conservativehome--2020-12-17--“Dignity and humanity… not quotas and targets, or equality of outcome.” Truss’s speech on fairness –

“Dignity and humanity… not quotas and targets, or equality of outcome.” Truss’s speech on fairness – full text

This is the text of the speech Liz Truss , the International Trade Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities , gave today .
“ No matter your skin colour , sexuality , religion or anything else , the United Kingdom is one of the best places in the world to live .
The British story has been driven from its earliest days by the desire for liberty , agency , and fairness .
It is the notion that in Britain you will have the opportunity to succeed at whatever you wish to do professionally… …that you can be whoever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to dress , …love whoever you wish to love But we must be honest .
Our story is not yet complete .
Our equality journey is not yet finished .
For too many people… particularly in places beyond the South East… opportunity is diminished .
For years , successive governments have either pretended that all opportunity was equal… or failed to come up with proper solutions … paying lip service to a problem that has festered for decades .
It was this government that finally tore down this social taboo when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and toppled the Red Wall … turning it Blue .
We were elected partly on the promise of fixing the scourge of geographici nequality … and ensuring equal opportunity for all .
There are still too many cases where your destination in life is decided by where you started it .
So today , I am outlining a new approach to equality in this country .
This will be founded firmly on Conservative values .
It will be about individual dignity and humanity … not quotas and targets , or equality of outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Left … captured as they are by identity politics , loud lobby groups and the idea of ‘ lived experience ’ .
It will focus fiercely on fixing geographic inequality … addressing the real problems people face in their everyday lives … using evidence and data .
If you were born in Clacton or Darlington , you have been under-served by successive governments .
No more .
This new approach to equality will run through the DNA of this government .
The moral and practical case for equality For me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just as our forebears fought for change , we must fight for change again – challenging what is unfair and unjust today .
It is not right that having a particular surname or accent can sometimes make it harder to get a job .
It is appalling that pregnant women suffer discrimination at work .
Or that women may be encouraged to dress in a certain way to get ahead .
Or that some employers overlook the capabilities of people with disabilities .
It is outrageous in the 21st century that LGBT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As well as being a moral problem , it is shameful we are squandering so much talent .
• If women opened businesses at the same rate as men – we could add £250 billion to the economy… • If people of every ethnic group were fully represented across the labour market , that would mean an extra £24 billion of income a year .
• If businesses were fully accessible for disabled consumers , they could benefit from an estimated £274 billion a year in spending power .
We can ill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recover from Covid and build back better .
Our new approach to equality will be based on the core principles of freedom , choice , opportunity , and individual humanity and dignity .
We will move well beyond the narrow focus of protected characteristics… and deliver real change that benefits people across our United Kingdom .
We will do this in three ways .
First , by delivering fairness through modernisation , increased choice and openness .
Second , by concentrating on data and research , rather than on campaigning and listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third , by taking our biggest and broadest look yet at the challenges we face… including the all too neglected scourge of geographic inequality .
Now is the time to root the equality debate in the real concerns people face… like affording a home… getting to work… going out safely at night… ending discrimination in our offices , factories and shop floors … and improving our schools so every child has a good chance in life .
It is our duty to deliver , because if right-thinking people do not lead the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by those whose ideas don ’ t work .
The failed ideas of the Left The ideas that have dominated the equality debate have been long in the making .
As a comprehensive school student in Leeds in the 1980s , I was struck by the lip service that was paid to equality by the City Council while children from disadvantaged backgrounds were let down .
While we were taught about racism and sexism , there was too little time spent making sure everyone could read and write .
These ideas have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Foucault – that put societal power structures and labels ahead of individuals and their endeavours .
In this school of thought , there is no space for evidence , as there is no objective view – truth and morality are all relative .
Rather than promote policies that would have been a game-changer for the disenfranchised like better education and business opportunities , there was a preference for symbolic gestures .
Even now , authorities rush to embrace symbols – for example , Birmingham City Council promoting new streets named “ Diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – as if that counts as real change .
Underlying this is the soft bigotry of low expectations , where people from certain backgrounds are not expected to reach high standards .
This diminishes their individual humanity , dignity and agency .
And it hasn ’ t delivered the progress it promised .
In 1997 , there was a huge celebration of all-women shortlists delivering Blair ’ s babes .
But 23 years later , the Labour Party still hasn ’ t had a female leader .
In the last leadership election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man won .
Again .
In addition , this focus on groups at the expense of individuals has led to harmful unintended consequences .
It has led to the Left turning a blind eye to practices that undermine equality , whether it be failing to defend single-sex spaces , hard fought for by generations of women… enabling and tolerating antisemitism … or the appalling grooming of young girls in towns like Rotherham .
Although time and time again , the Left ’ s ideas have been shown to fail , they still pervade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shown that unconscious bias training does not improve equality , and in fact can backfire by reinforcing stereotypes and exacerbating biases .
That ’ s why this week we announced we will no longer be using it in government or civil service .
Whether it ’ s “ affirmative action ” … forced training on “ unconscious bias ” … or lectures on “ lived experience ” … the Left are in thrall to ideas that undermine equality at every turn .
The absurdity was summed up just this week by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many female managers she had breached a quota .
By contrast , the Conservative Party has elected two female leaders , and has a Cabinet with the highest ever level of ethnic minority representation .
We have done this not by positively discriminating … but by positively empowering people who want to go into politics and opening up our Party to people of all backgrounds .
Because when you choose on the basis of protected characteristics , you end up excluding other people .
Fairness , not favouritism , drives our approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality debate has been dominated by a small number of unrepresentative voices , and by those who believe people are defined by their protected characteristic… and not by their individual character .
This school of thought says that if you are not from an ‘ oppressed group ’ then you are not entitled to an opinion… and that this debate is not for you .
Equality is something everybody in the United Kingdom should care about… and something all of us have a stake in .
So , I am calling time on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women are left to fix sexism and campaign for childcare .
Rather than virtue signalling , or campaigning…this government is focused on delivering a fairer and more transparent society that works for all … and that delivers genuine equality of opportunity .
The work of American academic Iris Bohnet shows that modernising and making organisations more transparent is the best way to tackle inequality .
When things are opaque , it benefits those who know how to game the system .
We know that when companies publish their wage ranges , it leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women .
We know that automatic promotions based on performance help level up opportunities for women in the workplace… overcoming the barriers that make women less likely to put themselves forward for promotion .
And we know that evidence-driven recruitment in a clear and open structure is more effective than using informal and ad hoc networks .
On the other hand , techniques like unconscious bias training , quotas and diversity statements … do nothing to make the workplace fundamentally fairer .
By driving reforms that increase competition , boost transparency and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities .
This is the approach we will be taking across government .
It is fundamentally important that the role of equality minister is held by someone who also has another cabinet job , as I do with trade .
This ensures equality is not siloed… but is instead the responsibility of the whole government and all our elected representatives .
For example , the Academies Act 2010 meant good free schools were established across England and more children had the opportunity of a great education… the 1980 Housing Act empowered over two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ladder…and the independent taxation of women in 1988 gave wives control of their own money .
All of these reforms promoted equality by giving people greater agency over their own lives and making systems more transparent .
For example , we know that students from poorer backgrounds are more likely to achieve better grades than they were predicted… and they lose out in the current university admissions system which is based on predicted grades .
That is why Gavin Williamson is right to base the university admissions system on the actual grades students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower income backgrounds have a fairer shot at university .
In the workplace , we know that flexible working improves productivity and helps people to combine work with other responsibilities .
That is why I will be working with Alok Sharma , the Business Secretary , to enable more flexible working – not just as a necessity amid the Covid crisis but to empower employees .
The best way to reduce unfairness in our society is through opening up opportunities for all .
This is the level playing field we should be talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure that this level playing field is properly enforced .
That is why I am appointing a new chair and a wide variety of commissioners to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to drive this agenda forward .
I am proud we have Baroness Kishwer Falkner , David Goodhart , Jessica Butcher , Su-Mei Thompson and Lord Ribeiro , all of whom are committed to equality and ready to challenge dangerous groupthink .
Under this new leadership , the EHRC will focus on enforcing fair treatment for all , rather than freelance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal , we need the equality debate to be led by facts… not by fashion .
Time and time again , we see politicians making their own evidence-free judgements .
The Labour party made the ridiculous claim that “ our country has never been more unequal ” , with even Channel 4 concluding it “ does not stand up to scrutiny ” .
My superb colleague Kemi Badenoch is leading work on the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities , established by the Prime Minister .
We should heed the warning from its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote last month that they have uncovered “ a perception of racism that is often not supported by evidence ” and that “ wrong perceptions sow mistrust ” .
We can and must have an equality agenda that is driven by evidence .
Today I am announcing that the Equality Hub will embark on the Government ’ s biggest , broadest and most comprehensive equality data project yet… and it will closely coordinate with the work of CRED .
Over the coming months , we will look across the UK to identify where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest barriers are .
We will not limit our fight for fairness to the nine protected characteristics laid out in the 2010 Equality Act… which include sex , race , and gender reassignment .
While it is true people in these groups suffer discrimination , the focus on protected characteristics has led to a narrowing of the equality debate that overlooks socio-economic status and geographic inequality .
This means some issues – particularly those facing white working-class children – are neglected .
This project will broaden the drive for equality and get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will report its initial findings in the Summer .
In addition to race , sex , disability and religion , it will also look at issues around geography , community and socio-economic background .
It will deliver a new life-path analysis of equality from the perspective of the individual , not groups .
Using longitudinal data sets will help us understand where the real problems lie .
There is a deeper wage gap between London and the regions than between men and women , with an average full-time salary a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East of England .
There are lower employment rates , pay packets and life expectancy across the North than the South .
That is why the equality agenda must be prosecuted with fierce determination and clarity of purpose up and down the country… not just in London boardrooms and Whitehall offices .
Whether that is making the case for free schools in deprived areas… or using data to help regional businesses attract investment .
We will use the power of evidence to drive reform and give people access to the facts so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive this action from the North of England , where we will be moving the Equality Hub .
And I am delighted to announce that we are also taking on sponsorship of the Social Mobility Commission , to give this agenda real teeth and coherence .
The whole of government will be – and is – totally committed to this agenda .
The Treasury is revising its Green Book so that it judges infrastructure investment fairly across the UK , no longer seeing – for example – faster broadband as a better investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department for Education is going to extra lengths to create academies and free schools outside London .
And in housing , we are working to increase opportunities for home ownership across the country .
This is just the start .
There is much more we will be doing to make our country fairer and give people agency over their own lives .
This is not limited to the UK This fight for fairness goes beyond our shores .
Next year , the United Kingdom will use its presidency of the G7 to ramp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to champion freedom , human rights and the equality of opportunity .
The UK is co-leading the new global Generation Equality Action Coalition on Gender Based Violence , and co-chairing the Equal Rights Coalition .
In that role , we will be holding our International LGBT conference , on the theme of Safe To Be Me .
We are working internationally to bring an end to child marriage… and are supporting international programmes to end the abhorrent practice of Female Genital Mutilation .
We need to make progress across the world and at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairer Britain go hand in hand .
Taking the right approach to deliver real change At this vital time in our country ’ s history , we must make sure everyone has a chance to succeed in modern Britain .
That is why we can not waste time on misguided , wrong-headed and ultimately destructive ideas that take agency away from people .
Instead , we will drive an agenda that empowers people and actively challenges discrimination .
We will use evidence to inform policy and drive change .
And we will focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system rather than the results .
Together , we will build back a better society and lead the new fight for fairness .
”


