in May conceded that the timing of his decision “would lead the fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility” of bias.
The Planning Court said the Housing Secretary had accepted the decision “was unlawful by reason of apparent bias and should be quashed”, which it proceeded to do.
Another minister will now decide whether to approve Desmond’s development, and Labour is doing all it can to exploit Jenrick’s embarrassment, as would the Conservatives if the positions were reversed.
When taking the decision to approve Desmond’s plan, Jenrick not only rejected the advice of the local council and planning inspector, which is usual enough, but is reported to have rejected the advice of his own chief planning officer, which is highly unusual.
Desmond paid £12,000 to attend the dinner, of which Jenrick recently said in the Commons:
“My department knew about my attendance at the event before I went to it. It knew about the fact that I had inadvertently sat next to the applicant. I did not know who I was going to be seated by until I sat at the table. I discussed and took advice from my officials within the department at all times.”
There is something hapless about the word “inadvertently”. A Tory MP told ConHome with considerable annoyance that Jenrick “should never have been sitting next to Desmond”, but blamed the organisers of the dinner, not Jenrick, for this, and described the Housing Secretary as “well-respected”.
Another senior Tory backbencher said of Jenrick:
“He is a decent man, a solicitor by training, highly diligent, and I would trust him over Mr Desmond any day.”
But a third backbencher, a former minister, said Jenrick is known as “Generic”
“because there’s nothing there. If he walked across a sieve he’d probably completely disappear. He’s a suit. What does he believe? He’s an example of the new kind of Cabinet Minister who forms up with a pair of shiny shoes, takes his orders from Dominic Cummings and goes and delivers them. “He’s arrived from nowhere and as for all politicians who do that when he hits a bump he goes off the road.”
Jenrick has actually hit two bumps. In March, he repeatedly emphasised, in his role as one of the Government’s leading spokesmen on the pandemic, that people “should stay at home whenever possible”, but at the start of April he was found to have travelled to his house in Herefordshire:
“Under-fire minister Robert Jenrick has claimed the £1.1 million Grade I listed country mansion he drove 150 miles to during the coronavirus lockdown is his family home – but his official website says the opposite, MailOnline can reveal today. “The Housing Secretary is also facing calls to quit unless he can offer a ‘very good explanation’ about a 40 mile trip to drop supplies at his parents’ house in Shropshire last weekend when neighbours said they were already delivering essentials. “Mr Jenrick, a key player in the Government’s response to the pandemic that has claimed 7,978 lives in Britain, has repeatedly told the public to stay at home and not make unnecessary journeys to stop the spread of coronavirus, including travelling to any second homes.”
On the same day that report appeared, 9th April, Boris Johnson came out of intensive care at St Thomas’s Hospital, and three days later he delivered his heartfelt message of thanks to the NHS for saving his life.
Compared to that, the questionable conduct of an unknown Cabinet minister looked unimportant. It made nothing like the impact of the revelation on 22nd May of Dominic Cummings’ family trip during lockdown to County Durham.
Cummings presents a wonderful target. He is blamed by Remainers for steering the Leave campaign to victory, is close to the Prime Minister and loves riling the media. Piers Morgan and Alastair Campbell were among those who led the demands for Cummings to be sacked, and Tory MPs found their inboxes flooded by emails from members of the public who were furious that there seemed to be one rule for the ruling class, represented by Cummings, and another for everyone else.
Nobody regards Jenrick as an evil genius, and he has never intentionally riled the media. He has instead followed the more conventional course of giving the media nothing much to report, and most people have probably already forgotten about his travels during lockdown.
Jenrick was born in Wolverhampton in 1982, grew up in Herefordshire and Shropshire, and was educated at Wolverhampton Grammar School, a fee-paying establishment, followed by St John’s College, Cambridge, where he took a First in History, after which he spent a year studying Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.
He proceeded to qualify, in 2008, as a solicitor, to work for two American law firms in Moscow and in London, and on the international business side of Christie’s Auction House.
In the same year, he gained selection as the Conservative candidate for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in Staffordshire, where in the general election of 2010 the Conservative vote rose by almost 5,000, but he was still 1500 votes short of taking the seat, which only went Tory last December.
