conservativehome--2020-03-13--On coronavirus, Johnson simply cannot win

Remember all those headlines about Boris Johnson from last year ?
If not , here ’ s a selection ( there were a lot to choose from ) : • None “ Boris Johnson ’ s triumph of populism comes straight from the Trump playbook ” , • None “ The hard right has captured my old party – and Boris Johnson ’ s victory proves it ” , • None The Guardian view on Johnson v parliament : an unelective dictatorship You get the gist , right ?
We all know what some liberal papers – and indeed MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s a dictator/ populist/ fascist/ mini Trump , and the rest .
One article in The New York Times even warned that the Tories will bring “ more draconian sentencing and ever harsher borders ” , adding that these would be “ terrifying prospects.
” Had these forecasts been correct , you might expect Johnson to tackle coronavirus in something of a heavy-handed way .
Perhaps that he might ignore his chief medical experts and do his own thing , shutting facilities up and down the country – and blaming others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be theatrical in his response – telling everyone that he will personally cure coronavirus and announcing that British medicine is the best in the world .
Instead , the liberal fearmongers are having something of a reality check as to how wrong their characterisations of Johnson were .
For starters , would a “ dictator ” wheel out doctors at every possible moment , giving them more time than himself on the podium – to tell the country what to do ?
Would a dictator even follow doctors ’ orders at all – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the answer is .
No .
The fact Johnson has taken their advice – and been transparent about information at every opportunity – completely undermines many of the character assassinations against him .
But here ’ s the irony : now his critics have complained that he isn ’ t draconian enough !
The Guardian ’ s Ireland correspondent seemed to suggest that the Taoiseach ’ s decision to close down schools implied that the UK should do the same , warning that it would expose “ a stark divergence ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Boris Johnson to follow suit ” .
According to Lewis Goodall , Policy Editor at the BBC ’ s Newsnight , opposition parties have also been putting pressure on the government to “ explain why there is such a big difference in approach from UK vs other countries ” .
In other words , they want Johnson to justify why he is not closing everything down .
All of this points out that Johnson simply can not win in his coronavirus approach .
The Tories are not perfect ; they are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have , and only time will tell which government had the correct approach to coronavirus , and which country ’ s medical advisors were the best .
But if Johnson shut down schools right now , one suspects the reaction would be even more apoplectic than it currently is .
What do his critics actually want ?
On draconian measures , they need a re-think…

Remember all those headlines about Boris Johnson from last year?
If not, here’s a selection (there were a lot to choose from):
You get the gist, right? We all know what some liberal papers – and indeed MPs – said about the PM: that he’s a dictator/ populist/ fascist/ mini Trump, and the rest.
One article in The New York Times even warned that the Tories will bring “more draconian sentencing and ever harsher borders”, adding that these would be “terrifying prospects.”
Had these forecasts been correct, you might expect Johnson to tackle coronavirus in something of a heavy-handed way.
Perhaps that he might ignore his chief medical experts and do his own thing, shutting facilities up and down the country – and blaming others for the virus.
Maybe he would be theatrical in his response – telling everyone that he will personally cure coronavirus and announcing that British medicine is the best in the world.
Instead, the liberal fearmongers are having something of a reality check as to how wrong their characterisations of Johnson were.
For starters, would a “dictator” wheel out doctors at every possible moment, giving them more time than himself on the podium – to tell the country what to do?
Would a dictator even follow doctors’ orders at all – in shaping government policy?
We know what the answer is. No.
The fact Johnson has taken their advice – and been transparent about information at every opportunity – completely undermines many of the character assassinations against him.
But here’s the irony: now his critics have complained that he isn’t draconian enough!
The Guardian’s Ireland correspondent seemed to suggest that the Taoiseach’s decision to close down schools implied that the UK should do the same, warning that it would expose “a stark divergence” in the UK response – putting “pressure on Boris Johnson to follow suit”.
According to Lewis Goodall, Policy Editor at the BBC’s Newsnight, opposition parties have also been putting pressure on the government to “explain why there is such a big difference in approach from UK vs other countries”. In other words, they want Johnson to justify why he is not closing everything down.
All of this points out that Johnson simply cannot win in his coronavirus approach.
The Tories are not perfect; they are doing the best they can with the information they have, and only time will tell which government had the correct approach to coronavirus, and which country’s medical advisors were the best.
But if Johnson shut down schools right now, one suspects the reaction would be even more apoplectic than it currently is.
What do his critics actually want? On draconian measures, they need a re-think…


conservativehome--2020-03-14--Johnson’s extra virus mission.  To help “save the world”.

A thought experiment .
Let ’ s imagine as total a shutdown of Britain as it is possible to manage .
Schools closed , offices empty , shops shut – save those selling food .
Minimal public transport .
Airports closed .
Older people deliberately isolated .
No public events .
An economic freeze .
The country sealed off .
Sooner or later , the freeze would have to thaw : the Government would signal a return to as near normality as possible , and people would begin to emerge blinking , like post-hiberation bears , from their homes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his advisers argue , they would run slap bang into the waiting Coronvirus .
There would be health service carnage .
The NHS would be unable to cope , in the manner of Italy ’ s hospitals now .
The death rate would climb to – what ?
– six per cent ; seven per cent ; more .
In this view of events , the Coronavirus is like an invading army .
If you hunker down , wait for it to pass , and then emerge dazzled into the spring sunshine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you down and defeat you .
The Prime Minister ’ s plan is , rather , for a national fight back .
This will come not so much through the eventual deployment of a vaccine , like some battlefield nuclear weapon , but through acting as close to Carry on Britain as it is possible to do .
In that way , the population will acquire “ herd immunity ” .
This will beat the virus in the medium term , and flatten its peak in the short – staggering out those hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS from being over-run completely .
This is the core of the case argued this week by Patrick Vallance .
That it is made by the Government ’ s Chief Scientific Officer doesn ’ t mean that it represents “ the science ” .
For strictly speaking , there is no such thing .
Rather , Johnson is being guided by a plan partly based on a certain scientific reading of events .
Some scientists agree with it ; others don ’ t .
That ’ s in the nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps repeating , the decisions that the Government must make are not scientific , but political .
We thus find ourselves in the odd position of agreeing on paper with Rory Stewart , who has made precisely this point , while not agreeing with his call for a China-type response in practice .
He is correct to suggest that the Government ’ s actions can ’ t turn on “ the science ” because ultimately they must hazard a guess on the behaviour of human beings – which is not a science ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it may be that the Prime Minister ’ s strategy , so unlike that of most other comparable governments , is fundamentally flawed .
This would be because people will behave in a more disciplined way that the Government ’ s modelling suggests ; or because “ herd immunity ” can ’ t be acquired so quickly , or because draconian responses are the example to follow .
To follow our wartime analogy , this interpretation of what ’ s happening sees Johnson as an Oh What a Lovely War general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of older people “ over the top ” to die amidst the virus ’ s equivalent of barbed wire and poison gas .
None the less , we think there is a solid case for the Prime Minister ’ s approaching – carried out against the prevailing practice elsewhere , lauded as successful , by Jeremy Hunt , in a series of Far Eastern countries and places .
This isn ’ t to say that the Government is getting everything right .
The advice from 111 to people returning from Italy lagged behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson was slow to concede that the local elections should called off .
111 has sometimes given conflicting advice .
But there are three solid points to make in Johnson ’ s favour .
The first is that the very same people who were only recently denouncing him as a Trumpite populist monster are now excoriating him for being not populist enough .
Charlotte Gill made this case on ConservativeHome yesterday .
And if the debate was , frankly , Vallance v : Piers Morgan , one wouldn ’ t hesitate for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is not quite as simple as that : for as we point out above , some scientists disagree with the Chief Scientific Adviser .
The second point is a development of the first .
Governments like to tell voters that all will be well – in the case of this one , that it will succeed in “ levelling up ” .
But perhaps the levelling that matters most is levelling with the British people .
If a Prime Minister is willing to tell them that “ many more will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” this sounds like a candid , politically risky statement of truth from a man accused by his enemies of telling nothing but lies .
It commands respect .
War analogies in politics are dangerous , but there is something in the one that this site uses today .
The struggle against the Coronavirus will be a real war with real casualties .
Our snowflaky , social media-focused , Me Too culture may cope , but it is unprepared for it , and there has been nothing like it in most people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Britain ’ s institutions may be a strength .
We don ’ t just mean right-of-centreish ones – like our first past the post system that has delivered a Government with a near landslide majority of 80 .
We mean a centralised , nationalised healthcare system – itself a product of wartime thinking ; not always suited to peacetime , but well set up for a command-and-control-led crisis .
Or a state broadcaster that can carry public information which commercial rivals are under no compulsion to carry .
This brings us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favour .
The European Union ’ s response to the virus has been torpid ; Trump ’ s schlerotic ; China is grappling with its debt burden .
A combination of a Corovirus-driven downturn , oil price wars , corporate debt and the lack of leadership from the EU institutions and the American President threaten a real crisis for the world economy .
Amidst these seething , turbulent waters , the Prime Minister ’ s majority looks like a rock .
Gordon Brown was mocked during the financial crisis for mis-declaring at Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ saved the world ” .
But now that we look back at it , the old boy didn ’ t do badly in the hour of need – despite his responsibility for some of Britain ’ s biggest pre-crisis mistakes .
Johnson is no Brown in almost any sense .
He is mistrusted by the EU and apparently alienated from Trump , at least to some degree , by his decision to keep going with Huawei .
But together with Emmanuel Macron , he is a strong domestic leader .
As Ambrose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the two might just have the capacity , acting together as Britain and France still do on defence , to drive a global plan to tackle the virus .
Working together on an international fiscal and monetary stimulus package could conceivably make a difference .
Something on that scale is needed .
After all , this is a global and not merely a national conflict .
Whatever happens , we close with a hard thought .
Perhaps here at home , Johnson will succeed in “ flattening the peak ” .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t feel like success .
The NHS will still be over-run .
A & E departments will turn the sick away .
There will be agonising horrors .
The service risks tottering to its knees .