conservativehome--2020-12-19--Emergency proxies and postal votes: how the Government intends to ensure the local elections go ahea

Emergency proxies and postal votes: how the Government intends to ensure the local elections go ahead in May

As the nation staggers towards 2021 , the forecast for next year looks somewhat v-shaped .
The immediate aftermath of Christmas looks set to be dominated by another national lockdown ( or whatever ‘ Tier 4 ’ is ) .
But after that , the vaccination programme holds out hope of a return to something like the old normal by the summer .
Which raises the question of what to do about the local elections , which are currently scheduled for May .
They have already been delayed once already , and both the Scottish and Welsh governments are making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own elections yet again in the event that the public situation is not where we might want it to be when the day arrives .
The Government have taken a different approach , and no plans are being laid to prepare for a delay to the polls .
Instead , ministers are taking practical steps to ensure that they can be conducted as safely as possible .
For starters , although practical and security considerations militated against an all-postal election , there is still for the moment a postal ballot for everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if and when the mooted Electoral Integrity Bill hits the statute book and tightens up the relevant rules , but for now it is simple enough to get one and the parties , as well as local authorities , can and likely will run campaigns to make sure their voters are fully aware of this .
To make that slightly easier , the Government has also uprated local election expenses for the first time since 2014 , lifting them to £806 per constituency ( up from £740 ) and 7p per elector ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give candidates a bit more to invest in online , postal , or other Covid-secure campaigning .
In a recent written statement Chloe Smith , the Constitution Minister , acknowledged the pandemic as a reason for doing this now : “ The Government is also mindful that the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic may result in a greater emphasis on postal and digital campaigning ahead of May ’ s elections ; this adds to the case for limits to be updated and uprated.
” Ministers are apparently looking at supplementing all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting ’ , in the event that someone who had intended to vote in person needs to self-isolate – this could apparently be done through secondary legislation – and by working to make sure that polling stations are Covid-secure .
This reluctance to delay the elections a second time is understandable .
But given the obvious risk that face-to-face campaigning poses ( especially to older voters and activists ) , there will likely be an electoral penalty to be paid if the worst happens and the Government has not left itself the means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that this all-chips-on-May approach is a justified vote of confidence in the vaccination programme .

As the nation staggers towards 2021, the forecast for next year looks somewhat v-shaped. The immediate aftermath of Christmas looks set to be dominated by another national lockdown (or whatever ‘Tier 4’ is). But after that, the vaccination programme holds out hope of a return to something like the old normal by the summer.
Which raises the question of what to do about the local elections, which are currently scheduled for May.
They have already been delayed once already, and both the Scottish and Welsh governments are making plans that include the power to delay their own elections yet again in the event that the public situation is not where we might want it to be when the day arrives.
The Government have taken a different approach, and no plans are being laid to prepare for a delay to the polls. Instead, ministers are taking practical steps to ensure that they can be conducted as safely as possible.
For starters, although practical and security considerations militated against an all-postal election, there is still for the moment a postal ballot for everyone who wants one. This will change if and when the mooted Electoral Integrity Bill hits the statute book and tightens up the relevant rules, but for now it is simple enough to get one and the parties, as well as local authorities, can and likely will run campaigns to make sure their voters are fully aware of this.
To make that slightly easier, the Government has also uprated local election expenses for the first time since 2014, lifting them to £806 per constituency (up from £740) and 7p per elector (up from 6p). This will give candidates a bit more to invest in online, postal, or other Covid-secure campaigning. In a recent written statement Chloe Smith, the Constitution Minister, acknowledged the pandemic as a reason for doing this now:
“The Government is also mindful that the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic may result in a greater emphasis on postal and digital campaigning ahead of May’s elections; this adds to the case for limits to be updated and uprated.”
Ministers are apparently looking at supplementing all of this this with provisions for ’emergency proxy voting’, in the event that someone who had intended to vote in person needs to self-isolate – this could apparently be done through secondary legislation – and by working to make sure that polling stations are Covid-secure.
This reluctance to delay the elections a second time is understandable. But given the obvious risk that face-to-face campaigning poses (especially to older voters and activists), there will likely be an electoral penalty to be paid if the worst happens and the Government has not left itself the means to postpone the polls. CCHQ must hope that this all-chips-on-May approach is a justified vote of confidence in the vaccination programme.


conservativehome--2020-12-19--David Gauke: Whether there’s a deal or none, Brexit still will not be done

