conservativehome--2020-12-11--Ambitious, energetic, but quiet on the culture wars – a year on from Johnson’s “stonking” majority,

Ambitious, energetic, but quiet on the culture wars – a year on from Johnson’s “stonking” majority, what have we learned?

Tomorrow it will be a year since Boris Johnson won his “ stonking mandate ” in the general election , and what a year it has been .
From managing the Coronavirus crisis , to becoming gravely ill with it himself , to his quest for a Brexit trade deal , to dealing with calls for a second Scottish independence referendum , it ’ s impossible to summarise every aspect of his premiership in one article .
But here , at least , are some takeaways from 2020 , and what we have learnt from them .
Even Johnson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has shown huge levels of dynamism during this year , epitomised by the fact that he tried to soldier on during his initial fight with Coronavirus .
Alongside becoming a father again , he has had to juggle a pandemic , and one of the most complex negotiations of all time , while also trying to spark a green industrial revolution .
In an article for The Times earlier this year , James Marriott explained : “ Energy is the central principle of Johnson ’ s career ” .
On this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see what projects Johnson takes on in 2021 , and how much these will cost .
The Government has , of course , had to invest huge sums of money in PPE , the furlough scheme and other Coronavirus measures , but 2021 will see much more pressure on ministers to explain how they ’ re going to pay for all this , particularly with the emergence of the COVID Recovery Group , which has immense concerns about the economic price of lockdown .
Johnson ’ s £12 billion plan for the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to attract criticism , not only about its viability but affordability in a time of national emergency .
Nigel Lawson recently called it “ absolutely mad ” and “ crazy ” .
“ I think you have to see it to a certain extent in the psychology of Boris Johnson , who loves big projects irrespective of the cost ” , said the former Tory chancellor , in a description that ’ s hard to deny given Johnson ’ s current plans .
More of a moderate than his critics think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused Johnson of being “ hard right ” and a dictator .
Then , without any sense of irony , they were incensed when he became one of the last leaders in Europe to impose a lockdown .
Now that he has implemented draconian measures , it turns out the people most likely to call him a dictator are predominantly on the Right ( and against lockdown ) .
Once famous for his libertarianism , Johnson ’ s personal philosophy has been tested greatly by this crisis , and he comes out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise than his enemies might like to admit .
This has not only been the case with lockdown , but with other issues , such as the Government ’ s obesity strategy .
It could best be described as a “ halfway house ” designed to please libertarians and interventionists , which many will not have expected from a man who previously promised to review sin taxes .
How this personality trait plays out in the last stages of Brexit negotiations will be interesting to see .
Johnson ’ s attitude to immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media suggests .
During his time as Mayor of London , he called for earned amnesty for an estimated 400,000 people living illegally in London , and his premiership has already seen him introduce a set of relaxed policies .
In September , for instance , he reversed a decision made by Theresa May that forced overseas students to leave four months after they finished their degrees ( they can now stay in the UK for two years ) .
In an even more significant move , he offered three million Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following China ’ s introduction of a new draconian security law .
More recently , and discreetly , he abandoned net migration targets .
As I wrote for ConservativeHome earlier in the year , Johnson “ is averse to using numbers ” in this regard “ viewing them as an arbitrary measure of how successful an immigration system is.
” How this goes down with voters who wanted to “ take back control ” remains to be seen .
Given Johnson ’ s career in journalism , including being Editor of The Spectator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been uncharacteristically quiet on the culture wars .
Perhaps he is taking a leaf out of Keir Starmer ’ s book , who has reportedly been told not to get involved in them by Joe Biden ’ s campaign team .
But many people would like the Prime Minister to adopt a more definitive position on these matters , particularly after a summer in which they watched Churchill ’ s statue defaced under the guise of anti-racism , and Sadiq Khan create a “ Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London .
Some of the most contentious societal issues seem to have been delegated to other Tories .
Liz Truss , for instance , has been fighting against the concept of self-identification for one ’ s gender , Kemi Badenoch made a powerful stand against Critical Race Theory , and the Department of Education has asked universities to prove their commitment to free speech in order to receive Coronavirus-related funding .
All of these steps matter , but Johnson needs to be more vocal on these issues , otherwise outsider parties might use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election .
Something underestimated about Johnson ’ s premiership is that he has exhibited huge loyalty in challenging situations .
In spite of the fact they eventually parted ways , the Prime Minister stood by Dominic Cummings following his trip to Barnard Castle , and during the time Priti Patel was accused of bullying , though his words were mocked , Johnson called for MPs to “ form a square around the prittster.
” When defending his team , Johnson is able to weather the media storm best .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not a “ details ” person .
Coronavirus presented huge challenges , with Johnson accused of implementing lockdown too late , not ordering enough PPE and overseeing a flawed Test and Trace programme .
No doubt mistakes have been made and this has been a terrible time .
But the Government has also been able to pull off huge logistical challenges , from increasing the number of Coronavirus tests up by hundreds of thousands , to ordering 350 million vaccines – in what was , actually , an enormous gamble ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most significant test for Johnson will come this weekend .
Can he get Brexit done ?
As with lockdown and the obesity strategy , we could see another move towards compromise , although whether it pleases Remainers or Leavers remains to be seen .
On the other hand , given Johnson ’ s propensity towards huge projects , do not be surprised if No Deal fits the bill .