During one week of the 2010 campaign, he contributed a diary to ConHome which included this passage:
“Unexpectedly this afternoon, a legal contact calls. He’s an environmental lawyer in Washington D.C. who is co-ordinating efforts in the U.S. to develop the first Green Investment Bank with the Obama administration. I put him in touch with the Shadow Environment team, some of whom it turns out will be in D.C. tomorrow and may be able to meet up. This follows on from bringing together the Environment team with Better Place, an Israeli company developing an electric car system that will soon be on the streets of Tel Aviv and San Francisco. Better Place’s CEO, Shai Agassi, is one of the most impressive men I’ve met: he is pragmatic and not a climate crusader and he puts privately-funded technological advancement at the heart of tackling climate change.”
We see Jenrick at the age of 28 proud of his ability to network, and remarkably at ease as he does so.
In 2013, Better Place went bankrupt, and Jenrick was adopted as the Conservative candidate in Newark, where it was expected that the scandal-afflicted Tory MP, Patrick Mercer, would stand down at the general election in 2015.
Mercer instead stood down in April 2014, precipitating a by-election in Newark where the Conservatives needed to beat off a strong challenge from UKIP in order to look like credible contenders for 2015.
Tory MPs were ordered to visit Newark three times during the campaign, Cabinet ministers were expected to put in five appearances, members of the House of Lords could be found delivering leaflets, and the party’s depleted reserves of activists were incentivised by the prospect of fighting alongside the officer class.
Jenrick found himself at the centre of a national campaign. Roger Helmer, the UKIP candidate, accused him of owning three homes, none of them anywhere near Newark.
The formidable Simon Walters, political editor of The Mail on Sunday, arrived to see what he could make of Jenrick:
Mr Jenrick presents himself as a ‘father, local man, son of a secretary and small businessman and state primary school-educated’ candidate. But that is not quite the whole story. In fact, he and American wife Michal own not one, but two, £2 million homes in London and a £1 million country pile built by an 18th Century slave-trader. Their Newark ‘home’ is a rented house obtained when he was picked as a candidate six months ago. And his Party CV omits to say he went to a £13,000-a-year private secondary school. Together with his director’s job at Christie’s auction house, it is just the type of posh Tory boy image Cameron and co can’t shrug off. Mr Jenrick, who looks even younger than his 32 years, sticks rigidly to his Tory HQ autocue when asked about national issues. During our interview at a cafeteria in Tuxford, near Newark, he is finally stirred when I ask whether, in his keenness to come across as a regular guy, he has misled voters. To win the candidacy, he promised he would move his family lock, stock and barrel to Newark. A 250-mile round-trip to Westminster if he becomes MP – quite a commute for a self-proclaimed family man with two young daughters. How many nights has the family actually spent in their Newark ‘home?’ ‘Er, it has grown over time.’ He won’t say. His election leaflets are also silent about the couple’s £2 million flat in Marylebone, London. It went up in value by £300,000 last year, more than twice the average price of a home in Newark. Last October, the couple splashed out an extra £2.5 million on a house in fashionable Vincent Square, Westminster, less than a mile from Parliament, which they plan to move into soon. On top of that they bought Grade I listed Eye Manor in Herefordshire for £1.1 million in 2009. Mr Jenrick says he is ‘almost sure’ they will sell it and move to Newark if he becomes MP. It is to be hoped this interview is not the first Mrs Jenrick, a top commercial lawyer whose professional name is Michal Berkner, eight years Mr Jenrick’s senior, has heard of that.
The Conservatives won the Newark by-election by 7,403 votes from UKIP, and Jenrick’s majority has since risen to 21,816. Some vexation is nevertheless expressed in Newark that Jenrick has yet to sell Eye Manor, and appears to prefer going there with his wife and their three daughters.
As one constituent said, “It’s perfectly clear who wears the trousers and it isn’t him. She indulges his little hobby of being an MP.”