A thought experiment. Let’s imagine as total a shutdown of Britain as it is possible to manage. Schools closed, offices empty, shops shut – save those selling food. Minimal public transport. Airports closed. Older people deliberately isolated. No public events. An economic freeze. The country sealed off.
Sooner or later, the freeze would have to thaw: the Government would signal a return to as near normality as possible, and people would begin to emerge blinking, like post-hiberation bears, from their homes.
At this point, Boris Johnson and his advisers argue, they would run slap bang into the waiting Coronvirus. There would be health service carnage. The NHS would be unable to cope, in the manner of Italy’s hospitals now. The death rate would climb to – what? – six per cent; seven per cent; more.
In this view of events, the Coronavirus is like an invading army. If you hunker down, wait for it to pass, and then emerge dazzled into the spring sunshine, it will then ambush you, cut you down and defeat you.
The Prime Minister’s plan is, rather, for a national fight back. This will come not so much through the eventual deployment of a vaccine, like some battlefield nuclear weapon, but through acting as close to Carry on Britain as it is possible to do.
In that way, the population will acquire “herd immunity”. This will beat the virus in the medium term, and flatten its peak in the short – staggering out those hospital admissions over time, and thus preventing the NHS from being over-run completely. This is the core of the case argued this week by Patrick Vallance.
That it is made by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer doesn’t mean that it represents “the science”. For strictly speaking, there is no such thing.
Rather, Johnson is being guided by a plan partly based on a certain scientific reading of events. Some scientists agree with it; others don’t. That’s in the nature of the beast. Probably because, as ConservativeHome keeps repeating, the decisions that the Government must make are not scientific, but political.
We thus find ourselves in the odd position of agreeing on paper with Rory Stewart, who has made precisely this point, while not agreeing with his call for a China-type response in practice.
He is correct to suggest that the Government’s actions can’t turn on “the science” because ultimately they must hazard a guess on the behaviour of human beings – which is not a science; or at most is a social one. And it may be that the Prime Minister’s strategy, so unlike that of most other comparable governments, is fundamentally flawed.
This would be because people will behave in a more disciplined way that the Government’s modelling suggests; or because “herd immunity” can’t be acquired so quickly, or because draconian responses are the example to follow.
To follow our wartime analogy, this interpretation of what’s happening sees Johnson as an Oh What a Lovely War general of legend, needlessly sending a generation of older people “over the top” to die amidst the virus’s equivalent of barbed wire and poison gas.
None the less, we think there is a solid case for the Prime Minister’s approaching – carried out against the prevailing practice elsewhere, lauded as successful, by Jeremy Hunt, in a series of Far Eastern countries and places.
This isn’t to say that the Government is getting everything right. The advice from 111 to people returning from Italy lagged behind changes announced by Public Health England. Johnson was slow to concede that the local elections should called off. 111 has sometimes given conflicting advice.
But there are three solid points to make in Johnson’s favour. The first is that the very same people who were only recently denouncing him as a Trumpite populist monster are now excoriating him for being not populist enough.
Charlotte Gill made this case on ConservativeHome yesterday. And if the debate was, frankly, Vallance v :Piers Morgan, one wouldn’t hesitate for a moment about whose side to be on. But it is not quite as simple as that: for as we point out above, some scientists disagree with the Chief Scientific Adviser.
The second point is a development of the first. Governments like to tell voters that all will be well – in the case of this one, that it will succeed in “levelling up”.
But perhaps the levelling that matters most is levelling with the British people. If a Prime Minister is willing to tell them that “many more will lose loved ones before their time,” this sounds like a candid, politically risky statement of truth from a man accused by his enemies of telling nothing but lies. It commands respect.
War analogies in politics are dangerous, but there is something in the one that this site uses today. The struggle against the Coronavirus will be a real war with real casualties. Our snowflaky, social media-focused, Me Too culture may cope, but it is unprepared for it, and there has been nothing like it in most people’s living experience.
In these circumstances, Britain’s institutions may be a strength. We don’t just mean right-of-centreish ones – like our first past the post system that has delivered a Government with a near landslide majority of 80.
We mean a centralised, nationalised healthcare system – itself a product of wartime thinking; not always suited to peacetime, but well set up for a command-and-control-led crisis. Or a state broadcaster that can carry public information which commercial rivals are under no compulsion to carry.
This brings us to a third point in Johnson’s favour. The European Union’s response to the virus has been torpid; Trump’s schlerotic; China is grappling with its debt burden.
A combination of a Corovirus-driven downturn, oil price wars, corporate debt and the lack of leadership from the EU institutions and the American President threaten a real crisis for the world economy. Amidst these seething, turbulent waters, the Prime Minister’s majority looks like a rock.
Gordon Brown was mocked during the financial crisis for mis-declaring at Prime Minister’s Questions that he had “saved the world”. But now that we look back at it, the old boy didn’t do badly in the hour of need – despite his responsibility for some of Britain’s biggest pre-crisis mistakes.
Johnson is no Brown in almost any sense. He is mistrusted by the EU and apparently alienated from Trump, at least to some degree, by his decision to keep going with Huawei.
But together with Emmanuel Macron, he is a strong domestic leader. As Ambrose Evans Pritchard argues in the Daily Telegraph, the two might just have the capacity, acting together as Britain and France still do on defence, to drive a global plan to tackle the virus.
Working together on an international fiscal and monetary stimulus package could conceivably make a difference. Something on that scale is needed. After all, this is a global and not merely a national conflict.
Whatever happens, we close with a hard thought. Perhaps here at home, Johnson will succeed in “flattening the peak”. However, we promise our readers that it won’t feel like success. The NHS will still be over-run. A & E departments will turn the sick away. There will be agonising horrors. The service risks tottering to its knees.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of cases in the UK : 797 Number of people tested : 32,771 ( plus 3007 on yesterday ’ s figure ) .
Number of people tested positive : 798 590 ( plus 208 on yesterday ’ s figure ) .
Number of people tested positive who have since died : ten .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
From Public Health England ’ s webpage Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update .
The above are figures for England .
“ The risk to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see our coronavirus advice for travellers • You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus • In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overview Travellers should self-isolate , even if asymptomatic , and use the 111 online coronavirus service to find out what to do next .
Go home or to your destination and then self isolate .
• Daegu or Cheongdo ( Republic of Korea , see map ) *Except areas of the country specifically referred to in Category 1 .
** ( i ) Travellers who returned from areas of Northern Italy that were under containment measures ( see map ) between 19 February and 8 March 2020 should self-isolate for 14 days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS111 .
( ii ) Travellers who returned from the rest of Italy before 9 March 2020 do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Travellers do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Updated as of 21.30 on Friday March 13 .