Tomorrow it will be a year since Boris Johnson won his “stonking mandate” in the general election, and what a year it has been. From managing the Coronavirus crisis, to becoming gravely ill with it himself, to his quest for a Brexit trade deal, to dealing with calls for a second Scottish independence referendum, it’s impossible to summarise every aspect of his premiership in one article. But here, at least, are some takeaways from 2020, and what we have learnt from them.
Energy
Even Johnson’s biggest enemies would struggle to deny that he has shown huge levels of dynamism during this year, epitomised by the fact that he tried to soldier on during his initial fight with Coronavirus. Alongside becoming a father again, he has had to juggle a pandemic, and one of the most complex negotiations of all time, while also trying to spark a green industrial revolution. In an article for The Times earlier this year, James Marriott explained: “Energy is the central principle of Johnson’s career”.
Big spender
On this note, it will be interesting to see what projects Johnson takes on in 2021, and how much these will cost. The Government has, of course, had to invest huge sums of money in PPE, the furlough scheme and other Coronavirus measures, but 2021 will see much more pressure on ministers to explain how they’re going to pay for all this, particularly with the emergence of the COVID Recovery Group, which has immense concerns about the economic price of lockdown.
Johnson’s £12 billion plan for the environment, in particular, is one that will continue to attract criticism, not only about its viability but affordability in a time of national emergency. Nigel Lawson recently called it “absolutely mad” and “crazy”. “I think you have to see it to a certain extent in the psychology of Boris Johnson, who loves big projects irrespective of the cost”, said the former Tory chancellor, in a description that’s hard to deny given Johnson’s current plans.
More of a moderate than his critics think
Last year, a number of commentators accused Johnson of being “hard right” and a dictator. Then, without any sense of irony, they were incensed when he became one of the last leaders in Europe to impose a lockdown. Now that he has implemented draconian measures, it turns out the people most likely to call him a dictator are predominantly on the Right (and against lockdown).
Once famous for his libertarianism, Johnson’s personal philosophy has been tested greatly by this crisis, and he comes out of it as a politician more inclined to compromise than his enemies might like to admit. This has not only been the case with lockdown, but with other issues, such as the Government’s obesity strategy. It could best be described as a “halfway house” designed to please libertarians and interventionists, which many will not have expected from a man who previously promised to review sin taxes. How this personality trait plays out in the last stages of Brexit negotiations will be interesting to see.
Relaxed on immigration
Johnson’s attitude to immigration and asylum is much more liberal than the media suggests. During his time as Mayor of London, he called for earned amnesty for an estimated 400,000 people living illegally in London, and his premiership has already seen him introduce a set of relaxed policies.
In September, for instance, he reversed a decision made by Theresa May that forced overseas students to leave four months after they finished their degrees (they can now stay in the UK for two years). In an even more significant move, he offered three million Hong Kong citizens over to the UK, following China’s introduction of a new draconian security law.
More recently, and discreetly, he abandoned net migration targets. As I wrote for ConservativeHome earlier in the year, Johnson “is averse to using numbers” in this regard “viewing them as an arbitrary measure of how successful an immigration system is.” How this goes down with voters who wanted to “take back control” remains to be seen.
Quiet on the culture war
Given Johnson’s career in journalism, including being Editor of The Spectator from 1999 to 2005, he has been uncharacteristically quiet on the culture wars. Perhaps he is taking a leaf out of Keir Starmer’s book, who has reportedly been told not to get involved in them by Joe Biden’s campaign team.
But many people would like the Prime Minister to adopt a more definitive position on these matters, particularly after a summer in which they watched Churchill’s statue defaced under the guise of anti-racism, and Sadiq Khan create a “Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm” to decide what legacies should be celebrated in London.
Some of the most contentious societal issues seem to have been delegated to other Tories. Liz Truss, for instance, has been fighting against the concept of self-identification for one’s gender, Kemi Badenoch made a powerful stand against Critical Race Theory, and the Department of Education has asked universities to prove their commitment to free speech in order to receive Coronavirus-related funding. All of these steps matter, but Johnson needs to be more vocal on these issues, otherwise outsider parties might use them to make headway in the next general election.
An underestimated trait
Something underestimated about Johnson’s premiership is that he has exhibited huge loyalty in challenging situations. In spite of the fact they eventually parted ways, the Prime Minister stood by Dominic Cummings following his trip to Barnard Castle, and during the time Priti Patel was accused of bullying, though his words were mocked, Johnson called for MPs to “form a square around the prittster.” When defending his team, Johnson is able to weather the media storm best.
On details
One of the common criticisms of Johnson is that he’s not a “details” person. Coronavirus presented huge challenges, with Johnson accused of implementing lockdown too late, not ordering enough PPE and overseeing a flawed Test and Trace programme. No doubt mistakes have been made and this has been a terrible time.
But the Government has also been able to pull off huge logistical challenges, from increasing the number of Coronavirus tests up by hundreds of thousands, to ordering 350 million vaccines – in what was, actually, an enormous gamble (that has since paid off).
The most significant test for Johnson will come this weekend. Can he get Brexit done? As with lockdown and the obesity strategy, we could see another move towards compromise, although whether it pleases Remainers or Leavers remains to be seen. On the other hand, given Johnson’s propensity towards huge projects, do not be surprised if No Deal fits the bill.


conservativehome--2020-12-11--James Palmer: How devolution can boost innovation and economic growth