But if one were fortunate enough to own Eye Manor, parting with it might feel unbearable. Here is Marcus Binney, singing its praises in The Times before the Jenricks bought it:
For its size, Eye Manor, near Leominster in Herefordshire, has the most gorgeous series of Charles II interiors in England. Here is plasterwork as overflowing in richly sculpted fruit and flowers as carvings by the great Grinling Gibbons. It gets better: over the past 20 years the late owner, Margery Montcrieff, laid out an intricate, inventive and enchanting formal garden that almost vies with Sissinghurst in Kent.
One of the sympathetic things about Jenrick is his love of history. When ConHome spoke to him during the Newark by-election, he “seemed reassuringly dull”, but
When asked who his political hero is, he became more animated, and vouchsafed that he is writing a book about the English Civil War, in which Newark played a prominent role: it was a royalist stronghold which was three times besieged unsuccessfully by the parliamentarians. The first siege was raised by no less a figure than Prince Rupert, the most dashing royalist of them all. And Prince Rupert turns out to be Mr Jenrick’s hero. Beneath that somewhat impassive exterior perhaps there beats the heart of a true cavalier.
At Westminster, Jenrick remarked in his maiden speech that “there are, after all, no final victories in politics; all achievements, however hard won, can be and are undone.”
After the 2015 general election he became in rapid succession PPS to Esther McVey, Michael Gove, Liz Truss and Amber Rudd, before in January 2018 being appointed Exchequer Secretary by Theresa May.
He was climbing the ladder, and in the summer of 2019 he, Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden questioned Johnson for an hour at Jenrick’s house in Vincent Square, and at a well-judged moment put their names to a joint piece for The Times Red Box which appeared under the reasonably clear headline:
“The Tories are in deep trouble. Only Boris Johnson can save us.”
All three authors are now in the Cabinet. Jenrick has been lined up to carry out the radical reform of the planning system on which Johnson and Cummings are intent.
Will he still be in office to carry out this work? Johnson and Cummings have shown they do not like being pushed around by the newspapers, which are crawling over every planning decision in which Jenrick has been involved.
So perhaps he will hang on. He will need, however, to learn the art of sometimes saying no to people, including developers such as Desmond.


conservativehome--2020-06-24--Luke Evans: What social media says about the Government and the virus.  And what my constituents act

Luke Evans: What social media says about the Government and the virus.  And what my constituents actually said when I asked them.

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
Like any other Member of Parliament Fridays are , for me – at least when the House is sitting – constituency day .
Most MPs will tell you it ’ s the best part of the job .
Arguably , it is the bit that counts most .
You get to hear about the lives of people in your hometown , the issues that matter to them and , hopefully , you are able to make a difference both in the casework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising important causes in parliament .
Last Friday was my first constituency day since lockdown started – the first time I have been able to go out and speak with ‘ real ’ people face to face .
It ’ s an experience which never fails to surprise .
I ’ ve written before about the difficulties facing Twycross Zoo in my constituency and , since it had opened its gates to the public for the first time last Monday , it seemed somehow fitting that my first visit should be to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last before the Coronavirus crisis started .
What struck me ?
It was amazing to hear of staff returning , see families enjoying a day out , and witness first hand how many of the primates are enjoying human interaction once more ( a serious point , the keepers were surprised that some seemed “ depressed ” by the lack of interaction – does that sound familiar too ?
Perhaps I digress ) .
My afternoon was allocated to a tour of recently reopened shops in Hinckley , the largest town in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had raised the issue of supporting Business Improvement Districts ( BIDs ) as a potential vehicle to help increase footfall and reduce shop vacancies on the high street , to which I was pleased to hear the Government agree .
It seemed a perfect opportunity , then , to join the Hinckley BID , which arranges visits to shops and local businesses , to see how they are faring .
I thought that they would be inclined to paint a fair picture , especially when it transpired I would be being joined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reason for this ?
I could avoid my own team hand-picking businesses which by their very nature might have been more supportive of the government : in other words , I wanted to hear how things on the ground really were rather than how I might hope them to be .
I ’ ve long subscribed to the concept that ‘ the map is not the territory ’ – there are always filters , some conscious and others less so , that affect our perceptions of reality .
It ’ s very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the distortion and anti-Government rage , and easily misinterpret that as the territory .
I ’ ll be honest : I was more than a little worried about what I would hear when I spoke with independent retailers , whose entire livelihoods had been placed at real risk as a result of virus that is – at the end of the day – no one ’ s fault .