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-03-14--David Gauke: How Sunak can do his best to ensure that Big State Conservatism is a success

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Rishi Sunak ’ s first Budget speech set out ‘ temporary , timely and targeted ’ measures to address the coronavirus crisis , as well as highlighting the ‘ coordinated , coherent and comprehensive ’ action taken by both the Government and the Bank of England .
It was a speech that was assured , accomplished…and alliterative .
To some extent , the Chancellor delivered not only his first Budget but also his second .
The first was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was substantial and well-judged , focusing support on those businesses and individuals most likely to be affected by the tumultuous months ahead .
Getting help to those who need it quickly is not easy .
There is a trade-off to be made between ensuring the money is well-targeted , but also happens in the spring and summer .
The perfectly directed measure that takes effect in October is not of much use .
By and large , the Chancellor found ways of the delivering this .
It is more than likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in due course , but this was a very good start .
The second Budget speech set out where the Government is going to go over the course of the Parliament and , in particular , the spending plans .
This is where the controversy lies .
Two points to make in support of the approach taken by the Chancellor .
First , this was a Budget that delivered on the 2019 manifesto .
No one can claim to be surprised that this would be a Government that was prepared to turn on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax rises ( and the Budget contained plenty of tax rises ) , these were broadly set out in advance .
Corporation tax being held at 19 per cent and changes to Entrepreneurs Relief were well flagged .
Second , there is a case for more spending both in respect of capital spending and current spending .
It is undeniable that there are lots of genuine pressures on public spending .
Many areas have seen substantial real terms reductions and the strains are showing .
Other areas , like health , face significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maintaining very tight spending constraints is probably not realistic – especially given the new coalition of supporters the Conservative Party attracted in December .
In other words , it is not unreasonable or politically unwise to increase spending .
Nonetheless , this is a departure from Conservative orthodoxy .
These are rapid increases in spending , significant increases in borrowing and will leave the size of the state at its largest level since the late 1960s .
It may be worth reminding ourselves of the arguments made in the 1970s and ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was a time when the power of Government was used to protect the interests of producers not consumers .
Inefficient , lame duck businesses were sheltered from competition .
Public spending was directed on the basis of political priorities rather than long term economic benefit .
Tax policy was internationally uncompetitive and hostile to enterprise .
If there was a downturn in the economy , borrowing and spending was seen as the answer .
It was an approach that left the UK as the sick man of Europe – uncompetitive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsustainable .
Of course , it is perfectly possible to have a relatively large State and avoid a return to the miseries of a pre-Thatcher British economy .
But , given that the UK has never managed that before , how do we avoid a return to relative decline ?
First , the public finances .
I share the concerns of the Editor of this website in worrying about boasts of how extra spending will boost growth .
In reality , this will just be a short-term sugar rush to the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is an argument made by the Chancellor that concedes too much ground to those who think that we can borrow our way to prosperity .
To be fair , he has stayed within the constraints of the fiscal rules but this underlines how loose those rules were .
This also assumes that the economy grows in coming years and the fall in debt as a proportion of GDP is very small and dependent upon a contribution from financial repayments to the Bank of England that really should not count .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in relatively good times , but they will soar if we hit bad times .
Many will argue that the Government can borrow very cheaply and that the long maturity of our debt gives us some comfort .
Both points are true , and the Government has greater flexibility than was available to George Osborne in 2010 .
But the argument that “ this time it ’ s different ” is a familiar one , and doesn ’ t always stand the test of time .
The fiscal strategy is high risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tendency of the Government up until now has to be to focus on the inputs ( the extra spending , police officers , hospitals etc . )
rather than the outputs .
This may be a sensible communications strategy but good government will require the focus to be how this money can be spent most effectively to improve outcomes .
The risk of wasting public money increases when the amount of money being spent is increased rapidly .
The capital budget , in particular , is rising rapidly .
It is vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obtain good value for money not just getting the cash out of the door .
Assuming that there is some degree of fiscal responsibility , there will also be a need to think seriously about tax policy .
If we are going to need to raise a lot of money in tax ( and we are ) , this needs to be done in a way which improves the efficiency of our tax system and minimises damage to our capacity to create wealth .
There are many pressures driving tax policy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word about economic growth .
Supply-side reforms are necessary – including sensible use of the new infrastructure funding .
Making our economy more open to foreign competition and investment helped us enormously in the 1980s .
Unfortunately , this country will move in the opposite direction with trade barriers being erected with our biggest market , reducing our productivity by four per cent in 15 years , according to the Office for Budget Responsibility .
A wise Chancellor should ensure that the process of Brexit is no more damaging than it has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is clearly a Government that is committed to higher levels of spending .
What is not yet clear is the precise balance between higher borrowing and higher taxes .
Nor is it yet clear how the Government will ensure that taxes are raised sensibly and that public money is spent wisely .
For the answers to those questions , we will have to wait at least until the autumn .
It will be Rishi Sunak ’ s task to ensure that Big State Conservatism can be a success .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Rishi Sunak’s first Budget speech set out ‘temporary, timely and targeted’ measures to address the coronavirus crisis, as well as highlighting the ‘coordinated, coherent and comprehensive’ action taken by both the Government and the Bank of England. It was a speech that was assured, accomplished…and alliterative.
To some extent, the Chancellor delivered not only his first Budget but also his second. The first was an emergency Budget responding to COVID-19. It was substantial and well-judged, focusing support on those businesses and individuals most likely to be affected by the tumultuous months ahead.
Getting help to those who need it quickly is not easy. There is a trade-off to be made between ensuring the money is well-targeted, but also happens in the spring and summer. The perfectly directed measure that takes effect in October is not of much use. By and large, the Chancellor found ways of the delivering this. It is more than likely that he will have to announce new measures in due course, but this was a very good start.
The second Budget speech set out where the Government is going to go over the course of the Parliament and, in particular, the spending plans. This is where the controversy lies.
Two points to make in support of the approach taken by the Chancellor. First, this was a Budget that delivered on the 2019 manifesto. No one can claim to be surprised that this would be a Government that was prepared to turn on the spending taps. In terms of tax rises (and the Budget contained plenty of tax rises), these were broadly set out in advance. Corporation tax being held at 19 per cent and changes to Entrepreneurs Relief were well flagged.
Second, there is a case for more spending both in respect of capital spending and current spending. It is undeniable that there are lots of genuine pressures on public spending. Many areas have seen substantial real terms reductions and the strains are showing.
Other areas, like health, face significant pressures caused by demography and rising expectations. Maintaining very tight spending constraints is probably not realistic – especially given the new coalition of supporters the Conservative Party attracted in December. In other words, it is not unreasonable or politically unwise to increase spending.
Nonetheless, this is a departure from Conservative orthodoxy. These are rapid increases in spending, significant increases in borrowing and will leave the size of the state at its largest level since the late 1960s.
It may be worth reminding ourselves of the arguments made in the 1970s and ‘80s about the perils of Big Government. It was a time when the power of Government was used to protect the interests of producers not consumers. Inefficient, lame duck businesses were sheltered from competition. Public spending was directed on the basis of political priorities rather than long term economic benefit. Tax policy was internationally uncompetitive and hostile to enterprise.
If there was a downturn in the economy, borrowing and spending was seen as the answer. It was an approach that left the UK as the sick man of Europe – uncompetitive, inefficient, undynamic and our public finances unsustainable.
Of course, it is perfectly possible to have a relatively large State and avoid a return to the miseries of a pre-Thatcher British economy. But, given that the UK has never managed that before, how do we avoid a return to relative decline?
First, the public finances. I share the concerns of the Editor of this website in worrying about boasts of how extra spending will boost growth. In reality, this will just be a short-term sugar rush to the economy, not a basis for sustained prosperity. It is an argument made by the Chancellor that concedes too much ground to those who think that we can borrow our way to prosperity.
To be fair, he has stayed within the constraints of the fiscal rules but this underlines how loose those rules were. This also assumes that the economy grows in coming years and the fall in debt as a proportion of GDP is very small and dependent upon a contribution from financial repayments to the Bank of England that really should not count. In other words, our debt levels are stable in relatively good times, but they will soar if we hit bad times.
Many will argue that the Government can borrow very cheaply and that the long maturity of our debt gives us some comfort. Both points are true, and the Government has greater flexibility than was available to George Osborne in 2010. But the argument that “this time it’s different” is a familiar one, and doesn’t always stand the test of time. The fiscal strategy is high risk.
As far as spending is concerned, the tendency of the Government up until now has to be to focus on the inputs (the extra spending, police officers, hospitals etc.) rather than the outputs. This may be a sensible communications strategy but good government will require the focus to be how this money can be spent most effectively to improve outcomes.
The risk of wasting public money increases when the amount of money being spent is increased rapidly. The capital budget, in particular, is rising rapidly. It is vital that the focus of the Government is to obtain good value for money not just getting the cash out of the door.
Assuming that there is some degree of fiscal responsibility, there will also be a need to think seriously about tax policy. If we are going to need to raise a lot of money in tax (and we are), this needs to be done in a way which improves the efficiency of our tax system and minimises damage to our capacity to create wealth. There are many pressures driving tax policy in the wrong direction.
Finally, a word about economic growth. Supply-side reforms are necessary – including sensible use of the new infrastructure funding. Making our economy more open to foreign competition and investment helped us enormously in the 1980s.
Unfortunately, this country will move in the opposite direction with trade barriers being erected with our biggest market, reducing our productivity by four per cent in 15 years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. A wise Chancellor should ensure that the process of Brexit is no more damaging than it has to be for our productivity.
In summary, this is clearly a Government that is committed to higher levels of spending. What is not yet clear is the precise balance between higher borrowing and higher taxes. Nor is it yet clear how the Government will ensure that taxes are raised sensibly and that public money is spent wisely. For the answers to those questions, we will have to wait at least until the autumn. It will be Rishi Sunak’s task to ensure that Big State Conservatism can be a success.