James Palmer is the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough .
The job of combined authorities is to increase economic prosperity for the people they serve .
Devolution means powers and money are passed into local control , where , combined with local support and specialist knowledge , it can be put to best use .
As part of our devolution deal in 2017 , we signed an agreement with central government to double local “ Valued Added ” by 2042 .
As I see it , we also have a responsibility to our entire region , not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of that output ; to make sure growth and opportunities are spread evenly and fairly , not just in selected areas .
At the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority , we achieve this through supporting business growth , housing development , better transport , and enhanced education in every corner of the region .
Maximising the great potential in areas that could well be described as “ left behind ” and in major need of “ levelling up ” .
Our ability to contribute to the UK economy is huge ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £22 billion .
Before COVID-19 , we had already seen local growth over and above expected levels because of interventions we have made .
Imagine if the output of Cambridge could be matched across the entire Cambridgeshire and Peterborough region ?
Last week , I went in front of the Housing , Communities and Local Government Committee to give evidence on the progress of devolution , where I was asked about the challenges and opportunities that come with Combined Authorities .
Extraordinary national challenges , including COVID-19 and the EU transition , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kick back against further devolution .
Despite this , we have managed to achieve exceptional things .
Things that would not be possible without a Combined Authority to set a vision and show leadership for the entire region .
By their nature , Combined Authorities are collaborative .
Unlike local or national government , decision making requires cross-party consensus .
We changed our governance structure so that elected members sit on all our committees , to represent the views of their constituents in co-designing local policies and develop knowledge and expertise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own levelling up agenda by providing more adult education opportunities in the north of the county , typically ‘ left behind ’ areas of low economic opportunity .
We have got spades in the ground and second phase funding from government to deliver a new University for Peterborough , a project which had been going nowhere for over 20 years until the Combined Authority took over , just a couple of years ago .
Our pioneering transport projects including the CAM Metro , will better connect the north of the region with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealth and opportunities that exist there .
Given the events of the Covid-19 response , Government may think Combined Authorities are a problem to manage and be disinclined to trust us further , but I genuinely believe we can be a crucial part of the Covid Recovery .
Through partnership working , we can be more agile in meeting the needs of the region .
When Covid-19 hit , we responded quickly in collaboration with our Business Board – formerly the Cambridgeshire and Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership – investing almost £6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and medium businesses that were just missing out on government schemes .
Our action led to the protection of 500 jobs and created a further 270 jobs during the first national lockdown .
At the Committee I was asked my views on what additional powers we need to deliver , particularly fiscal devolution .
I believe we could perform even better for the region and contribute more to the UK economy if we were given that resource .
At present , we are required to go cap in hand to central government whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often only granted on a short term basis .
This is understandable ; if a Combined Authority is not responsible with its funding , Central Government shoulders the responsibility and foots the bill .
Devolution of fundraising powers from central government would provide stable , long term funding , allow us to plan for and deliver on strategic projects that would revolutionise our region and ensure we hold a stake in responsible management of our resources .
It is both an opportunity and a responsibility .
It is my belief that because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of land in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire as a whole , we can raise money to deliver on ambitious large scale infrastructure projects such as the Cambridgeshire Autonomous through the power of the Cambridge economy alone .
Mechanisms such as Land Value Capture , Tax Incremental Funding , Devolved Taxation Powers and the long-term ring fencing of increased business rates revenues due to growth would allow us to raise billions of pounds in finance that could be invested in better public transport , employment-focussed education opportunities and affordable housing .
If we are to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 and burst past it , we will need to embrace innovation and deliver differently .
The Government must look at the massive opportunities that we have in this country to transform how we deliver major infrastructure .
While I speak of examples in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough , this could be replicated across the UK .
It is not only a different route of delivery , but a better route of delivery , on things that will improve people ’ s lives – which is , at the end of the day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job .

James Palmer is the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
The job of combined authorities is to increase economic prosperity for the people they serve. Devolution means powers and money are passed into local control, where, combined with local support and specialist knowledge, it can be put to best use.
As part of our devolution deal in 2017, we signed an agreement with central government to double local “Valued Added” by 2042. As I see it, we also have a responsibility to our entire region, not just the major economic centres that make up the majority of that output; to make sure growth and opportunities are spread evenly and fairly, not just in selected areas.
At the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority, we achieve this through supporting business growth, housing development, better transport, and enhanced education in every corner of the region. Maximising the great potential in areas that could well be described as “left behind” and in major need of “levelling up”.
Our ability to contribute to the UK economy is huge; in 2017 it was measured to be £22 billion. Before COVID-19, we had already seen local growth over and above expected levels because of interventions we have made. Imagine if the output of Cambridge could be matched across the entire Cambridgeshire and Peterborough region?
Last week, I went in front of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to give evidence on the progress of devolution, where I was asked about the challenges and opportunities that come with Combined Authorities.
Extraordinary national challenges, including COVID-19 and the EU transition, has led to a centralisation of powers and a kick back against further devolution. Despite this, we have managed to achieve exceptional things. Things that would not be possible without a Combined Authority to set a vision and show leadership for the entire region.
By their nature, Combined Authorities are collaborative. Unlike local or national government, decision making requires cross-party consensus. We changed our governance structure so that elected members sit on all our committees, to represent the views of their constituents in co-designing local policies and develop knowledge and expertise in these areas.
We have delivered on our own levelling up agenda by providing more adult education opportunities in the north of the county, typically ‘left behind’ areas of low economic opportunity. We have got spades in the ground and second phase funding from government to deliver a new University for Peterborough, a project which had been going nowhere for over 20 years until the Combined Authority took over, just a couple of years ago. Our pioneering transport projects including the CAM Metro, will better connect the north of the region with the south, helping to crack open the wealth and opportunities that exist there.
Given the events of the Covid-19 response, Government may think Combined Authorities are a problem to manage and be disinclined to trust us further, but I genuinely believe we can be a crucial part of the Covid Recovery. Through partnership working, we can be more agile in meeting the needs of the region. When Covid-19 hit, we responded quickly in collaboration with our Business Board – formerly the Cambridgeshire and Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership – investing almost £6 million of funding into over 170 small and medium businesses that were just missing out on government schemes. Our action led to the protection of 500 jobs and created a further 270 jobs during the first national lockdown.
At the Committee I was asked my views on what additional powers we need to deliver, particularly fiscal devolution. I believe we could perform even better for the region and contribute more to the UK economy if we were given that resource.
At present, we are required to go cap in hand to central government whenever we need additional funding, which is often only granted on a short term basis. This is understandable; if a Combined Authority is not responsible with its funding, Central Government shoulders the responsibility and foots the bill. Devolution of fundraising powers from central government would provide stable, long term funding, allow us to plan for and deliver on strategic projects that would revolutionise our region and ensure we hold a stake in responsible management of our resources. It is both an opportunity and a responsibility.
It is my belief that because of the strength of the economy and value of land in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire as a whole, we can raise money to deliver on ambitious large scale infrastructure projects such as the Cambridgeshire Autonomous through the power of the Cambridge economy alone. Mechanisms such as Land Value Capture, Tax Incremental Funding, Devolved Taxation Powers and the long-term ring fencing of increased business rates revenues due to growth would allow us to raise billions of pounds in finance that could be invested in better public transport, employment-focussed education opportunities and affordable housing.
If we are to recover the significant economic growth lost to Covid-19 and burst past it, we will need to embrace innovation and deliver differently. The Government must look at the massive opportunities that we have in this country to transform how we deliver major infrastructure. While I speak of examples in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, this could be replicated across the UK. It is not only a different route of delivery, but a better route of delivery, on things that will improve people’s lives – which is, at the end of the day, the only reason I took on this job.


conservativehome--2020-12-12--Year One of Johnson’s Government.  Are Conservative MPs ready to back unpopular measures in Year Two

Year One of Johnson’s Government.  Are Conservative MPs ready to back unpopular measures in Year Two – and afterwards?