Of course , as I should know only too well by now , social media isn ’ t the real world , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way representative of what Twitter or Facebook tell me that it is like .
I heard shopkeepers telling me of brisk trade ; again and again independent retailers talked about cautious optimism for the sector – “ shop local ” seems to be resonating clearly .
And above all ?
A real gratitude that a Government , which by no means has been perfect , has supported them through the darkest of times ; a Government responding to the greatest threat of our generation had given them the hope that they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do whatever it takes had stuck with them , and had really meant something .
At a time when hope could have very easily been lost , that ’ s a really powerful thing to have done and won ’ t be forgotten any time soon .
Members of the public stopped me on the high street to talk about support they had and wanted to give to the local economy , a true sense of coming together to make the best of an international crisis .
I was taken aback .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those comments are just a differently interpreted map of the same territory .
The only way we can make that map more accurate , of course , is by adding data and it seems to me that , in the bubble , we ’ ve become fixated on only adding the datasets that we can see on our mobile phones , and not talking to people .
As MPs we need to make sure that we place equally as much value on a conversation with our constituents as we do on 280 characters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fact .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
Like any other Member of Parliament Fridays are, for me – at least when the House is sitting – constituency day.
Most MPs will tell you it’s the best part of the job. Arguably, it is the bit that counts most. You get to hear about the lives of people in your hometown, the issues that matter to them and, hopefully, you are able to make a difference both in the casework that you do on their behalf and raising important causes in parliament.
Last Friday was my first constituency day since lockdown started – the first time I have been able to go out and speak with ‘real’ people face to face. It’s an experience which never fails to surprise.
I’ve written before about the difficulties facing Twycross Zoo in my constituency and, since it had opened its gates to the public for the first time last Monday, it seemed somehow fitting that my first visit should be to the same place that was one of my last before the Coronavirus crisis started.
What struck me? It was amazing to hear of staff returning, see families enjoying a day out, and witness first hand how many of the primates are enjoying human interaction once more (a serious point, the keepers were surprised that some seemed “depressed” by the lack of interaction – does that sound familiar too? Perhaps I digress).
My afternoon was allocated to a tour of recently reopened shops in Hinckley, the largest town in my constituency. During the week, I had raised the issue of supporting Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) as a potential vehicle to help increase footfall and reduce shop vacancies on the high street, to which I was pleased to hear the Government agree.
It seemed a perfect opportunity, then, to join the Hinckley BID, which arranges visits to shops and local businesses, to see how they are faring.
I thought that they would be inclined to paint a fair picture, especially when it transpired I would be being joined by a local Liberal Democrat borough councillor. The reason for this? I could avoid my own team hand-picking businesses which by their very nature might have been more supportive of the government: in other words, I wanted to hear how things on the ground really were rather than how I might hope them to be.
I’ve long subscribed to the concept that ‘the map is not the territory’ – there are always filters, some conscious and others less so, that affect our perceptions of reality.
It’s very easy to look at social media and see the distortion and anti-Government rage, and easily misinterpret that as the territory. I’ll be honest: I was more than a little worried about what I would hear when I spoke with independent retailers, whose entire livelihoods had been placed at real risk as a result of virus that is – at the end of the day – no one’s fault.
Of course, as I should know only too well by now, social media isn’t the real world even with the best video prospecting softwre, and the comments I met with were in no way representative of what Twitter or Facebook tell me that it is like.
I heard shopkeepers telling me of brisk trade; again and again independent retailers talked about cautious optimism for the sector – “shop local” seems to be resonating clearly.
And above all? A real gratitude that a Government, which by no means has been perfect, has supported them through the darkest of times; a Government responding to the greatest threat of our generation had given them the hope that they can return. The Chancellor’s promise to do whatever it takes had stuck with them, and had really meant something.
At a time when hope could have very easily been lost, that’s a really powerful thing to have done and won’t be forgotten any time soon.
Members of the public stopped me on the high street to talk about support they had and wanted to give to the local economy, a true sense of coming together to make the best of an international crisis.
I was taken aback. Of course, I fully appreciate that those comments are just a differently interpreted map of the same territory.