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election .
The conclusion of the negotiations over a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU has never been inevitable .
The economic logic of the situation has always suggested that the parties would compromise and reach a deal but , a handful of days from the end of the year , we still can not be certain that , for once , economic logic will prevail .
I have been in the minority in arguing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only type of deal on offer – one which satisfied the EU that its fundamental interests were protected – were high and that the risk of no deal was , therefore , under-priced .
In the end , the Prime Minister would have to make a choice – does he make a number of substantial concessions but declare victory , or does he leave without a deal and blame the EU for the ensuing chaos ?
No one , in my view , could have predicted with certainty which way the Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very long time , it was apparent that Johnson did not know the answer to this himself .
Even at this very late stage , the outcome is not inevitable .
A desire to protect the interests of about half of a very small industry – fish – might still cause the talks to collapse .
But it does now appear that the Prime Minister has reached the conclusion that he wants a deal and is willing to do what it takes to get a deal .
He has left it late – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by leaving it late the risks of an accidental are material .
But the likelihood is that there will be a thin deal before the end of the year .
The key concession has been on the level playing field provisions .
It was not that long ago that the UK position was that it would be intolerable to us to leave ourselves open to the economic risk of retaliatory tariffs if we diverged from EU standards or , in the words of Lord Frost “ chose to make laws suiting our interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has abandoned this position in the negotiations .
There are two very good reasons for it to do so .
The first is that the original position implicitly assumes an incoherent and unworkable interpretation of sovereignty .
There is an argument to be made that it is a matter of sovereignty that important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to the British public .
But the principle of sovereignty does not mean that such decisions will not have consequences .
It is an act of sovereignty , not an abnegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a set of rules which involves sanctions if those rules are broken .
If such a position is unacceptable in principle , then one would have to object to rollover trade deals with third countries signed by Liz Truss , or even membership of the World Trade Organisation .
The second objection to the Government ’ s original position is that it is obviously absurd to claim that the threat of tariffs and quotas in future is an appalling economic risk , but embracing tariffs and quotas on 1st January – which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country is ravaged by a pandemic and there is little time to prepare , would be ‘ wonderful ’ and that we would ‘ prosper mightily ’ .
Contrary to the position earlier in the year , non-regression clauses are now acceptable .
‘ Dynamic alignment ’ is out , but ‘ managed divergence ’ is in .
Either way , if the EU changes its standards , we either follow or face consequences .
The EU , meanwhile , has moved on the process – no ‘ automaticity ’ , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cross-sectoral retaliatory measures .
There will probably something else , perhaps a ‘ freedom clause ’ , which will give the Prime Minister some cosmetic cover .
Assuming the deal is reached , the Prime Minister must have concluded that he can sell the deal to the country and his backbenchers .
There are three reasons why his optimism may have increased .
First , Covid .
Both the good news – progress on the vaccine – and the bad news – the rise in infections – has taken the wind out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To criticise the Prime Minister for imposing restrictions at this point looks eccentric and irresponsible .
The pressure from the backbenchers has abated .
Second , timing .
Any deal will be rushed through .
There will be no time to pick over concessions to the EU ( cynics think this is why we do not already have a deal ) and the public will be more focused on disinviting granny for Christmas .
The country is not in the mood for a row about whether the level playing field provisions are too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A mini-deal with America would lift the hearts of Brexiteers who want to see progress towards the UK disengaging from the EU .
Many already seem very excited by rollover deals with small countries that replicate existing deals with the EU ( it turns out the EU was not quite so insular , after all ) .
A new deal – however small – with a major economy will be a cause of great rejoicing .
An announcement next week would be very convenient .
So the Prime Minister has the space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means he rows back on much of what he has previously said .
Many of his Parliamentary colleagues will live with it , but see this as a staging post , not the final destination .
For some , Brexit has simply been about leaving the EU institutions but for others it has always been about the country setting off in a different direction , away from what they see as a bloated , bureaucratic , dirigiste , social democratic behemoth .
In their eyes , Brexit is about re-orientating the country towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different economic model .
Divergence is the whole point .
The free trade agreement will not have delivered all that they want , at least , not all at once .
But Johnson can argue that it will give them the opportunity to go further in future .
The deal will , in truth , be a very hard Brexit .
Many of us will question the cost of our negotiating strategy prioritising ‘ sovereignty ’ over practical concerns for businesses ; tariff free and quota free is all very well but little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin .
Trade with the EU will involve much more friction and with that comes additional costs and inefficiencies .
Services get next to nothing .
This will not be the comprehensive deal the country needs .
Quite quickly , the outlines of a new debate will begin to emerge .
Some will argue for a closer relationship with the EU , pointing to the inadequacies of the Johnson deal .
Others will argue that , having come so far , we must go further in disentangling ourselves from the EU .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it probably will be – that debate will not yet be settled .
Our relationship with the EU will continue to be one of the biggest questions facing the country .
And that is why , at one level , Brexit will still not be done .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
The conclusion of the negotiations over a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU has never been inevitable. The economic logic of the situation has always suggested that the parties would compromise and reach a deal but, a handful of days from the end of the year, we still cannot be certain that, for once, economic logic will prevail.
I have been in the minority in arguing that the political risks for Boris Johnson in accepting the only type of deal on offer – one which satisfied the EU that its fundamental interests were protected – were high and that the risk of no deal was, therefore, under-priced. In the end, the Prime Minister would have to make a choice – does he make a number of substantial concessions but declare victory, or does he leave without a deal and blame the EU for the ensuing chaos?
No one, in my view, could have predicted with certainty which way the Prime Minister would jump because, for a very long time, it was apparent that Johnson did not know the answer to this himself.
Even at this very late stage, the outcome is not inevitable. A desire to protect the interests of about half of a very small industry – fish – might still cause the talks to collapse.
But it does now appear that the Prime Minister has reached the conclusion that he wants a deal and is willing to do what it takes to get a deal. He has left it late – excruciatingly so for many businesses – and by leaving it late the risks of an accidental are material. But the likelihood is that there will be a thin deal before the end of the year.
The key concession has been on the level playing field provisions. It was not that long ago that the UK position was that it would be intolerable to us to leave ourselves open to the economic risk of retaliatory tariffs if we diverged from EU standards or, in the words of Lord Frost “chose to make laws suiting our interests”. Very sensibly, the Government has abandoned this position in the negotiations.
There are two very good reasons for it to do so.
The first is that the original position implicitly assumes an incoherent and unworkable interpretation of sovereignty. There is an argument to be made that it is a matter of sovereignty that important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to the British public. But the principle of sovereignty does not mean that such decisions will not have consequences. It is an act of sovereignty, not an abnegation of it, to sign up to a set of rules which involves sanctions if those rules are broken. If such a position is unacceptable in principle, then one would have to object to rollover trade deals with third countries signed by Liz Truss, or even membership of the World Trade Organisation.
The second objection to the Government’s original position is that it is obviously absurd to claim that the threat of tariffs and quotas in future is an appalling economic risk, but embracing tariffs and quotas on 1st January – which is what happens without a deal – whilst the country is ravaged by a pandemic and there is little time to prepare, would be ‘wonderful’ and that we would ‘prosper mightily’.
Contrary to the position earlier in the year, non-regression clauses are now acceptable. ‘Dynamic alignment’ is out, but ‘managed divergence’ is in. Either way, if the EU changes its standards, we either follow or face consequences. The EU, meanwhile, has moved on the process – no ‘automaticity’, no European Court of Justice, limits on the cross-sectoral retaliatory measures. There will probably something else, perhaps a ‘freedom clause’, which will give the Prime Minister some cosmetic cover.
Assuming the deal is reached, the Prime Minister must have concluded that he can sell the deal to the country and his backbenchers. There are three reasons why his optimism may have increased.
First, Covid. Both the good news – progress on the vaccine – and the bad news – the rise in infections – has taken the wind out of the sails of lockdown sceptics. To criticise the Prime Minister for imposing restrictions at this point looks eccentric and irresponsible. The pressure from the backbenchers has abated.
Second, timing. Any deal will be rushed through. There will be no time to pick over concessions to the EU (cynics think this is why we do not already have a deal) and the public will be more focused on disinviting granny for Christmas. The country is not in the mood for a row about whether the level playing field provisions are too stringent.
Third, the US. A mini-deal with America would lift the hearts of Brexiteers who want to see progress towards the UK disengaging from the EU. Many already seem very excited by rollover deals with small countries that replicate existing deals with the EU (it turns out the EU was not quite so insular, after all). A new deal – however small – with a major economy will be a cause of great rejoicing. An announcement next week would be very convenient.
So the Prime Minister has the space to get a deal, even if that means he rows back on much of what he has previously said. Many of his Parliamentary colleagues will live with it, but see this as a staging post, not the final destination.
For some, Brexit has simply been about leaving the EU institutions but for others it has always been about the country setting off in a different direction, away from what they see as a bloated, bureaucratic, dirigiste, social democratic behemoth. In their eyes, Brexit is about re-orientating the country towards the rest of the world and a different economic model. Divergence is the whole point.
The free trade agreement will not have delivered all that they want, at least, not all at once. But Johnson can argue that it will give them the opportunity to go further in future.
The deal will, in truth, be a very hard Brexit. Many of us will question the cost of our negotiating strategy prioritising ‘sovereignty’ over practical concerns for businesses; tariff free and quota free is all very well but little will have been achieved on rules of origin. Trade with the EU will involve much more friction and with that comes additional costs and inefficiencies. Services get next to nothing. This will not be the comprehensive deal the country needs.
Quite quickly, the outlines of a new debate will begin to emerge. Some will argue for a closer relationship with the EU, pointing to the inadequacies of the Johnson deal. Others will argue that, having come so far, we must go further in disentangling ourselves from the EU.
Even if a deal is reached – as it probably will be – that debate will not yet be settled. Our relationship with the EU will continue to be one of the biggest questions facing the country. And that is why, at one level, Brexit will still not be done.


conservativehome--2020-12-20--WATCH: Nandy – The country ‘cannot continue like this’

Shadow foreign secretary @ lisanandy says people have made Christmas plans “ that now lie in tatters ” and that @ @ @ @ @ continue like this ” .
# Ridge : https : //t.co/2MKcjSQOZZ pic.twitter.com/YL3oHHAXDb

c
“I’m angry to be honest.”
Shadow foreign secretary @lisanandy says people have made Christmas plans “that now lie in tatters” and that the country “cannot continue like this”.#Ridge: https://t.co/2MKcjSQOZZ pic.twitter.com/YL3oHHAXDb
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-20--WATCH: The Health Secretary says the Government still intends to keep schools open

“ The education secretary has set out how we are planning to reopen schools using testing to reduce the spread.
@ @ @ @ @ says the government still plans to reopen schools despite the rise in # coronavirus infections.
@ @ @ @ @ //t.co/2MKcjSQOZZ pic.twitter.com/rDmI5O95zZ

“The education secretary has set out how we are planning to reopen schools using testing to reduce the spread.”
Health Secretary @MattHancock says the government still plans to reopen schools despite the rise in #coronavirus infections.#Ridge: https://t.co/2MKcjSQOZZ pic.twitter.com/rDmI5O95zZ
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-20--WATCH: ‘Please, please, please follow the rules’, says Khan, ‘it has an impact on the capacity of th

WATCH: ‘Please, please, please follow the rules’, says Khan, ‘it has an impact on the capacity of the NHS’

🗣 '' Please , please , please follow the rules '' London Mayor @ SadiqKhan implores people to follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ RickEdwards1 `` it has an impact on the capacity of the NHS ''

🗣"Please, please, please follow the rules"
London Mayor @SadiqKhan implores people to follow the new coronavirus restrictions, telling @RickEdwards1 "it has an impact on the capacity of the NHS"
📲Read more https://t.co/Ix6PW878Yo pic.twitter.com/xQwBYZ7bVy
— BBC Radio 5 Live (@bbc5live) December 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-20--WATCH: Hancock on travel restrictions – ‘It’s the police’s responsibility to police the law’