Yesterday evening , Charlotte Gill wrote on this site about Boris Johnson ’ s first year : Covid-19 , Brexit , the economy , culture – and mentioned a dog about which few have barked : his liberal approach in government to immigration .
This morning , it ’ s time to turn to a question which arises from that whole – namely , whether this Conservative Parliamentary Party has the stomach to back unpopular decisions , even with a Tory majority of 80 in the Commons .
Here are a few straws in the wind .
Had the vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government ’ s Coronavirus policy , based on a test-and-trace approach which is right in principle but ropey in practice , might well have endured even bigger backbench revolts .
Even as it is , enough Conservative MPs rebelled on the recent Coronavirus tiers vote to nullify that majority , were they to persist in future , and were the Opposition parties all to join them .
Then there is housing .
Neil O ’ Brien has shredded the algorithm used as a basis for the Government ’ s housing proposals , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present policy , with its targets drawn up at the centre , can survive .
Then there are policies that don ’ t require legislation at all – like the Government ’ s original response to Marcus Rashford ’ s campaign for free school meals during the Christmas holiday .
Then there are those that do , such as tax rises proposed in future budgets , which would then be presented as part of a Finance Bill .
It isn ’ t at all clear that Tory MPs are up for voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our point is not that all these measures necessarily have merit – some don ’ t : though on housing , we admire Boris Johnson for thinking big , understanding that the status quo is socially unjust , and exploring solutions that might meet the scale of the challenge .
Rather , we wonder if a generation of Conservative MPs elected on a platform of getting Brexit done and spending more on nurses , police , hospitals , schools , doctors and science are ready for the unexpected consequences of the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we give you the case for optimism if you occupy the Prime Minister ’ s bully pulpit .
The virus will dwindle in potency , the economy will rebound – minimising the consequences of No Deal if it happens – MPs will return to Parliament en masse , collective discipline will reassert itself , a shuffle causes more gain than pain… …Brexit Britain will make a success of chairing the G7 , the local elections will be better for the Conservatives and the Scottish Parliamentary ones worse for the SNP than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will be best buddies at Cop26 .
Next , the case for pessimism .
It is founded on the contention that a fundamental change is taking place in the make-up of Tory MPs , mirroring the broad upward trend in backbench rebellions since the Blair era .
In short , they are gradually becoming constituency champions rather than party animals , prioritising the immediate demands of their constituents above the blandishments of the whips .
Brexit , a decline in the power of patronage , the rise of WhatsApp groups to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing phenomena of the new “ research groups ” : all these , capped by the end of the old military-style culture , pose new challenges to the executive .
Rolled up at one end by a more politicised judiciary and at the other by more assertive legislators , the Executive ’ s room for manoeuvre is being whittled away .
So even if not at all next year ’ s economic and electoral news is bad for the Prime Minister , he will find it difficult to impose authority on a Parliamentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to Covid , no opportunity to find its feet in the Commons .
Political parties find it hard to renew themselves in Government – and Tory MPs seem to be best prepared to take tough decisions coming into government from Opposition , as in 1979 and 2010 , rather than mid-term .
Doing so would be a challenge even to the best-organised of teams in Number Ten .
As we write , it isn ’ t clear how the political direction of the Government will be set , given first the marginalisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nor is it evident how Conservative MPs would react were the Government ’ s ratings to slide in the polls .
They have been strikingly buoyant over the year as a whole : the 40 per cent or so coalition of voters that Johnson assembled has not lost faith in him .
In the event of No Deal , they will cheer the Prime Minister and blame Emmanuel Macron .
Or at least , that ’ s where they ’ d be in week one .
Whether they ’ d still be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an unknown .