The only way we can make that map more accurate, of course, is by adding data and it seems to me that, in the bubble, we’ve become fixated on only adding the datasets that we can see on our mobile phones, and not talking to people.
As MPs we need to make sure that we place equally as much value on a conversation with our constituents as we do on 280 characters. Sometimes we all lose sight of that fact.


conservativehome--2020-06-24--Daniel Hannan: The police. Not institutionally racist, but institutionally woke.

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
The police have had an unusually bad lockdown .
They began by being bossy and officious , ticking people off for buying luxury items or walking too slowly in parks or even ( in one incident in Rotherham that was caught on camera ) for being in their own garden .
But when Black Lives Matter took to the streets , they promptly forgot all about the restrictions .
Far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on as mobs carried out flagrant acts of vandalism .
In Bristol , a superintendent refused to prevent criminal damage to the Colston statue because “ we know that it has been an historical figure that has caused the black community quite a lot of angst over the last couple of years.
” ( Perhaps so – but it was hardly his call to make , was it ? )
In London , officers were pulled out of Parliament Square , allowing vandals to fall on the statues there – including that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s slaves .
Last weekend , we reached a new low , as a Met officer , in effect , pleaded with people to break the law in a considerate manner .
“ First and foremost we want people to be safe , and would encourage you to stay at home , ” said Commander Alex Murray .
“ However , if you feel compelled to come and have your voice heard , we would say please remain socially distant , we don ’ t want people to get ill ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not engage in any violence.
” Demonstrations , of course , were banned – a fact the Met clung to obsessively when protesters were complaining about the lockdown .
But , when a different set of protesters started to demonstrate about the atrocity in Minneapolis , police chiefs were reduced to asking people who felt “ compelled ” to break the law to do so non-violently .
It was hard not to think of Chief Wiggum from The Simpsons : “ Can ’ t you people take the law into your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PC PC – the politically correct police constable – goes back to the Blair years , and there can be something quite funny about heavy-handed attempts by rozzers to be woke .
But there is nothing funny about the consequences .
In 2011 , the Met refused to impede a crowd engaging in mass looting in Tottenham , because the pillage had theoretically begun as an anti-racist protest .
Images of officers standing by while people smashed their way into shops flashed around the country and , the next day , there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police institutionally racist , these days , is wide of the mark .
Yes , there are individual racists in uniform : with more than 120,000 police officers in the UK , some bad behaviour is statistically inevitable .
But , far from being institutionally racist – that is , being an institution where racism is a norm – the police , these days , are institutionally woke , in the sense that their leaders elevate race relations above what ought to be their core functions , such as protecting property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impartially .
To be fair , the police are operating within a society which has taken to applying a different test when it comes to self-proclaimed anti-racism .
This is most obvious in the tone of our broadcasters .
When BLM thugs turned violent , the BBC produced the ludicrous headline , “ 27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London ” .
The following week , when a different set of thugs turned violent , it had the more conventional headline , “ London protests : more than 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our state broadcaster is faithfully representing the double-standard of our intellectual elites .
Epidemiologists who back the lockdown in all other circumstances say it ’ s fine to violate its terms as long as you are demonstrating for BLM .
Conservationists who normally insist on protecting monuments declare that it is fine to remove statues .
Academic institutions that are meant to defend intellectual rigour concede that , if someone ’ s feelings are hurt , accuracy no longer matters .
These are the political waters in which our coppers are swimming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of London , Sadiq Khan , who condemns the ludicrous statue defenders while refusing to condemn BLM violence – a failure which , in normal times , would disqualify him from office .
But these are not normal times .
As sometimes happens when there is a plague ( or at least the perceived threat of a plague ) we are gripped by a form of end-of-days cultism , which brooks no dissent .
Intimidated by the self-righteousness of campaigners , few politicians dare to step into the path of the mob .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to qualify their condemnations of violence with vague support for the demonstrators ’ aims .
Several of them literally bend the knee .
To the best of my knowledge , not a single Police and Crime Commissioner has spoken out , either against the excessively heavy-handed way in which the lockdown is enforced for everyone else , or against the refusal even to pretend to enforce it on the protesters .