conservativehome--2020-03-14--Gove’s push for intellectual and regional diversity in public appointments

Since 2015 , ConservativeHome has run a regular feature listing some of the Public Appointments being advertised .
Our hope was to encourage more Tories to put themselves forward for these offices .
This was spurred by a TaxPayers ’ Alliance report showing that the Conservatives were punching well below their weight when it came to representation in this important , quasi-autonomous part of the state .
We know anecdotally that some Party members have indeed been spurred to make applications .
So too have there been a handful of high-profile successes , including the appointment of William Shawcross as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darren Henley as the Chief Executive of the Arts Council ; and of Andrew Roberts as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery .
There have also been some high-profile failures , including Toby Young ’ s abortive stint on the board of the Office for Students and Sir Roger Scruton disgraceful dismissal from the co-chairmanship of the Building Better , Building Beautiful commission .
Nor is it necessarily easy to get a definitive picture of what ’ s going on .
When Matthew Elliott wrote about this issue a few years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures were too downbeat .
But overall it remains a problem , and despite the Party having now held office in one form or another for almost ten years , the trend is apparently going the wrong way .
Of the small share of appointees whom the Centre for Public Appointments lists as having “ significant political activity ” , the Tory share is falling over time – and is particularly dire in the NHS .
This is a problem because , in an era when Parliament is increasingly fond of farming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quangos , the holders of these officers can wield considerable power and play a substantial role in shaping the character of the state .
We should not be surprised that public bodies staffed and captained by various New Labour holdouts should be no allies of a Conservative agenda .
Over time , this issue slipped off the radar as the ministers and special advisers initially tasked with addressing it were reshuffled or moved on .
But it looks as if it might be back on the agenda .
Last week , in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seema Malhotra about “ what recent steps his Department has taken to increase diversity on public boards ” , Michael Gove offered the following answer ( emphasis added ) : “ Annual reports by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Cabinet Office include data on those taking up and holding public appointments .
The government has published and is implementing the Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan , available on gov.uk .
I will keep this plan under review and the next update will reflect the Government ’ s levelling up agenda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought.
“ That is surely not the sort of diversity Malhotra had in mind .
But it gives us a clear idea of what the Government is trying to do as it gets a grip on public appointments .
Securing both intellectual and geographical diversity are in all likelihood complementary objectives .
After the general election result there is a much stronger case for placing Tories , or other right-leaning figures , in vacancies arising both in their regions and on national bodies .
But even when applicants from these places aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perspectives and help to break up London-centric groupthink .
Objectives are one thing ; operations are another .
How might the Government go about grasping this nettle ?
The first step would be doing more to identify and support candidates , rather than simply hoping that sympathetic individuals will decide to attempt , let alone successfully navigate , the process on their own .
This could have at least two dimensions .
First , maintaining a pool of potential applicants , keeping an active eye on upcoming vacancies , and matching them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people support through the process once they decide to put their names forward .
But such a strategy will be for nought if the Government is not prepared to defend it .
Not only will individual appointees likely continue to attract fierce criticism , as Scruton did , but the broader strategy will likely spark a row over allegations of ‘ patronage ’ , as it has in the past .
This will also have several steps , the first of which is careful vetting to make sure that ministers are able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the George Eaton treatment .
It should also involve a proper communications strategy to avoid announcing candidates such as Young on slow news days when they might give bored hacks a story .
Finally , the Government be prepared to make the principled case that where a body runs on public funds , let alone when it discharges official functions , it is entirely proper for it to be accountable to the elected government of the day .
The quango class is not entitled to the ‘ independent ’ exercise of state power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be difficult to measure externally , although if the Cabinet Office do oversee a talent-placement effort they will be in a much better position to gauge its efficacy .
But should it work , Boris Johnson might finally oversee the bridging of an important gap in the public realm – one that David Cameron ought to have closed .