Yesterday evening, Charlotte Gill wrote on this site about Boris Johnson’s first year: Covid-19, Brexit, the economy, culture – and mentioned a dog about which few have barked: his liberal approach in government to immigration.
This morning, it’s time to turn to a question which arises from that whole – namely, whether this Conservative Parliamentary Party has the stomach to back unpopular decisions, even with a Tory majority of 80 in the Commons.
Here are a few straws in the wind. Had the vaccines not ridden to the rescue, the Government’s Coronavirus policy, based on a test-and-trace approach which is right in principle but ropey in practice, might well have endured even bigger backbench revolts.
Even as it is, enough Conservative MPs rebelled on the recent Coronavirus tiers vote to nullify that majority, were they to persist in future, and were the Opposition parties all to join them.
Then there is housing. Neil O’Brien has shredded the algorithm used as a basis for the Government’s housing proposals, and it isn’t clear whether the present policy, with its targets drawn up at the centre, can survive.
Then there are policies that don’t require legislation at all – like the Government’s original response to Marcus Rashford’s campaign for free school meals during the Christmas holiday.
Then there are those that do, such as tax rises proposed in future budgets, which would then be presented as part of a Finance Bill. It isn’t at all clear that Tory MPs are up for voting for many of these, if they came.
Our point is not that all these measures necessarily have merit – some don’t: though on housing, we admire Boris Johnson for thinking big, understanding that the status quo is socially unjust, and exploring solutions that might meet the scale of the challenge.
Rather, we wonder if a generation of Conservative MPs elected on a platform of getting Brexit done and spending more on nurses, police, hospitals, schools, doctors and science are ready for the unexpected consequences of the first major pandemic in a century.
First, we give you the case for optimism if you occupy the Prime Minister’s bully pulpit.
The virus will dwindle in potency, the economy will rebound – minimising the consequences of No Deal if it happens – MPs will return to Parliament en masse, collective discipline will reassert itself, a shuffle causes more gain than pain…
…Brexit Britain will make a success of chairing the G7, the local elections will be better for the Conservatives and the Scottish Parliamentary ones worse for the SNP than one would have thought, Johnson and Joe Biden will be best buddies at Cop26.
Next, the case for pessimism.
It is founded on the contention that a fundamental change is taking place in the make-up of Tory MPs, mirroring the broad upward trend in backbench rebellions since the Blair era.
In short, they are gradually becoming constituency champions rather than party animals, prioritising the immediate demands of their constituents above the blandishments of the whips.
Brexit, a decline in the power of patronage, the rise of WhatsApp groups to which the whips have no access, the developing phenomena of the new “research groups”: all these, capped by the end of the old military-style culture, pose new challenges to the executive.
Rolled up at one end by a more politicised judiciary and at the other by more assertive legislators, the Executive’s room for manoeuvre is being whittled away.
So even if not at all next year’s economic and electoral news is bad for the Prime Minister, he will find it difficult to impose authority on a Parliamentary Party whose latest intake has had, due to Covid, no opportunity to find its feet in the Commons.
Political parties find it hard to renew themselves in Government – and Tory MPs seem to be best prepared to take tough decisions coming into government from Opposition, as in 1979 and 2010, rather than mid-term.
Doing so would be a challenge even to the best-organised of teams in Number Ten. As we write, it isn’t clear how the political direction of the Government will be set, given first the marginalisation and then the departure of Dominic Cummings.
Nor is it evident how Conservative MPs would react were the Government’s ratings to slide in the polls. They have been strikingly buoyant over the year as a whole: the 40 per cent or so coalition of voters that Johnson assembled has not lost faith in him.
In the event of No Deal, they will cheer the Prime Minister and blame Emmanuel Macron. Or at least, that’s where they’d be in week one. Whether they’d still be there in week eleven, say, is an unknown.


conservativehome--2020-12-12--Britain’s relationship with the EU: no love affair, followed by a bad marriage and a stormy divorce

Reluctant European : Britain and the European Union from 1945 to Brexit by Stephen Wall This book could also be called “ Life as a Continuous Negotiation ” .
It shows with great clarity that when Britain entered the European Economic Community , as it was then known , the advocates of joining indulged in wishful thinking , as more recently did the advocates of Brexit .
There was no love affair before this marriage , no honeymoon after it , and the divorce is proving pretty painful too .
In 1979 Helmut Schmidt , an anglophile German Chancellor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Bonn , why the British had spent the six years since we joined haggling like Italians about sums of money which ought to have been beneath our notice .
There had been years of haggling before we joined , and there was a lot more haggling to come , for Margaret Thatcher was only just beginning her campaign for the British rebate .
Stephen Wall , who joined the Diplomatic Service in 1968 , saw much of this haggling at first hand , for he was an adviser to five Foreign Secretaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served for five years as the UK ’ s Permanent Representative to the EU .
How did he stand it ?
This book is intended mainly as a dispassionate account of Britain ’ s European policy over the last 75 years : an aim it more than meets .
But it also offers hints on how to survive official life .
One method is to enjoy the comic side of things .
Here is one of the best anecdotes with which Wall enlivens his text : There is much to be said for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t bother to translate the lyrics .
It was not , however , an approach which Wall and his colleagues felt able to adopt : One detects the note of suppressed hysteria which runs through the story of Britain ’ s relationship with Europe .
It mattered desperately to get it right : here is the principal , and entirely honourable , motive which drove so many members of the Diplomatic Service to devote their careers and very considerable minds to the problem .
And yet , as Wall ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not enough to arrive at a solution .
He starts in the Frick gallery in New York , staring at the Holbein portraits of Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell .
Here are “ the two sides of the schism that was the Reformation ” : Cromwell “ the piggy-eyed , clever thug ” , versus a representative of European civilisation : “ More was a Renaissance scholar… He was the friend of the Dutch philosopher and scholar Erasmus .
They both saw themselves as part of an international , and especially European , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christendom .
For More , the son of a lawyer , and himself the most senior guardian and dispenser of the law in the England of his day , the Church and State were umbilically linked and the laws of God and the laws of Man had to be in harmony .
When Henry VIII sundered that harmony by declaring himself Head of the Church and breaking from the authority of Rome he was not , in More ’ s eyes , simply rebelling from a pontiff who was more of a temporal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s action was , as More saw it , an assault on the very foundations on which the English state was built.
” Wall is descended rather wonderfully from Norman foot soldiers who settled in Derbyshire , where their name “ gradually morphed from Du Val to Wall ” and they became yeomen farmers .
His mother was a Catholic , he was brought up as a Catholic , and he points out that the EEC was “ largely conceived by Catholic Christian Democrats ” , who signed the Treaty of Rome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Annunciation : Wall is too intelligent and fair-minded to suggest that all virtue lies on the European side of the divide .
He describes how the six founding members of the EEC created , “ in an act of pre-emptive and ruthless self-interest ” , the Common Fisheries Policy , before the British , the Danes , the Norwegians and the Irish , all of whom had large stocks of fish , were allowed to join .
The budget was likewise rigged against the British , who found themselves paying for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers , an injustice which took many years of haggling to put right .
In 1987 , Julian Bullard , the British Ambassador in Bonn , wrote a dispatch to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which included the words : Over 30 years later , what Bullard said remains true .
Abrasive language of the kind often heard in Westminster just doesn ’ t register in Germany : is politely discounted as simply not serious .
Yet if one adapts one ’ s tone to take account of German susceptibilities , one is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose one ’ s British audience .
Wall admits that Margaret Thatcher made a remarkable impact not only in Europe , especially in that part of the Continent still held by the Soviet Union , but in the United States : Tony Blair emerges less well from this account than one might expect .
He contributes a single , mendacious paragraph to his memoirs on the subject of joining the euro , is heard by Wall agreeing to misrepresent Jacques Chirac ’ s views about Saddam Hussein , fatefully promises a referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretends that he shares the vision of the EU ’ s founders .
The moral of this admirable book is that forms of words , however carefully chosen , are not enough to bridge the divide that runs through Britain , and has done since the Reformation .
So although Wall says almost nothing about Boris Johnson , for whom he never worked , he does draw the impassable chasm into which any Prime Minister is in danger of tumbling : one to which the present occupant of Number Ten sometimes seems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enjoyable , to be applying the wisdom of Count Sforza .