Police , protesters , politicians , pundits – all are caught up in the general madness .
Indeed , everyone seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everyone , that is , except the general population , which remains as level-headed as ever .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
The police have had an unusually bad lockdown. They began by being bossy and officious, ticking people off for buying luxury items or walking too slowly in parks or even (in one incident in Rotherham that was caught on camera) for being in their own garden. But when Black Lives Matter took to the streets, they promptly forgot all about the restrictions. Far from ordering protesters to disperse, they looked on as mobs carried out flagrant acts of vandalism.
In Bristol, a superintendent refused to prevent criminal damage to the Colston statue because “we know that it has been an historical figure that has caused the black community quite a lot of angst over the last couple of years.” (Perhaps so – but it was hardly his call to make, was it?)
In London, officers were pulled out of Parliament Square, allowing vandals to fall on the statues there – including that of Abraham Lincoln, commemorated for having freed America’s slaves. Last weekend, we reached a new low, as a Met officer, in effect, pleaded with people to break the law in a considerate manner.
“First and foremost we want people to be safe, and would encourage you to stay at home,” said Commander Alex Murray. “However, if you feel compelled to come and have your voice heard, we would say please remain socially distant, we don’t want people to get ill; and, more than that, please do not engage in any violence.”
Demonstrations, of course, were banned – a fact the Met clung to obsessively when protesters were complaining about the lockdown. But, when a different set of protesters started to demonstrate about the atrocity in Minneapolis, police chiefs were reduced to asking people who felt “compelled” to break the law to do so non-violently. It was hard not to think of Chief Wiggum from The Simpsons: “Can’t you people take the law into your own hands?”
The problem of the PC PC – the politically correct police constable – goes back to the Blair years, and there can be something quite funny about heavy-handed attempts by rozzers to be woke. But there is nothing funny about the consequences. In 2011, the Met refused to impede a crowd engaging in mass looting in Tottenham, because the pillage had theoretically begun as an anti-racist protest. Images of officers standing by while people smashed their way into shops flashed around the country and, the next day, there was looting across British cities.
To call the police institutionally racist, these days, is wide of the mark. Yes, there are individual racists in uniform: with more than 120,000 police officers in the UK, some bad behaviour is statistically inevitable. But, far from being institutionally racist – that is, being an institution where racism is a norm – the police, these days, are institutionally woke, in the sense that their leaders elevate race relations above what ought to be their core functions, such as protecting property, securing public order and enforcing the law impartially.
To be fair, the police are operating within a society which has taken to applying a different test when it comes to self-proclaimed anti-racism. This is most obvious in the tone of our broadcasters. When BLM thugs turned violent, the BBC produced the ludicrous headline, “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”. The following week, when a different set of thugs turned violent, it had the more conventional headline, “London protests: more than 100 arrests after violent clashes with police.”
Our state broadcaster is faithfully representing the double-standard of our intellectual elites. Epidemiologists who back the lockdown in all other circumstances say it’s fine to violate its terms as long as you are demonstrating for BLM. Conservationists who normally insist on protecting monuments declare that it is fine to remove statues. Academic institutions that are meant to defend intellectual rigour concede that, if someone’s feelings are hurt, accuracy no longer matters.
These are the political waters in which our coppers are swimming. The Met is answerable to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who condemns the ludicrous statue defenders while refusing to condemn BLM violence – a failure which, in normal times, would disqualify him from office.
But these are not normal times. As sometimes happens when there is a plague (or at least the perceived threat of a plague) we are gripped by a form of end-of-days cultism, which brooks no dissent. Intimidated by the self-righteousness of campaigners, few politicians dare to step into the path of the mob. MPs from all parties feel the need to qualify their condemnations of violence with vague support for the demonstrators’ aims. Several of them literally bend the knee.
To the best of my knowledge, not a single Police and Crime Commissioner has spoken out, either against the excessively heavy-handed way in which the lockdown is enforced for everyone else, or against the refusal even to pretend to enforce it on the protesters.
Police, protesters, politicians, pundits – all are caught up in the general madness. Indeed, everyone seems to be going through a millenarian spasm. Everyone, that is, except the general population, which remains as level-headed as ever.