# Marr : Will the police stop people from leaving London ?
Health Secretary Matt Hancock : “ Of course @ @ @ @ @ police ’ s responsibility to police the law ” https : //t.co/gxUy3acCro pic.twitter.com/MkDSa6X1NJ

#Marr: Will the police stop people from leaving London?
Health Secretary Matt Hancock: “Of course. It’s the police’s responsibility to police the law”https://t.co/gxUy3acCro pic.twitter.com/MkDSa6X1NJ
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-20--It is hard to see how a recalled Parliament would now have time to consider a Brexit Trade Bill prop

It is hard to see how a recalled Parliament would now have time to consider a Brexit Trade Bill properly

Jacob Rees-Mogg said in our most recent Moggcast that , as matters stood then , approval of a Brexit trade deal could take place in six days .
It was recorded last Monday .
He added that this six day timetable could be “ squeezed ” , and that Parliament “ managed to pass legislation to remove the King-Emperor in 24 hours ” .
This suggested a trade-off : the later any deal is struck , the greater the compression of time .
Commons , Lords and Royal Assent – the Government could ask for all in a day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 314 pages of treaty provisions and 119 pages of annexes .
A draft UK equivalent consists of 288 pages of articles .
One source claims that a final draft agreement document consists of 800 pages of main text and a thousand pages of annexes of protocols .
But whatever the length of such a treaty might be , it certainly wouldn ’ t be an easy read .
This being so , it is hard to see how MPs could properly consider such a document in six days – let alone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider another matter : the interaction between Parliament and the introduction of the new Tier Four restrictions in London .
At present , only a limited number of MPs can participate in the Chamber to consider a Bill .
What were Parliament to be recalled and that number to be further reduced , or MPs asked to speak instead via screens from home ?
There would be obvious implications for interventions , and therefore the quality of debate – and therefore too the efficacy of scrutiny of the legislation .
Sources that ConservativeHome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any proposed Government change to the present procedures in the event of Parliament being recalled .
One senior European Research Group source described attempting to get a Brexit trade through the Commons and Lords in a few days on a truncated procedure as “ a double train crash ” .
Backbench trust will not have been boosted by Mark Spencer telling MPs that Parliament can only be recalled for Brexit legislation .
Downing Street clearly wants to avoid any vote on the Tier Four measure if a recall takes place .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Government can recall Parliament for any reason it wishes .
Does the Speaker have a view ?
Furthermore , some backbenchers believe that Ministers have waited to impose Tier Four , and the new Tier Three restrictions , until Parliament was no longer sitting .
All in all , MPs should certainly be recalled , so that they can vote on the new tiering arrangements , and debate them – however briefly .
Whether they now have time to consider any Brexit Trade Bill before the New Year is a different matter @

Jacob Rees-Mogg said in our most recent Moggcast that, as matters stood then, approval of a Brexit trade deal could take place in six days. It was recorded last Monday.
He added that this six day timetable could be “squeezed”, and that Parliament “managed to pass legislation to remove the King-Emperor in 24 hours”.
This suggested a trade-off: the later any deal is struck, the greater the compression of time. Commons, Lords and Royal Assent – the Government could ask for all in a day.
A draft EU agreement from March consists of 314 pages of treaty provisions and 119 pages of annexes. A draft UK equivalent consists of 288 pages of articles.
One source claims that a final draft agreement document consists of 800 pages of main text and a thousand pages of annexes of protocols. But whatever the length of such a treaty might be, it certainly wouldn’t be an easy read.
This being so, it is hard to see how MPs could properly consider such a document in six days – let alone in 24 hours. At which point, consider another matter: the interaction between Parliament and the introduction of the new Tier Four restrictions in London.
At present, only a limited number of MPs can participate in the Chamber to consider a Bill. What were Parliament to be recalled and that number to be further reduced, or MPs asked to speak instead via screens from home?
There would be obvious implications for interventions, and therefore the quality of debate – and therefore too the efficacy of scrutiny of the legislation.
Sources that ConservativeHome has spoken to refuse to rule out any proposed Government change to the present procedures in the event of Parliament being recalled.
One senior European Research Group source described attempting to get a Brexit trade through the Commons and Lords in a few days on a truncated procedure as “a double train crash”.
Backbench trust will not have been boosted by Mark Spencer telling MPs that Parliament can only be recalled for Brexit legislation. Downing Street clearly wants to avoid any vote on the Tier Four measure if a recall takes place.
However, the Chief Whip is clearly mistaken. The Government can recall Parliament for any reason it wishes. Does the Speaker have a view?
Furthermore, some backbenchers believe that Ministers have waited to impose Tier Four, and the new Tier Three restrictions, until Parliament was no longer sitting.
All in all, MPs should certainly be recalled, so that they can vote on the new tiering arrangements, and debate them – however briefly. Whether they now have time to consider any Brexit Trade Bill before the New Year is a different matter.


conservativehome--2020-12-21--Richard Holden: Levelling up – 70 years late. The 1950s Labour plan that didn’t deliver improvements

Richard Holden: Levelling up – 70 years late. The 1950s Labour plan that didn’t deliver improvements we’re campaigning for now.