Reluctant European: Britain and the European Union from 1945 to Brexit by Stephen Wall
This book could also be called “Life as a Continuous Negotiation”. It shows with great clarity that when Britain entered the European Economic Community, as it was then known, the advocates of joining indulged in wishful thinking, as more recently did the advocates of Brexit.
There was no love affair before this marriage, no honeymoon after it, and the divorce is proving pretty painful too.
In 1979 Helmut Schmidt, an anglophile German Chancellor, asked Oliver Wright, the British Ambassador in Bonn, why the British had spent the six years since we joined haggling like Italians about sums of money which ought to have been beneath our notice.
There had been years of haggling before we joined, and there was a lot more haggling to come, for Margaret Thatcher was only just beginning her campaign for the British rebate.
Stephen Wall, who joined the Diplomatic Service in 1968, saw much of this haggling at first hand, for he was an adviser to five Foreign Secretaries and three Prime Ministers, and also served for five years as the UK’s Permanent Representative to the EU.
How did he stand it? This book is intended mainly as a dispassionate account of Britain’s European policy over the last 75 years: an aim it more than meets.
But it also offers hints on how to survive official life. One method is to enjoy the comic side of things. Here is one of the best anecdotes with which Wall enlivens his text:
“My father-in-law [Norman Reddaway], a young diplomat in the post-war British Embassy in Rome, had accompanied his Ambassador in 1950 when the latter, on instructions from London, called on the Italian Foreign Minister to persuade him of the ill-advised nature of the proposed Coal and Steel Community. The Minister, Count Sforza, listened politely. At the end of the Ambassador’s reasoned case, Sforza smiled tolerantly. ‘My dear Ambassador,’ he said. ‘There are times at the opera when you should enjoy the music and not worry about the words.'”
There is much to be said for the Sforza approach. Enjoy the music and don’t bother to translate the lyrics.
It was not, however, an approach which Wall and his colleagues felt able to adopt:
“We British worried intensely about ‘the words’. With no overarching written constitution, the words of Parliamentary Acts were all we (and the courts which interpreted them) had to rely on.”
One detects the note of suppressed hysteria which runs through the story of Britain’s relationship with Europe. It mattered desperately to get it right: here is the principal, and entirely honourable, motive which drove so many members of the Diplomatic Service to devote their careers and very considerable minds to the problem.
And yet, as Wall’s account brings out, brains were not enough to arrive at a solution. He starts in the Frick gallery in New York, staring at the Holbein portraits of Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.
Here are “the two sides of the schism that was the Reformation”: Cromwell “the piggy-eyed, clever thug”, versus a representative of European civilisation:
“More was a Renaissance scholar… He was the friend of the Dutch philosopher and scholar Erasmus. They both saw themselves as part of an international, and especially European, cultural and spiritual order: that of Christendom. For More, the son of a lawyer, and himself the most senior guardian and dispenser of the law in the England of his day, the Church and State were umbilically linked and the laws of God and the laws of Man had to be in harmony. When Henry VIII sundered that harmony by declaring himself Head of the Church and breaking from the authority of Rome he was not, in More’s eyes, simply rebelling from a pontiff who was more of a temporal ruler than a spiritual one. Henry’s action was, as More saw it, an assault on the very foundations on which the English state was built.”
Wall is descended rather wonderfully from Norman foot soldiers who settled in Derbyshire, where their name “gradually morphed from Du Val to Wall” and they became yeomen farmers.
His mother was a Catholic, he was brought up as a Catholic, and he points out that the EEC was “largely conceived by Catholic Christian Democrats”, who signed the Treaty of Rome on 25th March 1957, the Feast of the Annunciation:
“For Britain, on the other hand, the idea of a supranational authority – beyond the control of national parliaments – was, and remained, conceptually alien and politically nigh on impossible to contemplate. We live with that political reality to that day.”
Wall is too intelligent and fair-minded to suggest that all virtue lies on the European side of the divide. He describes how the six founding members of the EEC created, “in an act of pre-emptive and ruthless self-interest”, the Common Fisheries Policy, before the British, the Danes, the Norwegians and the Irish, all of whom had large stocks of fish, were allowed to join.
The budget was likewise rigged against the British, who found themselves paying for a system of agricultural support for French farmers, an injustice which took many years of haggling to put right.
In 1987, Julian Bullard, the British Ambassador in Bonn, wrote a dispatch to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which included the words:
“I would plead that at least more thought should be given to the style of British policy in Europe. The plain speaking of the House of Commons does not translate well into Continental languages, especially in countries that live by coalition and compromise.”
Over 30 years later, what Bullard said remains true. Abrasive language of the kind often heard in Westminster just doesn’t register in Germany: is politely discounted as simply not serious.
Yet if one adapts one’s tone to take account of German susceptibilities, one is liable to make no impact, and to lose one’s British audience.
Wall admits that Margaret Thatcher made a remarkable impact not only in Europe, especially in that part of the Continent still held by the Soviet Union, but in the United States:
“A visit to Washington by Prime Minister Jim Callaghan rated a few lines in The New York Times. The first visit of Thatcher as Prime Minister, for which I was the gofer late in 1979, dominated the headlines and the TV news. Her address to both Houses of Congress electrified the audience. I spent the first ten years of my Foreign Office career doing my bit to represent a country in visible decline: widely seen as the sick man of Europe. All that changed with Thatcher.”
Tony Blair emerges less well from this account than one might expect. He contributes a single, mendacious paragraph to his memoirs on the subject of joining the euro, is heard by Wall agreeing to misrepresent Jacques Chirac’s views about Saddam Hussein, fatefully promises a referendum on a new European treaty, and pretends that he shares the vision of the EU’s founders.
The moral of this admirable book is that forms of words, however carefully chosen, are not enough to bridge the divide that runs through Britain, and has done since the Reformation.
So although Wall says almost nothing about Boris Johnson, for whom he never worked, he does draw the impassable chasm into which any Prime Minister is in danger of tumbling: one to which the present occupant of Number Ten sometimes seems, with his carefree insistence that politics should be enjoyable, to be applying the wisdom of Count Sforza.