Since 2015, ConservativeHome has run a regular feature listing some of the Public Appointments being advertised. Our hope was to encourage more Tories to put themselves forward for these offices.
This was spurred by a TaxPayers’ Alliance report showing that the Conservatives were punching well below their weight when it came to representation in this important, quasi-autonomous part of the state.
We know anecdotally that some Party members have indeed been spurred to make applications. So too have there been a handful of high-profile successes, including the appointment of William Shawcross as head of the Charity Commission; of Darren Henley as the Chief Executive of the Arts Council; and of Andrew Roberts as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery.
There have also been some high-profile failures, including Toby Young’s abortive stint on the board of the Office for Students and Sir Roger Scruton disgraceful dismissal from the co-chairmanship of the Building Better, Building Beautiful commission.
Nor is it necessarily easy to get a definitive picture of what’s going on. When Matthew Elliott wrote about this issue a few years ago, sources inside the Government suggested his figures were too downbeat.
But overall it remains a problem, and despite the Party having now held office in one form or another for almost ten years, the trend is apparently going the wrong way. Of the small share of appointees whom the Centre for Public Appointments lists as having “significant political activity”, the Tory share is falling over time – and is particularly dire in the NHS.
This is a problem because, in an era when Parliament is increasingly fond of farming out control of regulations and public funds to quangos, the holders of these officers can wield considerable power and play a substantial role in shaping the character of the state. We should not be surprised that public bodies staffed and captained by various New Labour holdouts should be no allies of a Conservative agenda.
Over time, this issue slipped off the radar as the ministers and special advisers initially tasked with addressing it were reshuffled or moved on. But it looks as if it might be back on the agenda. Last week, in response to a question from Labour’s Seema Malhotra about “what recent steps his Department has taken to increase diversity on public boards”, Michael Gove offered the following answer (emphasis added):
“Annual reports by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Cabinet Office include data on those taking up and holding public appointments. The government has published and is implementing the Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan, available on gov.uk. I will keep this plan under review and the next update will reflect the Government’s levelling up agenda, including regional diversity, and diversity of thought.“
That is surely not the sort of diversity Malhotra had in mind. But it gives us a clear idea of what the Government is trying to do as it gets a grip on public appointments.
Securing both intellectual and geographical diversity are in all likelihood complementary objectives. After the general election result there is a much stronger case for placing Tories, or other right-leaning figures, in vacancies arising both in their regions and on national bodies. But even when applicants from these places aren’t conservatives, they will bring fresh perspectives and help to break up London-centric groupthink.
Objectives are one thing; operations are another. How might the Government go about grasping this nettle?
The first step would be doing more to identify and support candidates, rather than simply hoping that sympathetic individuals will decide to attempt, let alone successfully navigate, the process on their own. This could have at least two dimensions. First, maintaining a pool of potential applicants, keeping an active eye on upcoming vacancies, and matching them to well-suited individuals. Second, offering those people support through the process once they decide to put their names forward.
But such a strategy will be for nought if the Government is not prepared to defend it. Not only will individual appointees likely continue to attract fierce criticism, as Scruton did, but the broader strategy will likely spark a row over allegations of ‘patronage’, as it has in the past.


conservativehome--2020-03-15--WATCH: Cameron – “I wasn’t referred for test after strategy changed”

“ You don ’ t want to take a test from someone else who ’ s much more critical than @ @ @ @ @ DrLisaCameronMP , who is self-isolating , says she will not be tested for # COVID19 @ @ @ @ @ # coronavirus changed .

“You don’t want to take a test from someone else who’s much more critical than yourself.”
SNP MP @DrLisaCameronMP, who is self-isolating, says she will not be tested for #COVID19 after strategy for tackling the #coronavirus changed.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/8xbsmjBX8F pic.twitter.com/F12DGtxXHD
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 15, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-15--WATCH: “We are definitely seeing a… reduction of new coronavirus cases”

“ We are definitely seeing a… reduction of new # coronavirus cases but we ’ re not being complacent , @ @ @ @ @ Minister Kang Kyung-wha # COVID19 # Marr https : //t.co/AJl63Em75M pic.twitter.com/j3AnqUg40Y

“We are definitely seeing a… reduction of new #coronavirus cases but we’re not being complacent,” says South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha#COVID19 #Marr https://t.co/AJl63Em75M pic.twitter.com/j3AnqUg40Y
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 15, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-15--WATCH: The government should have been buying up ventilators “weeks ago” – Ashworth

“ Ministers urgently need to reassure us they have a resourcing plan in place to support NHS staff.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ have been buying up ventilators “ weeks ago ” .

“Ministers urgently need to reassure us they have a resourcing plan in place to support NHS staff.”@JonAshworth says the government should have been buying up ventilators “weeks ago”.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/8xbsmjBX8F pic.twitter.com/DYijviO2Az
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 15, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-15--WATCH: Hancock confirms over-70s will be asked to self-isolate

Sophy Ridge asks Health Secretary @ MattHancock to confirm that those over-70 will be asked to self-isolate and stay at @ @ @ @ @ months .
He says “ that is the plan ” but “ not yet ” @

Sophy Ridge asks Health Secretary @MattHancock to confirm that those over-70 will be asked to self-isolate and stay at home for up to four months.
He says “that is the plan” but “not yet”.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/8xbsmjBX8F pic.twitter.com/VhvZJMCZ8W
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 15, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-15--Johnson’s main aim: to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed

“ We have a plan , based on the expertise of world-leading scientists .
Herd immunity is not a part of it , ” Matthew Hancock writes in today ’ s Sunday Telegraph .
Meanwhile , Patrick Vallance , the Government ’ s Chief Scientific Adviser , is telling Sky News : “ We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year , becomes like a seasonal virus .
Communities will become immune to it and that ’ s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term .
About 60 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get herd immunity.
” What is going on ?
The answer lies in the Health Secretary ’ s next sentence : “ [ Herd immunity ] is a scientific concept , not a goal or a strategy.
” Our readers will grasp at once that this is , with all due respect to Hancock , playing with the meaning of words .
Something may not be a government goal but none the less be a government intention .
When push comes to shove , he and Sir Patrick are singing from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t setting out that intention for the first time this morning , by the way .
He did so last Thursday in no less public a venue than the Prime Minister ’ s press conference .
It was the introduction of this concept into the Government ’ s briefing about the Coronavius that gave rise to the controversy about its strategy – which in international terms is an outlier : most other governments are slapping down restrictions faster .
So if the herd immunity isn ’ t the Government ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Secretary goes on to write that “ our goal is to protect life from this virus , our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS [ our italics ] through contain , delay , research and mitigate ” .
Those italicised words are the heart of the matter .
The Government ’ s main aim is to “ squash the sombrero ” , as the Prime Minister puts it – or to put it in more neutral terms , “ flatten the peak ” .
If the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they otherwise would have been , the NHS may not be overwhelmed – with staff forced , in effect , to choose who will be saved and who will die .
The planned speeding-up of restrictions briefed to this morning ’ s paper may therefore not be a response to pressure – or panic , if you like .
Rather , they most likely to reflect a recognition that the virus is spreading faster than calculated .
Hence the need to accelerate the planned shutdown , and try to keep the hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers now need to move fast to protect “ the most vulnerable ” .
That means more public information and clearer guidance on isolating older family members ; care home visit constrictions ; home help by health visitors and other staff ; getting the right equipment to hospitals speedily , and so on .
Abroad , Johnson must , in addition to his awesome domestic responsibilites , attempt to help lead – in the effective absence of an American response – what must be an international response to an international crisis .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in concert with Emmanuel Macron .
There are signs today he may be doing just that .
We ’ ve compared the metaphorical battle with the Coronavirus to a real one – a war , if you like .
The difference between the Government ’ s response and that of many others is that they have conducted a faster and more extensive retreat : in other words , wider and more draconian restrictions .
With imperfect information about the virus ’ s prevalence , nature and scope , Johnson is striving to time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way as to help flatten that peak , minimise any “ second wave ’ and above all keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed .
He may or may not be successful compared to what would otherwise have been the case .
But one can not weigh from experience what is against what might have been .
One can not know a counter-factual .
We repeat that the immediate future is going to feel very bad indeed – whatever the Government does , and whether it ’ s right or wrong .