“ There is nothing new under the sun ” – or even under the sleety rain that hammered my windscreen as I drove from Langley Park , a small former mining town that is now commuter village for the City of Durham , to Weardale Community Hospital on Friday evening .
What I was turning over in my head was the Durham County Council County Development Plan of 1951 – a massive red bound document that I ’ d finally received from House of Commons Library a few days before .
I slurped on the black coffee I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lovely little ice cream parlour and sweet shop , and started to think about the inertia that has been the hallmark of the Labour Party in many parts of so-called ‘ left behind ’ Britain .
Then another phrase came to mind : “ masterly inactivity ” : the policy which Sir Humphrey of Yes Minister fame wishes his ministers would pursue .
In 2019 , my colleague , Dehenna Davison won her seat in Bishop Auckland with a pledge to fight for an upgrade to the A68 , namely the Toft Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have supported in my campaign and have raised in Parliament myself , since it would greatly benefit the town of Crook and villages of Weardale in my constituency , opening the door to new employers locally .
To my astonishment , this proposed bypass is mentioned on page 134c of the now 70-year-old County Plan , A small dotted red line meanders round Toft Hill and High Etherley in the 1951 plan , ensuring that the T- Junction on the A68 right in the centre of the busy villages would have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant parts of the County Plan later became massively discredited , especially the so called “ D-notice villages and towns ” – areas that the Labour authority decided were not viable , and so were just demolished – ripping up entire communities and , rather than seeking to encourage new jobs and employment locally , literally moving them to New Towns , like Peterlee miles away .
But there in the document that the Library had provided was transport infrastructure planned a whole lifetime ago – but never actually bothered with , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How it is that , threescore years and ten on from the County Plan , campaigns are still having to be run calling for the same solutions is baffling .
It ’ s hardly surprising that there is grievance with the local authority or with government generally .
It ’ s clear why there is a degree of scepticism about the promises made by politicians – especially about whether improvements that have been talked about for a lifetime will ever come to pass .
One of the saddest things that happened to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oppose , for purely political grounds , a feasibility study ( which I have now secured ) into re-opening a public transport route , with improved cycling and walking , between Consett and the Tyne .
My Labour neighbour in Blaydon , Liz Twist , has suggested that the £50,000 that the study would cost should instead be spent on a fleet of new buses .
Perhaps she could enlighten me as to where she could get one new bus for £50,000 ( never mind a fleet ) .
This is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the levelling-up agenda – whether it ’ s transport infrastructure , good new jobs and training opportunities , life-long educational opportunities or broadband rollout – to not happen .
They ’ re desperate for it to fail because they ’ ve failed to deliver their plan from seven decades ago to do something for Co. Durham and swathes of the North of England .
It is their trump card .
Importantly , however , we Conservatives need to realise what they know , which is that that their trump card is actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says ‘ you see , voting Conservative didn ’ t change anything ’ .
It ’ s our job to deny them that single card deck .
The pandemic has been , and still is , horrendous .
By the time we return to any sense of normality , it will essentially have chopped 18 months off the Government ’ s term for being able to deliver “ levelling-up ” , and dealt a huge blow to the public finances .
But the one thing that we must do as a Government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this agenda .
Recent Onward polls show that for the Conservatives 2019 ( following on from an improving picture in 2017 ) is potentially just the start of a broader movement away from Labour in the North of England .
There are many seats – North Durham , Blaydon , Stockton North , the Sunderland seats , Wansbeck – that now all lie within the grasp of the Conservative Party in the North East alone .
After seven decades of seeing Labour fail to deliver its plan to ‘ level-up ’ , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not easy , but it ’ s do-able , and will last long after Covid-19 has been vaccinated away .
We ’ ve got to make the most of it now and show Labour up to be the doyens of ‘ masterly inactivity ’ that they have been for decades .
They will doubtless squabble amongst themselves as to whether they prefer Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer for the next four years but we can ’ t rely on them to make out case .
That ’ s down to us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just Britain that Boris Johnson can ‘ build back better ’ , it ’ s that political wall across the North that we have the opportunity to permanently change from Red to Blue .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
Sweet Times, Langley Park, County Durham
“There is nothing new under the sun” – or even under the sleety rain that hammered my windscreen as I drove from Langley Park, a small former mining town that is now commuter village for the City of Durham, to Weardale Community Hospital on Friday evening.
What I was turning over in my head was the Durham County Council County Development Plan of 1951 – a massive red bound document that I’d finally received from House of Commons Library a few days before.
I slurped on the black coffee I’d picked up from Sweet Times, a lovely little ice cream parlour and sweet shop, and started to think about the inertia that has been the hallmark of the Labour Party in many parts of so-called ‘left behind’ Britain. Then another phrase came to mind: “masterly inactivity”: the policy which Sir Humphrey of Yes Minister fame wishes his ministers would pursue.
In 2019, my colleague, Dehenna Davison won her seat in Bishop Auckland with a pledge to fight for an upgrade to the A68, namely the Toft Hill Bypass. It’s a cause I have supported in my campaign and have raised in Parliament myself, since it would greatly benefit the town of Crook and villages of Weardale in my constituency, opening the door to new employers locally.
To my astonishment, this proposed bypass is mentioned on page 134c of the now 70-year-old County Plan, A small dotted red line meanders round Toft Hill and High Etherley in the 1951 plan, ensuring that the T- Junction on the A68 right in the centre of the busy villages would have become a thing of the past.
While significant parts of the County Plan later became massively discredited, especially the so called “D-notice villages and towns” – areas that the Labour authority decided were not viable, and so were just demolished – ripping up entire communities and, rather than seeking to encourage new jobs and employment locally, literally moving them to New Towns, like Peterlee miles away.
But there in the document that the Library had provided was transport infrastructure planned a whole lifetime ago – but never actually bothered with, and still relevant and called for today.
How it is that, threescore years and ten on from the County Plan, campaigns are still having to be run calling for the same solutions is baffling. It’s hardly surprising that there is grievance with the local authority or with government generally. It’s clear why there is a degree of scepticism about the promises made by politicians – especially about whether improvements that have been talked about for a lifetime will ever come to pass.
One of the saddest things that happened to me since I was elected is the decision to oppose, for purely political grounds, a feasibility study (which I have now secured) into re-opening a public transport route, with improved cycling and walking, between Consett and the Tyne.
My Labour neighbour in Blaydon, Liz Twist, has suggested that the £50,000 that the study would cost should instead be spent on a fleet of new buses. Perhaps she could enlighten me as to where she could get one new bus for £50,000 (never mind a fleet).
This is just one example of how Labour are desperate for the levelling-up agenda – whether it’s transport infrastructure, good new jobs and training opportunities, life-long educational opportunities or broadband rollout – to not happen. They’re desperate for it to fail because they’ve failed to deliver their plan from seven decades ago to do something for Co. Durham and swathes of the North of England. It is their trump card. Importantly, however, we Conservatives need to realise what they know, which is that that their trump card is actually their only card – the card that says ‘you see, voting Conservative didn’t change anything’. It’s our job to deny them that single card deck.
The pandemic has been, and still is, horrendous. By the time we return to any sense of normality, it will essentially have chopped 18 months off the Government’s term for being able to deliver “levelling-up”, and dealt a huge blow to the public finances. But the one thing that we must do as a Government is do our level best to deliver on this agenda.
Recent Onward polls show that for the Conservatives 2019 (following on from an improving picture in 2017) is potentially just the start of a broader movement away from Labour in the North of England. There are many seats – North Durham, Blaydon, Stockton North, the Sunderland seats, Wansbeck – that now all lie within the grasp of the Conservative Party in the North East alone.
After seven decades of seeing Labour fail to deliver its plan to ‘level-up’, we have been given an opportunity. Delivering is not easy, but it’s do-able, and will last long after Covid-19 has been vaccinated away.
We’ve got to make the most of it now and show Labour up to be the doyens of ‘masterly inactivity’ that they have been for decades. They will doubtless squabble amongst themselves as to whether they prefer Jeremy Corbyn or Keir Starmer for the next four years but we can’t rely on them to make out case. That’s down to us.
In doing so, it’s not just Britain that Boris Johnson can ‘build back better’, it’s that political wall across the North that we have the opportunity to permanently change from Red to Blue.


conservativehome--2020-12-21--Judy Terry: The demands to make car travel more expensive ignore the political and economic realitie

Judy Terry: The demands to make car travel more expensive ignore the political and economic realities

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk .
Lifelong Conservatives are not alone in losing patience with Downing Street ’ s arrogant dictatorship , and its headline-grabbing policies , often based on questionable data , but designed to appease a minority of campaigners who don ’ t suffer the financial constraints of the rest of us .
Instead of patronising and banning , it ’ s time to engage with members of the public , and trust them .
The Chancellor ’ s frank assessment of the economic challenges ahead , as Government borrowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; lavish unnecessary spending has to be brought under control , so let ’ s hope – as he joked he would – he revokes the Prime Minister ’ s credit card .
Constant policy changes are expensive , undermining confidence within business , the population and public sector , inhibiting growth , which will be crucial over the coming years .
A case in point is the PM ’ s sudden ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars in just nine years ’ time , instead of the original 2040 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorest and most disadvantaged beyond the Westminster bubble : the ‘ left behind ’ in the Red Wall and rural areas .
For example , Suffolk is a net contributor to the Treasury , but , as I saw first hand in my ten years as a councillor and primary school governor , it has areas of serious deprivation beyond the posh weekend homes by the seafront .
75,000 people , including 22,000 in older age groups , are in income deprivation ; average salaries are around £28,000 , although a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £25,000 a year in Doncaster , and a national average of £38,600 ( £33,300 for women ) .
MPs , of course are paid £81,932 a year , plus expenses and allowances for additional responsibilities , as well as generous financial entitlements at the end of their ‘ service ’ .
It is also now evident that many receive additional income from a range of other employment , as directors or advisers to major corporations – opportunities not available to ‘ ordinary people ’ .
Unlike Ed Miliband , the ‘ two kitchens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shapps , the Transport Secretary , with his private plane ( making him part of the one per cent of the world ’ s population responsible for harmful emissions ) and £44,000 electric car , the majority of people are likely to struggle with daily expenses .
Mortgages or rent , feeding their children , and covering energy costs , which consume 25 per cent of income ; holidays are likely to be a day out , rather than the Prime Minister ’ s luxurious £15,000 break in the Caribbean earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationally have access to a car , they are using them less at present ; 10m households simply can not afford even the cheapest electric car , so they will retain their aging petrol or diesel indefinitely !
The country can ’ t afford to subsidise change as it did a decade ago , to encourage the switch to hybrids .
So , we have to accept that , with public transport expensive , and limited services in rural areas , people need their cars : to get to work ( often for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factories and retail distribution centres , in care homes and the NHS , or on farms .
Higher paid office workers can work from home , but our essential workers can ’ t .
Pensioners living on little more than the state pension , and the disabled , need their cars to get to GPs , hospital appointments , meet up with family ( when permitted ) and do essential shopping .
Their budgets don ’ t allow them to be spendthrift with online shopping , even if they have a computer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bike is unlikely to be a safe option .
There is also the question of insurance , which is more expensive ( over £600 for the cheapest ) for electric cars because repair costs and maintenance are higher .
Electric cars have a limited driving range of around 100 miles for older vehicles , rising to 239 mph , so recovery services are increasingly essential when drivers are stranded with flat batteries , potentially risking collisions .
According to the AA , it is ‘ on track to recover more than 600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day ’ .
However , they need to be transported with all four wheels off the ground , having to wait for a flatbed truck .
The next question is : when few homes – even in the richest parts of Kensington and Chelsea or Islington – have private parking , how is electricity to be provided for recharging , at what cost , and who pays ?
If electricity supplies can be temporarily cut , without compensation , from certain properties with smart meters when the National Grid is overwhelmed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric cars , leaving them unavailable for family or work emergencies ?
According to a recent media report , 84 per cent of local authorities have no on-street charging points , and it would cost over £45 billion to install them .
Never mind the disruption as roads are dug up all over the country ; my road has only now reopened after two months to improve the gas infrastructure .
It ’ s just as well I spent £3,500 to replace my gas boiler last year , because even those are to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with yet another diktat demanding all new properties have ‘ air source ’ heat pumps , which are four times more expensive and less efficient , but will add to the cost of social and private housing .
Delaying these environmental changes , reverting to the original deadlines , would not only avoid increasing our horrendous levels of State borrowing and debt , but protect stretched councils , businesses and voters from even higher tax rises at a national and council level over the next decade , which can only lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as job losses continue to rise .
The Treasury is allegedly also debating introducing a £1 per mile charge for using the roads , already paid for by taxpayers ; will it apply to cyclists , even if they do use pavements instead ?
Following the November announcement , anyone ’ s petrol or diesel car is worth virtually nothing – however recently purchased , yet replacing with an electric car will be double the price of even the most modest vehicle .
How can those on average incomes/pensions afford it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s famed breweries , vineyards and vital agriculture , as well as coach companies crucial to Tourism – struggling to recover from the lockdown , having to renew company fleets will be another nail in their coffins .
Despite promised delays on banning commercial vehicles , there will still be a cost to the public sector in replacing millions of vehicles , from ambulances and police cars , to buses , waste trucks and mobile libraries , as well as military vehicles .
A lot of council employees actually use their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town planning , engineers and councillors on site visits , and directors travelling to meetings , etc .
Will their already generous mileage allowances be raised to cover the extra costs of owning electric cars ?
The UK may have left the EU , but Tourism is important on both sides of the Channel , and that means that British citizens will wish to continue visiting the Continent by car , when viable .
However , unless there are charging points across Europe , and on the car ferries , it looks as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all to barracks .
At present , expensive hybrids are the only way to get from one side of France to the other if you can ’ t use a petrol or diesel powered car !
How will foreign tourists to the UK be affected , and foreign logistics companies which use UK roads free of charge , whereas British lorries pay substantial annual fees on the Continent ?
There ’ s been no mention of the cost to scrap banned petrol and diesel cars ; will councils be responsible ?
If so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and financially – to local residents ?
With High Streets ravaged , entertainment , sporting events and hospitality decimated , and ill-conceived commercial property investments failing , there is already talk of councils going bankrupt as income crashes .
The 5 % council tax increase next year , adding £100 to annual bills , won ’ t be enough to salvage them .
No doubt this will be a key issue in next year ’ s elections , so the Government will need to be prepared with solutions which don ’ t penalise @ @ @ @ @