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Announcement by von der Leyen that Brexit talks to continue

“ Despite the fact deadlines have been missed over and over , we both think it is responsible to go @ @ @ @

“Despite the fact deadlines have been missed over and over, we both think it is responsible to go the extra mile”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says trade negotiations will continue
Latest: https://t.co/vJLY2y3qu1 pic.twitter.com/w7nfUDCx6S
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Martin – “It would be an appalling failure of statecraft” if there is No Deal

# Marr : Would you say that no trade deal between the UK and EU represents a failure of statecraft @ @ @ @

#Marr: Would you say that no trade deal between the UK and EU represents a failure of statecraft by both sides?
Irish PM Micheal Martin: “I would”#Brexit https://t.co/qvhGW845Bt pic.twitter.com/tKPRBc6Goh
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Raab says the EU has forced UK into this position

# Marr asks Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab about promises made during the EU referendum campaign 2016 on trade # Brexit @ @ @ @

#Marr asks Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab about promises made during the EU referendum campaign 2016 on trade#Brexit https://t.co/qvhGW845Bt pic.twitter.com/3oQO6zx6R2
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: “No Deal is a disastrous outcome for the country” – Miliband

“ No deal is a disastrous outcome for the country .
It ’ s not a wonderful outcome .
It @ @ @ @ @ frankly , that Boris Johnson said it , ” says Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband @ @ @ @ @ pic.twitter.com/PQoAww4Bnk

“No deal is a disastrous outcome for the country. It’s not a wonderful outcome. It’s a disgrace, frankly, that Boris Johnson said it,” says Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband#Brexit https://t.co/qvhGW845Bt pic.twitter.com/PQoAww4Bnk
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: The PM promised a deal would be done, says Reed

“ Economies are interdependent – it ’ s not a breach of sovereignty , it ’ s an exercise in @ @ @ @ @ Steve Reed says the prime minister promised that a deal would be done and he @ @ @ @ @ it.
# Ridge https : //t.co/TehEyLy2gd pic.twitter.com/I0WZvcYzLz

“Economies are interdependent – it’s not a breach of sovereignty, it’s an exercise in sovereignty.”
Shadow communities secretary Steve Reed says the prime minister promised that a deal would be done and he needs to get on with it.#Ridge https://t.co/TehEyLy2gd pic.twitter.com/I0WZvcYzLz
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Duncan Smith – EU’s “proposals are unacceptable to any sovereign nation”

The “ European Union is determined to stop ” the UK controlling its own laws , its own powers and @ @ @ @ @ Conservative leader @ MPIainDS and “ their proposals at the moment are unacceptable to any @ @ @ @ @ Ridge https : //t.co/TehEyLy2gd pic.twitter.com/3jLjOvHlfB

The “European Union is determined to stop” the UK controlling its own laws, its own powers and its own waters says former Conservative leader @MPIainDS and “their proposals at the moment are unacceptable to any sovereign nation”.#Ridge https://t.co/TehEyLy2gd pic.twitter.com/3jLjOvHlfB
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: “The French will have zero access to UK waters” – Raab

‘ If we leave with no deal , then the French will have zero access to UK waters.
’ Foreign @ @ @ @ @ ‘ enforce ’ the protection of UK waters for fishing if there is no deal @ @ @ @ @ Ridge https : //t.co/7PE4tPxTgG pic.twitter.com/msFhWDCpdp

‘If we leave with no deal, then the French will have zero access to UK waters.’
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab vows to ‘enforce’ the protection of UK waters for fishing if there is no deal with the European Union.#Ridge https://t.co/7PE4tPxTgG pic.twitter.com/msFhWDCpdp
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--The real deadline for the Brexit trade talks is December 31

You may well believe that if the Brexit trade talks aren ’ t going anywhere , it would be better for both parties to them to say so – and prepare fully for No Deal .
However , neither wants to take the blame for doing so .
So neither has so far been willing to move first , and say that the game is up .
Perhaps this will change today , but Boris Johnson knows that he can hang on for a while yet if he is minded to .
For the real deadline for the UK side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening , but December 31 .
According to some sources , it isn ’ t even as though Parliament needs by then to pass a Bill ratifying a treaty which proposes a deal ( whatever it might be ) .
Apparently , Johnson could declare a deal agreed on December 31 , according to this version of events , and put the agreement to Parliament shortly afterwards .
But unless we are viewing a conjuring trick both from our own Government and the EU , extra time looks unlikely to unlock agreement .

You may well believe that if the Brexit trade talks aren’t going anywhere, it would be better for both parties to them to say so – and prepare fully for No Deal.
However, neither wants to take the blame for doing so. So neither has so far been willing to move first, and say that the game is up.
Perhaps this will change today, but Boris Johnson knows that he can hang on for a while yet if he is minded to.
For the real deadline for the UK side of the table isn’t this evening, but December 31.
According to some sources, it isn’t even as though Parliament needs by then to pass a Bill ratifying a treaty which proposes a deal (whatever it might be).
Apparently, Johnson could declare a deal agreed on December 31, according to this version of events, and put the agreement to Parliament shortly afterwards.
But unless we are viewing a conjuring trick both from our own Government and the EU, extra time looks unlikely to unlock agreement.