“We have a plan, based on the expertise of world-leading scientists. Herd immunity is not a part of it,” Matthew Hancock writes in today’s Sunday Telegraph.
Meanwhile, Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, is telling Sky News: “We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year, becomes like a seasonal virus. Communities will become immune to it and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this longer term. About 60 per cent is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity.”
What is going on?
The answer lies in the Health Secretary’s next sentence: “[Herd immunity] is a scientific concept, not a goal or a strategy.” Our readers will grasp at once that this is, with all due respect to Hancock, playing with the meaning of words. Something may not be a government goal but none the less be a government intention. When push comes to shove, he and Sir Patrick are singing from the same hymn book.
The latter isn’t setting out that intention for the first time this morning, by the way. He did so last Thursday in no less public a venue than the Prime Minister’s press conference. It was the introduction of this concept into the Government’s briefing about the Coronavius that gave rise to the controversy about its strategy – which in international terms is an outlier: most other governments are slapping down restrictions faster.
So if the herd immunity isn’t the Government’s “goal”, what is?
The Health Secretary goes on to write that “our goal is to protect life from this virus, our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS [our italics] through contain, delay, research and mitigate”. Those italicised words are the heart of the matter. The Government’s main aim is to “squash the sombrero”, as the Prime Minister puts it – or to put it in more neutral terms, “flatten the peak”.
If the numbers needing hospital treatment this spring are lower than they otherwise would have been, the NHS may not be overwhelmed – with staff forced, in effect, to choose who will be saved and who will die.
The planned speeding-up of restrictions briefed to this morning’s paper may therefore not be a response to pressure – or panic, if you like. Rather, they most likely to reflect a recognition that the virus is spreading faster than calculated. Hence the need to accelerate the planned shutdown, and try to keep the hospitals from being swamped.
At home, Ministers now need to move fast to protect “the most vulnerable”. That means more public information and clearer guidance on isolating older family members; care home visit constrictions; home help by health visitors and other staff; getting the right equipment to hospitals speedily, and so on.
Abroad, Johnson must, in addition to his awesome domestic responsibilites, attempt to help lead – in the effective absence of an American response – what must be an international response to an international crisis. We believe he can better do so operating in concert with Emmanuel Macron. There are signs today he may be doing just that.
We’ve compared the metaphorical battle with the Coronavirus to a real one – a war, if you like. The difference between the Government’s response and that of many others is that they have conducted a faster and more extensive retreat: in other words, wider and more draconian restrictions.
With imperfect information about the virus’s prevalence, nature and scope, Johnson is striving to time Britain’s own withdrawal in such a way as to help flatten that peak, minimise any “second wave’ and above all keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed.
He may or may not be successful compared to what would otherwise have been the case. But one cannot weigh from experience what is against what might have been. One cannot know a counter-factual. We repeat that the immediate future is going to feel very bad indeed – whatever the Government does, and whether it’s right or wrong.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of cases in the UK : 1,140 ( Up from 797 at last count on this site ) .
Northern Ireland : 34 ( Was 39 at last count on this site ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
From Public Health England ’ s webpage Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update .
The above are figures for England .
“ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus • In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice for travellers • You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus • In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview Travellers should self-isolate , even if asymptomatic , and use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do next .
Go home or to your destination and then self isolate .
The guidance for Italy applies to travellers who returned from the country on or after 9 March 2020 .
• Daegu or Cheongdo ( Republic of Korea , see map ) *Except areas of the country specifically referred to in Category 1 .
** ( i ) Travellers who returned from areas of Northern Italy that were under containment measures ( see map ) between 19 February and 8 March 2020 should self-isolate for 14 days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS111 .
( ii ) Travellers who returned from the rest of Italy before 9 March 2020 do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Travellers do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Updated as of 9am on Sunday 15 March .


conservativehome--2020-03-15--Daily press conferences – and what should happen next

The first period of the Government ’ s public response to the Coronavirus saw Boris Johnson , the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer undertake their original joint press conference .
That was on March 3rd .
At that stage , the total number of deaths from the virus in Italy was 107 , and the country had only just made its decision to close schools .
The threat seemed more remote to very many people here in Britain than it does now .
The media gave the event , as well as successive similar conferences , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second period , which started until last Thursday .
During it , the Chief Scientific Officer said that the virus will spread widely .
He suggested that this is unstoppable and in one sense desirable – because it will eventually introduce herd immunity into the population .
By now , the WHO had declared the Coronavirus a pandemic , Italy had undergone over a thousand deaths and extended its quarantine nationwide , and the number of registered cases here had burst the hundred barrier .
This darkening background intensified debate between what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the Government ’ s strategy ( or at least are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt ) and the containers , who do not ( and are not ) .
This is to be expected .
In a liberal democracy with social media amidst an unparalleled crisis , at least in modern times , it is inevitable and in many ways healthy , if that is exactly the right word .
The third period came late last week and this weekend .
It saw selected journalists get privileged information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material that had not been publicly announced .
This included news from Robert Peston on Saturday evening that “ people over 70 will be instructed by the government to stay in strict isolation at home or in care homes for four months ” .
Today saw Matt Hancock and Patrick Vallance pull in different directions over herd immunity .
Hancock wrote that it isn ’ t the Government ’ s “ aim ” .
The Chief Scientific Officer said that millions will need to contract the virus in order to achieve it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had recorded the number of cases in Britain breaching the thousand barrier , with 21 deaths , up from ten .
Dividing recent events into periods in this way is somewhat artificial , but readers will see the point of it .
Peston and Tim Shipman , who yesterday tweeted a graph illustrating the Government ’ s fear of a second wave of the virus , are very good journalists .
And writing stories from sources is what journalists do .
We would normally have no reservation about the practice : after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it before the reshuffle ?
But an anxious public will obviously be confused if unconfirmed reports of major political decisions reach the light of day in this way .
Nor were Hancock and Vallance contradicting each other , strictly speaking .
It would not be exact to describe herd immunity a Government policy aim – in other words , part of its strategy for action – but it would not be inaccurate to label it a Government policy intention : an acceptance at the very least that the bulk of the population can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
And – again , obviously – it is bewildering if the Chief Scientific Officer is leaning in one direction on Sky News and the Health Secretary is saying another in the Sunday Telegraph ( behind a paywall , some complained ) .
As we write , the Government had duly bowed to the inevitable , and conceded daily press conferences from tomorrow .
ConHome understands that some Ministers at least feel “ bounced into doing these now ” , and that they have two main reasons for having reservations about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conferences are to have the same senior cast each day , they will be a big call on the resource of the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer at a time when both are urgently needed elsewhere .
If the cast changes , however , that risks different people turning up with different messages .
The other reason is a worry about non-political actors alarming the public with non-political language – such as “ herd instinct ” .
None the less , the decision is the right one .
These conferences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the near future in any event .
Holding them daily was simply a matter of time .
They will bring order and shape to Government communication of its message , or should do – especially now that Labour has apparently broken ranks .
As for experts using technical terms , our judgement is that most voters are grown-up enough to deal with it .
However , daily press conferences will not be enough on their own .
The Government need to do the following communications-wise during the coming weeks , as the shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being overwhelmed .
• Launch a publication information campaign which aims to explain who should self-isolated and social distance , in what manner and for how long .
This will need to be continuously updated .
• Include detailed advice about what older people should do and how others can best help them .
• Set out clearly how businesses and workers adversely impacted by the virus can apply for government assistance .
• Drop its boycott of Today , Newsnight and other programmes ( which in any event has been declining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ministers to help communicate its message .
A lot will be asked not only of in particular of Hancock and his departmental ministers but of Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove .
• Keep putting up third parties such as Vallance and Chris Whitty .
We don ’ t seem to have seen much yet of Simon Stevens , the NHS Chief Executive , or of Duncan Selbie , the head of Public Health England .
• Find a common basis on which to brief the weekend papers .
The press conferences can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a potential news gap thus appears at weekends .
Ministers can ’ t reasonably be expected to have a monopoly on the flow of information in a free society .
Leaks like this one to the Times on Saturday or this in today ’ s Guardian are par for the course – and there will be more .
Finally , it will be claimed that Government communication is trivial but Government action serious .
This misses the point that in wartime conditions – and in those that are like wartime – communication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it simply isn ’ t when normal circumstances apply .