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk.
Lifelong Conservatives are not alone in losing patience with Downing Street’s arrogant dictatorship, and its headline-grabbing policies, often based on questionable data, but designed to appease a minority of campaigners who don’t suffer the financial constraints of the rest of us. Instead of patronising and banning, it’s time to engage with members of the public, and trust them.
The Chancellor’s frank assessment of the economic challenges ahead, as Government borrowing hits record levels was a wakeup call; lavish unnecessary spending has to be brought under control, so let’s hope – as he joked he would – he revokes the Prime Minister’s credit card. Constant policy changes are expensive, undermining confidence within business, the population and public sector, inhibiting growth, which will be crucial over the coming years. A case in point is the PM’s sudden ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars in just nine years’ time, instead of the original 2040 deadline.
This decision will impact the poorest and most disadvantaged beyond the Westminster bubble: the ‘left behind’ in the Red Wall and rural areas. For example, Suffolk is a net contributor to the Treasury, but, as I saw first hand in my ten years as a councillor and primary school governor, it has areas of serious deprivation beyond the posh weekend homes by the seafront. 75,000 people, including 22,000 in older age groups, are in income deprivation; average salaries are around £28,000, although a lot of employment is seasonal. This compares with £25,000 a year in Doncaster, and a national average of £38,600 (£33,300 for women).
MPs, of course are paid £81,932 a year, plus expenses and allowances for additional responsibilities, as well as generous financial entitlements at the end of their ‘service’. It is also now evident that many receive additional income from a range of other employment, as directors or advisers to major corporations – opportunities not available to ‘ordinary people’.
Unlike Ed Miliband, the ‘two kitchens’ Doncaster North MP, or Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, with his private plane (making him part of the one per cent of the world’s population responsible for harmful emissions) and £44,000 electric car, the majority of people are likely to struggle with daily expenses. Mortgages or rent, feeding their children, and covering energy costs, which consume 25 per cent of income; holidays are likely to be a day out, rather than the Prime Minister’s luxurious £15,000 break in the Caribbean earlier this year.
Although 81 per cent of households nationally have access to a car, they are using them less at present; 10m households simply cannot afford even the cheapest electric car, so they will retain their aging petrol or diesel indefinitely! The country can’t afford to subsidise change as it did a decade ago, to encourage the switch to hybrids. So, we have to accept that, with public transport expensive, and limited services in rural areas, people need their cars: to get to work (often for unsocial overnight and weekend duty) in factories and retail distribution centres, in care homes and the NHS, or on farms. Higher paid office workers can work from home, but our essential workers can’t.
Pensioners living on little more than the state pension, and the disabled, need their cars to get to GPs, hospital appointments, meet up with family (when permitted) and do essential shopping. Their budgets don’t allow them to be spendthrift with online shopping, even if they have a computer and could get a slot, and riding a bike is unlikely to be a safe option.
There is also the question of insurance, which is more expensive (over £600 for the cheapest) for electric cars because repair costs and maintenance are higher. Electric cars have a limited driving range of around 100 miles for older vehicles, rising to 239 mph, so recovery services are increasingly essential when drivers are stranded with flat batteries, potentially risking collisions. According to the AA, it is ‘on track to recover more than 600 in two years, equating to one a day’. However, they need to be transported with all four wheels off the ground, having to wait for a flatbed truck.
The next question is: when few homes – even in the richest parts of Kensington and Chelsea or Islington – have private parking, how is electricity to be provided for recharging, at what cost, and who pays? If electricity supplies can be temporarily cut, without compensation, from certain properties with smart meters when the National Grid is overwhelmed by demand, could this impact on recharging electric cars, leaving them unavailable for family or work emergencies?
According to a recent media report, 84 per cent of local authorities have no on-street charging points, and it would cost over £45 billion to install them. Never mind the disruption as roads are dug up all over the country; my road has only now reopened after two months to improve the gas infrastructure. It’s just as well I spent £3,500 to replace my gas boiler last year, because even those are to be banned in three years’ time, with yet another diktat demanding all new properties have ‘air source’ heat pumps, which are four times more expensive and less efficient, but will add to the cost of social and private housing.
Delaying these environmental changes, reverting to the original deadlines, would not only avoid increasing our horrendous levels of State borrowing and debt, but protect stretched councils, businesses and voters from even higher tax rises at a national and council level over the next decade, which can only lead to increased personal debt, and potentially homelessness, as job losses continue to rise. The Treasury is allegedly also debating introducing a £1 per mile charge for using the roads, already paid for by taxpayers; will it apply to cyclists, even if they do use pavements instead?
Following the November announcement, anyone’s petrol or diesel car is worth virtually nothing – however recently purchased, yet replacing with an electric car will be double the price of even the most modest vehicle. How can those on average incomes/pensions afford it? With so many businesses – including Suffolk’s famed breweries, vineyards and vital agriculture, as well as coach companies crucial to Tourism – struggling to recover from the lockdown, having to renew company fleets will be another nail in their coffins.
Despite promised delays on banning commercial vehicles, there will still be a cost to the public sector in replacing millions of vehicles, from ambulances and police cars, to buses, waste trucks and mobile libraries, as well as military vehicles. A lot of council employees actually use their own cars for work: social services, town planning, engineers and councillors on site visits, and directors travelling to meetings, etc. Will their already generous mileage allowances be raised to cover the extra costs of owning electric cars?
The UK may have left the EU, but Tourism is important on both sides of the Channel, and that means that British citizens will wish to continue visiting the Continent by car, when viable. However, unless there are charging points across Europe, and on the car ferries, it looks as if the Prime Minister will confine us all to barracks. At present, expensive hybrids are the only way to get from one side of France to the other if you can’t use a petrol or diesel powered car! How will foreign tourists to the UK be affected, and foreign logistics companies which use UK roads free of charge, whereas British lorries pay substantial annual fees on the Continent?
There’s been no mention of the cost to scrap banned petrol and diesel cars; will councils be responsible? If so, at what cost – both environmentally and financially – to local residents?
With High Streets ravaged, entertainment, sporting events and hospitality decimated, and ill-conceived commercial property investments failing, there is already talk of councils going bankrupt as income crashes. The 5% council tax increase next year, adding £100 to annual bills, won’t be enough to salvage them. No doubt this will be a key issue in next year’s elections, so the Government will need to be prepared with solutions which don’t penalise ‘ordinary people’.


conservativehome--2020-12-21--WATCH: “There’s no reason to think this new variant of the virus is any more dangerous” – Johnson

“ There ’ s no reason to think this new variant of the virus is any more dangerous ” says @ @ @ @ @ adds “ the evidence that this can transmit more readily is becoming clear… [ but @ @ @ @ @ the disease is the same ” https : //t.co/WxPoZjvYZd pic.twitter.com/aAIqLFHc8M

“There’s no reason to think this new variant of the virus is any more dangerous” says Boris Johnson
Sir Patrick Vallance adds “the evidence that this can transmit more readily is becoming clear… [but] if you catch it the disease is the same”https://t.co/WxPoZjvYZd pic.twitter.com/aAIqLFHc8M
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) December 21, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-21--Johnson on Macron: “We both understand each other’s positions”. His statement. Full text.

I want to update everyone on one thing and that ’ s what ’ s happening at our borders and especially at Dover .
Last night at 11pm the French Government imposed restrictions on UK freight crossing to France when accompanied by a driver .
And so today I chaired a meeting of the Government ’ s emergency , COBR committee And it is vital first to stress that these delays – which are only occurring at Dover – and that is only 20 per cent of the total arriving from or departing to the European continent , which means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other supplies are coming and going as normal .
You may also be aware – in fact I ’ d be amazed if you weren ’ t – that the Government has been preparing for a long time for this exactly kind of event .
So working with the Kent Resilience Forum , Kent County Council and Highways England , with the result that we have already been able to reduce the number of lorries waiting on the M20 from 500 to 170 .
The site at Manston Airfield is ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , we are working with our friends across the Channel to unblock the flow of trade as fast as possible .
The Government at all levels is communicating with our friends in Paris I have just spoken to President Macron – we had a very good call – we both understand each other ’ s positions and want to resolve these problems as fast as possible .
I know that Grant is also speaking to his counterpart and we are working to a solution , as I say , as fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume between the UK and France , and ensure that lorries can travel in both directions in a Covid-secure way .
I want to stress that we in the UK fully understand the anxieties of our friends about Covid , their anxieties about the new variant , but it is also true that we believe the risks of transmission by a solitary driver sitting alone in the cab are really very low .
And so we hope to make progress as fast as we possibly can .
I want to repeat that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small percentage of food entering the UK , and as British supermarkets have said , their supply chains are strong and robust , so everyone can continue to shop normally .
And to our international friends and partners I want to say very frankly : And I hope that everybody can see that as soon as we were briefed as a government of the fast transmissibility of this new strain at about 3.15pm on Friday afternoon , We lodged all the necessary information with the World Health Organisation And we took prompt and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curb the spread of the variant within the UK .
And we want to work with our colleagues , with our friends around the world , as we have from the beginning to develop new treatments and new vaccines .
And today I can announce that half a million people in the UK have now received their first dose .
As we ’ ve seen throughout this pandemic , this virus alas can move all too swiftly from one nation to another , But it is steadily being defeated by an international response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope of vaccines to the entire world , And in that the UK will continue to play our full part .
I ’ ll now handover to our Secretary of State , Grant .
”

“Good afternoon,
I want to update everyone on one thing and that’s what’s happening at our borders and especially at Dover.
Last night at 11pm the French Government imposed restrictions on UK freight crossing to France when accompanied by a driver.
And so today I chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency, COBR committee
in order to co-ordinate a UK-wide response.
And it is vital first to stress that these delays
– which are only occurring at Dover –
only affect human-handled freight,
and that is only 20 per cent of the total arriving from or departing to the European continent,
which means the vast majority of food, medicines and other supplies are coming and going as normal.
You may also be aware – in fact I’d be amazed if you weren’t –
that the Government has been preparing for a long time for this exactly kind of event.
So working with the Kent Resilience Forum, Kent County Council and Highways England,
we’ve activated our long-prepared plans,
with the result that we have already been able to reduce the number of lorries waiting on the M20 from 500 to 170.
The site at Manston Airfield is ready to cope with any overflow.
And, of course, we are working with our friends across the Channel to unblock the flow of trade as fast as possible.
The Government at all levels is communicating with our friends in Paris
I have just spoken to President Macron – we had a very good call – we both understand each other’s positions and want to resolve these problems as fast as possible.
I know that Grant is also speaking to his counterpart and we are working to a solution, as I say, as fast as we can to allow freight traffic to resume between the UK and France,
and ensure that lorries can travel in both directions in a Covid-secure way.
I want to stress that we in the UK fully understand the anxieties of our friends about Covid, their anxieties about the new variant, but it is also true that we believe the risks of transmission by a solitary driver sitting alone in the cab are really very low.
And so we hope to make progress as fast as we possibly can.
I want to repeat that these delays only apply to a very small percentage of food entering the UK,
and as British supermarkets have said, their supply chains are strong and robust,
so everyone can continue to shop normally.
And to our international friends and partners I want to say very frankly:
We understand your concerns,
And I hope that everybody can see that as soon as we were briefed as a government of the fast transmissibility of this new strain at about 3.15pm on Friday afternoon,
We lodged all the necessary information with the World Health Organisation
And we took prompt and decisive action the very next day to curb the spread of the variant within the UK.
And we want to work with our colleagues, with our friends around the world, as we have from the beginning to develop new treatments and new vaccines.
And today I can announce that half a million people in the UK have now received their first dose.
As we’ve seen throughout this pandemic, this virus alas can move all too swiftly from one nation to another,
But it is steadily being defeated by an international response
An international response that is bringing the hope of vaccines to the entire world,
And in that the UK will continue to play our full part.
I’ll now handover to our Secretary of State, Grant.”


conservativehome--2020-12-21--The case for “doing a Sweden” runs out of steam

From the start of the Coronavirus crisis , Sweden ’ s approach to managing the virus has sparked huge debate .
While its Nordic neighbours , and many others , enforced strict lockdowns , Sweden took a more libertarian route , leaving most schools , businesses and restaurants open throughout the pandemic .
Sweden soon became known as an “ experiment ” in whether lockdowns work , with Covid “ hawks ” and “ doves ” closely monitoring it over the last year to see who would be proved right .
Did the experiment pay off ?
Unfortunately , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sweden has struggled immensely with the pressures of the second wave , with one Stockholm region recently reporting that 99 per cent of its intensive care beds were full , and the country recording its highest new case count yet ( 9,659 ) last Thursday .
Sweden has had more deaths than the rest of Nordic countries combined ( 8,000 have died in Sweden compared to 400 in Norway ) , and even its King , Carl XVI Gustaf , claimed it had “ failed ” to manage Coronavirus .
The severity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that Stefan Löfven , Sweden ’ s Prime Minister , has increasingly intervened on pandemic policy .
In other countries , having a leader do this would not be such a strange occurrence , but the Swedish Public Health Agency typically presides over such decisions .
Löfven ’ s intervention has thus been taken as a sign he disapproves of its past strategy ( as does the public – apparently – with support for Anders Tegnell , Sweden ’ s leading epidemiologist , dropping by 13 points in a recent poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropping from 68 per cent in October to 52 per cent. )
.
On Friday , Löfven announced the strictest measures yet for Sweden , with the government lowering the limit at restaurants to four people per group and banning alcohol sales past 8pm .
It has also asked citizens to wear face masks on public transport at certain times .
The measures still show Sweden cares greatly about freedom .
It has not made face masks compulsory , for instance , and shops are responsible for deciding the number of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike in other parts of the world , there are no penalties for breaking the recommendations , and Löfven also still believes full lockdown was not the right choice for the country .
However , he has said that if these measures do not have the planned effect , “ the government will also plan to close those businesses ” , so it remains to be seen how far Sweden will venture from its original Covid response .
Whatever the case , it is clear that there will be big implications for Sweden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance , with Tegnell said to be increasingly sidelined .
Does the government want to continue letting the Public Health Agency take charge of health policy after the events of this year ?
Some of the Sweden “ experiment ” is more complex than is sometimes made out .
It still has a lower death rate than other countries , a higher population to the Nordic countries it is frequently compared with , and its GDP has not been as badly hit as other nations ’ , which will in turn have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still clear that the case for “ doing a Sweden ” will struggle after this point .
While the Covid Recovery Group hasn ’ t called for a “ Sweden ” exactly , it has been deeply sceptical about the tiered system .
With the current second wave situation , and Löfven ’ s intervention , it will find its arguments for reopening the economy increasingly hard to make .
Not even the country that invented the “ anti-lockdown ” policy can now sell this approach .

From the start of the Coronavirus crisis, Sweden’s approach to managing the virus has sparked huge debate. While its Nordic neighbours, and many others, enforced strict lockdowns, Sweden took a more libertarian route, leaving most schools, businesses and restaurants open throughout the pandemic.
Sweden soon became known as an “experiment” in whether lockdowns work, with Covid “hawks” and “doves” closely monitoring it over the last year to see who would be proved right. Did the experiment pay off? Unfortunately, the answer now seems to be no.
Sweden has struggled immensely with the pressures of the second wave, with one Stockholm region recently reporting that 99 per cent of its intensive care beds were full, and the country recording its highest new case count yet (9,659) last Thursday. Sweden has had more deaths than the rest of Nordic countries combined (8,000 have died in Sweden compared to 400 in Norway), and even its King, Carl XVI Gustaf, claimed it had “failed” to manage Coronavirus.
The severity of the situation is most obvious from the fact that Stefan Löfven, Sweden’s Prime Minister, has increasingly intervened on pandemic policy. In other countries, having a leader do this would not be such a strange occurrence, but the Swedish Public Health Agency typically presides over such decisions. Löfven’s intervention has thus been taken as a sign he disapproves of its past strategy (as does the public – apparently – with support for Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s leading epidemiologist, dropping by 13 points in a recent poll, and support for its public health agency dropping from 68 per cent in October to 52 per cent.).
On Friday, Löfven announced the strictest measures yet for Sweden, with the government lowering the limit at restaurants to four people per group and banning alcohol sales past 8pm. It has also asked citizens to wear face masks on public transport at certain times.
The measures still show Sweden cares greatly about freedom. It has not made face masks compulsory, for instance, and shops are responsible for deciding the number of people who can enter them at one time. Unlike in other parts of the world, there are no penalties for breaking the recommendations, and Löfven also still believes full lockdown was not the right choice for the country. However, he has said that if these measures do not have the planned effect, “the government will also plan to close those businesses”, so it remains to be seen how far Sweden will venture from its original Covid response.
Whatever the case, it is clear that there will be big implications for Sweden in the future in terms of its governance, with Tegnell said to be increasingly sidelined. Does the government want to continue letting the Public Health Agency take charge of health policy after the events of this year?
Some of the Sweden “experiment” is more complex than is sometimes made out. It still has a lower death rate than other countries, a higher population to the Nordic countries it is frequently compared with, and its GDP has not been as badly hit as other nations’, which will in turn have an impact on health.
But it’s still clear that the case for “doing a Sweden” will struggle after this point. While the Covid Recovery Group hasn’t called for a “Sweden” exactly, it has been deeply sceptical about the tiered system. With the current second wave situation, and Löfven’s intervention, it will find its arguments for reopening the economy increasingly hard to make. Not even the country that invented the “anti-lockdown” policy can now sell this approach.