The first period of the Government’s public response to the Coronavirus saw Boris Johnson, the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer undertake their original joint press conference. That was on March 3rd.
At that stage, the total number of deaths from the virus in Italy was 107, and the country had only just made its decision to close schools. The threat seemed more remote to very many people here in Britain than it does now.
The media gave the event, as well as successive similar conferences, a very fair wind. This stretched into the second period, which started until last Thursday. During it, the Chief Scientific Officer said that the virus will spread widely. He suggested that this is unstoppable and in one sense desirable – because it will eventually introduce herd immunity into the population.
By now, the WHO had declared the Coronavirus a pandemic, Italy had undergone over a thousand deaths and extended its quarantine nationwide, and the number of registered cases here had burst the hundred barrier.
This darkening background intensified debate between what Rob Colvile calls the delayers, who support the Government’s strategy (or at least are willing to give it the benefit of the doubt) and the containers, who do not (and are not). This is to be expected. In a liberal democracy with social media amidst an unparalleled crisis, at least in modern times, it is inevitable and in many ways healthy, if that is exactly the right word.
The third period came late last week and this weekend. It saw selected journalists get privileged information – that’s to say, material that had not been publicly announced.
This included news from Robert Peston on Saturday evening that “people over 70 will be instructed by the government to stay in strict isolation at home or in care homes for four months”. Today saw Matt Hancock and Patrick Vallance pull in different directions over herd immunity. Hancock wrote that it isn’t the Government’s “aim”. The Chief Scientific Officer said that millions will need to contract the virus in order to achieve it.
By yesterday morning, our Coronovirus Count had recorded the number of cases in Britain breaching the thousand barrier, with 21 deaths, up from ten.
Dividing recent events into periods in this way is somewhat artificial, but readers will see the point of it. Peston and Tim Shipman, who yesterday tweeted a graph illustrating the Government’s fear of a second wave of the virus, are very good journalists. And writing stories from sources is what journalists do. We would normally have no reservation about the practice: after all, what would ConHome have done without it before the reshuffle?
But an anxious public will obviously be confused if unconfirmed reports of major political decisions reach the light of day in this way.
Nor were Hancock and Vallance contradicting each other, strictly speaking. It would not be exact to describe herd immunity a Government policy aim – in other words, part of its strategy for action – but it would not be inaccurate to label it a Government policy intention: an acceptance at the very least that the bulk of the population cannot be insulated from the spread of the virus.
And – again, obviously – it is bewildering if the Chief Scientific Officer is leaning in one direction on Sky News and the Health Secretary is saying another in the Sunday Telegraph (behind a paywall, some complained).
As we write, the Government had duly bowed to the inevitable, and conceded daily press conferences from tomorrow. ConHome understands that some Ministers at least feel “bounced into doing these now”, and that they have two main reasons for having reservations about the practice.
One is that if the conferences are to have the same senior cast each day, they will be a big call on the resource of the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer at a time when both are urgently needed elsewhere.
If the cast changes, however, that risks different people turning up with different messages.
The other reason is a worry about non-political actors alarming the public with non-political language – such as “herd instinct”.
None the less, the decision is the right one. These conferences would have happened at some point in the near future in any event. Holding them daily was simply a matter of time. They will bring order and shape to Government communication of its message, or should do – especially now that Labour has apparently broken ranks. As for experts using technical terms, our judgement is that most voters are grown-up enough to deal with it.
However, daily press conferences will not be enough on their own . The Government need to do the following communications-wise during the coming weeks, as the shutdown accelerates in order to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Launch a publication information campaign which aims to explain who should self-isolated and social distance, in what manner and for how long. This will need to be continuously updated.
(And which will spill over into guidance for employers.)
Include detailed advice about what older people should do and how others can best help them.
Set out clearly how businesses and workers adversely impacted by the virus can apply for government assistance.
Drop its boycott of Today, Newsnight and other programmes (which in any event has been declining).
Use its top team of Ministers to help communicate its message. A lot will be asked not only of in particular of Hancock and his departmental ministers but of Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove.
Keep putting up third parties such as Vallance and Chris Whitty. We don’t seem to have seen much yet of Simon Stevens, the NHS Chief Executive, or of Duncan Selbie, the head of Public Health England.
Find a common basis on which to brief the weekend papers. The press conferences can’t run seven days a week and a potential news gap thus appears at weekends.
Ministers can’t reasonably be expected to have a monopoly on the flow of information in a free society. Leaks like this one to the Times on Saturday or this in today’s Guardian are par for the course – and there will be more.
Finally, it will be claimed that Government communication is trivial but Government action serious. This misses the point that in wartime conditions – and in those that are like wartime – communication is action. In a way that it simply isn’t when normal circumstances apply.


conservativehome--2020-03-16--Daily press conferences – and what should happen next


Coronavirus Count

Total number of cases in the UK : 1,391 ( Up from 1,140 at last count on this site ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
From Public Health England ’ s webpage Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update .
The above are figures for England .
“ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus • In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see our coronavirus advice for travellers • You ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview All information taken from Government sources .
Update as of 7am on Monday March 16th .


conservativehome--2020-03-16--Richard Holden: How the Budget will help former Red Wall seats in the north – like the one I represe

Richard Holden: How the Budget will help former Red Wall seats in the north – like the one I represent

We ’ ve just passed the first three-month mark of a Boris Johnson-led majority Conservative Government , and this week will hit the first hundred days .
And , as all the best stories begin , what a first hundred days it will have been .
They ’ re often over-used – especially now – but the most well-known phrases associated with ( though not necessarily actually spoken by ) the two Prime Ministers who epitomised the post-war consensus now resound across newsprint : “ Events , dear boy , events ” and “ a week is a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played out in strict batting order – we got Brexit done by January 31st following the Prime Minister ’ s landslide victory in the general election .
He small then set about re-shuffling his Government for the next stage of the Brexit negotiations and to push his future ‘ levelling up ’ agenda .
The next major point for the Government was due to be first Budget of his administration .
But , as we now know , that has been overshadowed by the biggest public health crisis in generations .
On Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen to the experts , like our own Chief Medical Officer , or believe the bitter spiteful drivel of the likes of Ian Lavery MP ( now a self-appointed expert on Coronavirus as well as how to maximise the cash you can get out of a union with no members ) and put people ’ s lives at greater risk .
I have confidence that our Government is taking the right action that will , in the end , be shown as the best protection for our most vulnerable constituents across the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which Rishi Sunak squared-up to the economic and fiscal implications of Coronavirus issue in the budget .
Extra funding for our NHS with more there if needed , rate cuts for businesses in the tourism and hospitality sectors , a cash grant for small businesses .
ESA for the self-employed and sick pay from day one , £500 million for local authorities to distribute directly to vulnerable people .
All immensely sensible policies .
But , as the coverage of Coronavirus has rightly dominated the media , it overshadowed the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d like to extend my personal thanks to the Treasury team for the reversal , in full , of the awful EU Regulation 2018/1832 that was crippling my local motorhome manufacturer , Elddis , in North West Durham .
But this was a Budget which , beyond Coronavirus , set out the clear , long-term direction in which the Chancellor and Prime Minister are determined to take the country .
Crucially , it was a Budget that really started to build flesh on the bones of the ‘ levelling up ’ that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister .
There was a flurry amongst lobby hacks who tried to paint it as a “ Gordon Brown ” -style budget – full of big spending increases with hidden tax rises .
It wasn ’ t .
In fact , when you scratch the surface it was a budget with a real Conservative core .
Aside from big election guarantees being delivered : NHS funding , 50,000 more police , increased school funding , this wasn ’ t a budget driving up day-to-day spending .
It was a budget with long-term investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive long-term change in the economy .
Aside from those key areas of public spending , it ’ s now really very clear what ‘ levelling up ’ means .
It means connectivity , it means transport , it means further education – in short , it means spreading opportunity .
One of the best things about having Sunak as Chancellor is that he represents a large Northern rural seat and he gets the real stranglehold that lack on connection places on opportunity .
The extra £100 billion in infrastructure spending to connect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which run on roads , something shadow transport ministers seemed to fail to grasp in the Commons – and rail ( integrating cycling and walking where possible ) can not come soon enough .
The best way to spread opportunity is to better connect people to the places where they are .
This creates a huge and virtuous circle of growth , productivity and further opportunity .
Just as the first passenger steam train connected Stockton to Darlington in 1825 , almost 200 years later it is Darlington station that hold the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the other major rail lines , the East Coast Mainline is only two-track from Northallerton .
This is largely because of the bottleneck at Darlington which throttles not only inter-city but also local commuter rail transport between the Tees and the Tweed .
The fact that Darlington station was explicitly addressed in the budget is a great sign of how swiftly the Chancellor has mastered the detail of his brief .
This isn ’ t about raw cash , it ’ s about investment in the right places to open greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you live in Stratford and work in Ealing and then get a new job in Romford , there is no issue with switching .
If you live in Crook , the second largest town in my constituency and get a job offer in Consett , 14 miles away in the North of my seat , it ’ ll take you an hour and a half each way and a change of buses in Durham to get there and will pay three times the price of taking a hopper fare in London .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly for young people or those getting back into work .
If we get connectivity right , we get people into better jobs , driving productivity .
Another major concern for many in my constituency and others nearby is broadband .
The push of £5 billion into delivering full-fibre ( aka ‘ gigabit ’ ) broadband is phenomenally helpful .
Some parts of the country already have it but many parts of the rural North particularly – where in too many areas 4g signals are patchy , operator specific or non-existent , feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got it in his leadership campaign and full-fibre will be transformative for these communities .
Throw in the extra £1.5 billion for FE college capital and you start to see a real pattern .
Investment for productivity growth .
The biggest change that we ’ re all looking at though is in one line of the Chancellor ’ s statement .
In which he said he wanted to revise the “ Treasury Green Book ” : these are the investment rules that have always favoured London .
Only by the revision of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development we so desperately need in the North to deliver opportunity and therefore productivity .
Rest assured , those of us in the Blue Wall will be keeping a close eye on what these revisions mean – the truth is that you can also ease pressure on London if you don ’ t have a permanent drain of talent to the metropolis , something that needs factoring in .
The focus on real infrastructure investment , connectivity and productivity in the first Budget , rather than just bumping up day-to-day spending , should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stripes .
Anything that helps deliver the virtuous circle of jobs , economic growth , more and better public services is to be welcomed and the fact that levelling-up is about helping deliver opportunity , rather than just shoving public sector jobs North ( as it would have been under Mr G Brown ) is fantastic news for the North and , in the long term , for everyone .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
Horse Shoe Inn, Crook, Co. Durham
We’ve just passed the first three-month mark of a Boris Johnson-led majority Conservative Government, and this week will hit the first hundred days. And, as all the best stories begin, what a first hundred days it will have been.
They’re often over-used – especially now – but the most well-known phrases associated with (though not necessarily actually spoken by) the two Prime Ministers who epitomised the post-war consensus now resound across newsprint: “Events, dear boy, events” and “a week is a long time in politics.”
The first six weeks played out in strict batting order – we got Brexit done by January 31st following the Prime Minister’s landslide victory in the general election. He small then set about re-shuffling his Government for the next stage of the Brexit negotiations and to push his future ‘levelling up’ agenda.
The next major point for the Government was due to be first Budget of his administration. But, as we now know, that has been overshadowed by the biggest public health crisis in generations.
On Coronavirus, we have a choice – to listen to the experts, like our own Chief Medical Officer, or believe the bitter spiteful drivel of the likes of Ian Lavery MP (now a self-appointed expert on Coronavirus as well as how to maximise the cash you can get out of a union with no members) and put people’s lives at greater risk. I have confidence that our Government is taking the right action that will, in the end, be shown as the best protection for our most vulnerable constituents across the UK.
I was impressed by the comprehensiveness in which Rishi Sunak squared-up to the economic and fiscal implications of Coronavirus issue in the budget. Extra funding for our NHS with more there if needed, rate cuts for businesses in the tourism and hospitality sectors, a cash grant for small businesses. ESA for the self-employed and sick pay from day one, £500 million for local authorities to distribute directly to vulnerable people. All immensely sensible policies.
But, as the coverage of Coronavirus has rightly dominated the media, it overshadowed the rest of the budget. Obviously, I’d like to extend my personal thanks to the Treasury team for the reversal, in full, of the awful EU Regulation 2018/1832 that was crippling my local motorhome manufacturer, Elddis, in North West Durham. But this was a Budget which, beyond Coronavirus, set out the clear, long-term direction in which the Chancellor and Prime Minister are determined to take the country.
Crucially, it was a Budget that really started to build flesh on the bones of the ‘levelling up’ that has been so much talked about by Prime Minister. There was a flurry amongst lobby hacks who tried to paint it as a “Gordon Brown”-style budget – full of big spending increases with hidden tax rises.
It wasn’t. In fact, when you scratch the surface it was a budget with a real Conservative core. Aside from big election guarantees being delivered: NHS funding, 50,000 more police, increased school funding, this wasn’t a budget driving up day-to-day spending. It was a budget with long-term investment in mind that could really help drive positive long-term change in the economy.
Aside from those key areas of public spending, it’s now really very clear what ‘levelling up’ means. It means connectivity, it means transport, it means further education – in short, it means spreading opportunity. One of the best things about having Sunak as Chancellor is that he represents a large Northern rural seat and he gets the real stranglehold that lack on connection places on opportunity.
The extra £100 billion in infrastructure spending to connect communities by road – including buses, which run on roads, something shadow transport ministers seemed to fail to grasp in the Commons – and rail (integrating cycling and walking where possible) cannot come soon enough. The best way to spread opportunity is to better connect people to the places where they are. This creates a huge and virtuous circle of growth, productivity and further opportunity.
Just as the first passenger steam train connected Stockton to Darlington in 1825, almost 200 years later it is Darlington station that hold the key to North Eastern rail connectivity. Unlike most of the other major rail lines, the East Coast Mainline is only two-track from Northallerton. This is largely because of the bottleneck at Darlington which throttles not only inter-city but also local commuter rail transport between the Tees and the Tweed.
The fact that Darlington station was explicitly addressed in the budget is a great sign of how swiftly the Chancellor has mastered the detail of his brief. This isn’t about raw cash, it’s about investment in the right places to open greater opportunity.
In the South East, if you live in Stratford and work in Ealing and then get a new job in Romford, there is no issue with switching. If you live in Crook, the second largest town in my constituency and get a job offer in Consett, 14 miles away in the North of my seat, it’ll take you an hour and a half each way and a change of buses in Durham to get there and will pay three times the price of taking a hopper fare in London.
This lack of transport restricts opportunity, particularly for young people or those getting back into work. If we get connectivity right, we get people into better jobs, driving productivity.
Another major concern for many in my constituency and others nearby is broadband. The push of £5 billion into delivering full-fibre (aka ‘gigabit’) broadband is phenomenally helpful. Some parts of the country already have it but many parts of the rural North particularly – where in too many areas 4g signals are patchy, operator specific or non-existent, feel very cut off and isolated. Johnson got it in his leadership campaign and full-fibre will be transformative for these communities.
Throw in the extra £1.5 billion for FE college capital and you start to see a real pattern. Investment for productivity growth.
The biggest change that we’re all looking at though is in one line of the Chancellor’s statement. In which he said he wanted to revise the “Treasury Green Book”: these are the investment rules that have always favoured London.
Only by the revision of these rules will we see the growth and development we so desperately need in the North to deliver opportunity and therefore productivity. Rest assured, those of us in the Blue Wall will be keeping a close eye on what these revisions mean – the truth is that you can also ease pressure on London if you don’t have a permanent drain of talent to the metropolis, something that needs factoring in.
The focus on real infrastructure investment, connectivity and productivity in the first Budget, rather than just bumping up day-to-day spending, should be incredibly reassuring to Conservatives of all stripes. Anything that helps deliver the virtuous circle of jobs, economic growth, more and better public services is to be welcomed and the fact that levelling-up is about helping deliver opportunity, rather than just shoving public sector jobs North (as it would have been under Mr G Brown) is fantastic news for the North and, in the long term, for everyone.