conservativehome--2020-12-21--Starmer’s trite anti-Westminster populism shows Labour still aren’t serious on the Union

As one reads through Sir Keir Starmer ’ s speech today setting out Labour ’ s attempt to salvage its position in Scotland ahead of next year ’ s Holyrood elections , it ’ s difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for them .
Just like Irish Labour a hundred years before , socialist and social-democratic parties tend to get screwed whenever the focus of politics shifts to existential national or constitutional questions .
So it ’ s understandable that their instinct has been to try and find a magic bullet that will just make the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a devolution ‘ settlement ’ – the word implies a wholly illusory stability – that will , as the now-infamous saying goes , “ kill nationalism stone dead ” .
More than two decades on from the advent of Labour ’ s devolution experiment , it is now patently obvious that it hasn ’ t worked , even if there is still an omertà against saying so in public ( unless you ’ re Boris Johnson ) .
Support for separation in both Wales and Scotland stands at record highs , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of the Scottish Parliament to suborn civil society .
But Labour can ’ t admit this .
Not only is devolution their handiwork , but its principle New Labour architects still dominate the party ’ s constitutional thinking .
Gordon Brown ’ s mission is to vindicate himself at all costs and , ideally , file a second draft of his political obituary .
Such priorities preclude any honest admission that devolution has indeed been a ‘ disaster ’ .
This tension riddles Starmer ’ s speech , to such an extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially repudiates itself .
Take this : “ The United Kingdom is shaped not just by our shared institutions , but by the people who made them , the history and experiences that shaped them and the amazing things we ’ ve achieved together.
” By putting ‘ just ’ in that sentence , the Leader of the Opposition implies that the importance of those institutions goes without saying .
But this is impossible to reconcile with his actual proposals , which amount to the tritest populism .
If common experience of shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Kingdom , how can he so blithely commit Labour to pushing “ as much power as possible away from Westminster ” ?
And when they say “ as much power ” , the scope of what seems to be being debated inside the party is staggering .
Katy Clark , a peer and former Scottish MP , has suggested going so far as to give Scotland not just complete fiscal autonomy but the power to veto military action .
At that point , the UK would cease to be a functional state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Customs and Pensions Community ’ would be a more accurate description .
What Starmer seems not to grasp – or what Brown et al won ’ t permit him to admit – is that you can ’ t make the case for the United Kingdom whilst simultaneously arguing that the United Kingdom should play as small a role in our lives as it possibly can .
If you want people to feel British , you need to defend and indeed expand the spheres of life in which we live and act as ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United Kingdom , you need to believe in a United Kingdom that does more things than , say , the European Union .
Or Austria-Hungary , for that matter .
Every time you gold-plate the ‘ devolution settlement ’ to lock Westminster completely out of bread-and-butter policy areas such as health and education , you make the case for the Union harder to make .
Here ’ s another key line : “ We are all stronger because we choose to pool our resources to share the risks and rewards.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case for the UK can ’ t rest on fiscal transfers alone .
Not just because 2016 showed that voters won ’ t forever content themselves with such emotionally thin gruel , but because under Labour ’ s devo-max proposals consent for those transfers will soon run out .
You can ’ t reject the British nation as a community for political government and expect it to survive as a community for redistributing cash .
More devolution – specifically , to weaken and circumvent the ultra-centralising devolved legislatures and put power directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or North Wales – definitely has a role to play in the fightback against separatism .
But this childish , Britanno-phobic aversion to Westminster does not .
It might win easy applause from the devocrat chorus line , always enthusiasts for any solution that involves increasing their power , pay , and prestige , and those Westminster politicians and academics who have staked their reputations on devolution .
But they ’ ve cheered on every disastrous misstep of the past twenty years .
If Starmer has not yet got his head around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the obvious case for ex-EU market powers being vested in the next-highest authority , he ’ s in no position to be calling a ‘ constitutional convention ’ .
Unless such a move was accompanied by a clear willingness to challenge cherished devolutionary orthodoxies , it will simply be Labour having their one idea one more time and hoping that this time the clocks finally strike thirteen before Britain ’ s time runs out .
Perhaps all that might be forgivable , at least from a narrow and tactical perspective , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
But Nationalist voters aren ’ t holding out for a less competent and less charismatic alternative to the SNP with a less inspiring spin on their big idea .
And after two years of being sold retreat with promises of peace , unionists voters are going rightly cold on this nonsense too .
There are some battles you just can ’ t triangulate your way past .
Someone tell the ghosts of New Labour .

As one reads through Sir Keir Starmer’s speech today setting out Labour’s attempt to salvage its position in Scotland ahead of next year’s Holyrood elections, it’s difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for them.
Just like Irish Labour a hundred years before, socialist and social-democratic parties tend to get screwed whenever the focus of politics shifts to existential national or constitutional questions. So it’s understandable that their instinct has been to try and find a magic bullet that will just make the problem go away.
Thus their forlorn quest for a devolution ‘settlement’ – the word implies a wholly illusory stability – that will, as the now-infamous saying goes, “kill nationalism stone dead”.
More than two decades on from the advent of Labour’s devolution experiment, it is now patently obvious that it hasn’t worked, even if there is still an omertà against saying so in public (unless you’re Boris Johnson). Support for separation in both Wales and Scotland stands at record highs, and in Edinburgh the nationalists have used the power of the Scottish Parliament to suborn civil society.
But Labour can’t admit this. Not only is devolution their handiwork, but its principle New Labour architects still dominate the party’s constitutional thinking. Gordon Brown’s mission is to vindicate himself at all costs and, ideally, file a second draft of his political obituary. Such priorities preclude any honest admission that devolution has indeed been a ‘disaster’.
This tension riddles Starmer’s speech, to such an extent that it on the important questions it essentially repudiates itself. Take this: “The United Kingdom is shaped not just by our shared institutions, but by the people who made them, the history and experiences that shaped them and the amazing things we’ve achieved together.”
By putting ‘just’ in that sentence, the Leader of the Opposition implies that the importance of those institutions goes without saying. But this is impossible to reconcile with his actual proposals, which amount to the tritest populism. If common experience of shared institutions is vital to holding together the United Kingdom, how can he so blithely commit Labour to pushing “as much power as possible away from Westminster”?
And when they say “as much power”, the scope of what seems to be being debated inside the party is staggering. Katy Clark, a peer and former Scottish MP, has suggested going so far as to give Scotland not just complete fiscal autonomy but the power to veto military action. At that point, the UK would cease to be a functional state at all. The ‘British Isles Customs and Pensions Community’ would be a more accurate description.
What Starmer seems not to grasp – or what Brown et al won’t permit him to admit – is that you can’t make the case for the United Kingdom whilst simultaneously arguing that the United Kingdom should play as small a role in our lives as it possibly can. If you want people to feel British, you need to defend and indeed expand the spheres of life in which we live and act as ‘the British’. If you believe in the United Kingdom, you need to believe in a United Kingdom that does more things than, say, the European Union. Or Austria-Hungary, for that matter.
Every time you gold-plate the ‘devolution settlement’ to lock Westminster completely out of bread-and-butter policy areas such as health and education, you make the case for the Union harder to make. Here’s another key line:
“We are all stronger because we choose to pool our resources to share the risks and rewards.”
That’s entirely correct. But the case for the UK can’t rest on fiscal transfers alone. Not just because 2016 showed that voters won’t forever content themselves with such emotionally thin gruel, but because under Labour’s devo-max proposals consent for those transfers will soon run out. You can’t reject the British nation as a community for political government and expect it to survive as a community for redistributing cash.
More devolution – specifically, to weaken and circumvent the ultra-centralising devolved legislatures and put power directly in the hands of communities like Aberdeen or North Wales – definitely has a role to play in the fightback against separatism. But this childish, Britanno-phobic aversion to Westminster does not. It might win easy applause from the devocrat chorus line, always enthusiasts for any solution that involves increasing their power, pay, and prestige, and those Westminster politicians and academics who have staked their reputations on devolution. But they’ve cheered on every disastrous misstep of the past twenty years.
If Starmer has not yet got his head around the importance of the UK Internal Market Bill, and the obvious case for ex-EU market powers being vested in the next-highest authority, he’s in no position to be calling a ‘constitutional convention’. Unless such a move was accompanied by a clear willingness to challenge cherished devolutionary orthodoxies, it will simply be Labour having their one idea one more time and hoping that this time the clocks finally strike thirteen before Britain’s time runs out.
Perhaps all that might be forgivable, at least from a narrow and tactical perspective, if there was a big constituency for this. But Nationalist voters aren’t holding out for a less competent and less charismatic alternative to the SNP with a less inspiring spin on their big idea. And after two years of being sold retreat with promises of peace, unionists voters are going rightly cold on this nonsense too. There are some battles you just can’t triangulate your way past. Someone tell the ghosts of New Labour.