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Johnson – “We shall continue to try…but what we can’t do is compromise on controlling our law

WATCH: Johnson – “We shall continue to try…but what we can’t do is compromise on controlling our laws”

PM Boris Johnson says `` we 're going to try with all our hearts and be as creative as we @ @ @ @ @ a trade deal with the EU But he says UK ca n't compromise on `` @ @ @ @ @ is about – us being able to control our laws '' https : //t.co/bRvZ5ZCzDg pic.twitter.com/TgrS2iwzsE

PM Boris Johnson says "we're going to try with all our hearts and be as creative as we possibly can" to agree a trade deal with the EU
But he says UK can't compromise on "fundamental nature of what Brexit is about – us being able to control our laws"https://t.co/bRvZ5ZCzDg pic.twitter.com/TgrS2iwzsE
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Von der Leyen says that the Brexit talks are to continue


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Raab says the EU has forced the UK’s response


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: The Prime Minister promised a deal would be done, says Reed


conservativehome--2020-12-13--WATCH: Duncan Smith – the EU’s “proposals are unacceptable to any sovereign nation”


conservativehome--2020-12-14--The biggest decision has already been taken. We have left the EU.  So let’s treat whatever comes nex

The biggest decision has already been taken. We have left the EU.  So let’s treat whatever comes next as an opportunity.

The EU is right .
If in future it changes its social laws and we don ’ t change ours ; and if then it slaps tariffs on our exports , and raises non-tariff barriers too , this in no way lessens our sovereignty .
We do what we like .
The EU does what it likes .
Brexit is uncompromised .
Having cleared that up , on to present obscurities .
The texts of a possible treaty , which some claim is “ 95 per cent done ” , haven ’ t been made public .
So few outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this site nor its readers , are able to pronounce authoritatively on exactly who or what is preventing agreement – assuming that disagreement is real , a supposition we ’ re inclined to make – or why .
Or whether a deal will have been agreed by December 31 , the real deadline .
Nonetheless , the general contours of the difference between the two sides of the table in this negotiation seem clear enough .
As far as can be seen , both accept a level playing field based on “ non-regression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither party should lower the social standard , as it were , that existed within both the UK and the EU on the day that Brexit took place .
But what happens if either side in future wish to raise that standard ?
The EU wants “ dynamic alignment ” .
The UK does not .
And they disagree on whether the non-binding Political Declaration includes commitments to it .
The EU reportedly wanted arbitration in the event of either the UK or the EU raising its social standard in future .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arbitration proposal , though other reports suggest that the Government is not opposed to arbitration per se – and indeed that a potential solution may now be taking shape .
At any rate , it is agreed that the EU then went further – proposing that it be entitled to respond unilaterally if it raised its own standard and the UK didn ’ t follow .
It is this change in approach that plunged the talks into their recent crisis , which has not been resolved as we write .
Did Emmanuel Macron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own domestic elections – and convinced that the UK would crack under pressure ?
Was Angela Merkel actually the key mover ?
Was it the Government ’ s declared intention to break international law that made the difference , inflaming EU fears of the unpredictability and waywardness of Boris Johnson ?
( And if so , why – given that the EU itself is , as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has pointed out , a “ serial abuser of international law ” ? )
Such are the most convincing explanations we have of how we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue of a level playing field – leaving the other main ones : state aid and fishing policy .
Fear on both sides is clearly a key factor .
The EU sees itself as offering the UK unique quota-free , tariff free access to its Single Market , and worries that we will get the best of both worlds – privileged access and lower standards .
As Catherine Barnard pointed out on this site last week , this reflects a curious lack of confidence in the coherence and power of the Single Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response that such an arrangement suits the EU just fine , since it runs a trade surplus with us , and is offering nothing on services .
And that the EU seems set on using its economic muscle to pressure us into becoming an imperial outpost rather than Global Britain .
This , by the way , suggests a point that runs in the opposite direction to Barnard ’ s .
If the UK is confident in its own trading future , why not simply take the hit from any EU reprisal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we think fit ?
Our answer is that the Government should not , repeat not , settle for accepting a proposal that is manifestly unfair – in other words , one that would give the EU the right first to change its social laws and then , were we not to follow suit , to decide for itself both the width , speed and depth of retaliatory measures .
Such would be the classic bad deal – and , as Theresa May ’ s original formulation rightly has it , No Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we don ’ t suggest for a moment that the consequences would be an easy ride .
In the long-term , what shapes a country ’ s economic future is its tax system , its spending control , its regulatory framework , the quality of its workforce , its education system , its capacity for innovation , its openness to investment , its relationship between labour and capital – and so on .
Not tariff and non-tariff barriers .
In the short-term , we are not so sanguine about the consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of No Deal , from an EU with which it has been merged for the best part of 50 years .
In other words , No Deal would present the likelihood of short-term pain ( the interplay with Covid ; shortages ; lower investment ; scraps over fishing ; damaged co-operation on crime and terrorism ) against that of long-term gain , if we get our economic framework right .
Nonetheless , No Deal also has the potential to cut both ways , as John Redwood suggests on this site this morning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pound could more than make up for the effect of tariffs .
Much will depend , if it happens , on how agile Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma are response .
Meanwhile , No Deal would hit our EU neighbours hard , too .
In particular , it would be a political and diplomatic defeat for Ireland , in the wake of its win in the Withdrawal Agreement over the land border .
In the first few days after No Deal , the Cabinet would rally round the Prime Minister ; so would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt , would ConHome ’ s panel of Party members .
The EU and , in particular , France would be blamed by the Tory press and many voters .
The effects wouldn ’ t simply spill over into fishing and the North Sea .
Potentially , they would menace the security co-operation of the only two substantial military powers in western Europe .
We are less sure of what would happen in week eleven than week one .
We would put money on the response of Tory members hardening , together with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we wouldn ’ t slap down a bet on all the Cabinet behaving in the same way .
The institutional interests of the Treasury and BEIS are against No Deal .
Michael Gove will be exposed if it happens , as the Cabinet Minister responsible for the UK ’ s response .
Our sense it that there would soon be stories of splits between Cabinet “ hawks ” and “ doves ” .
And Tory MPs , many of unfamiliar with normal Parliamentary proceedings and unprepared for unpopular decisions – how would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their constituents , the British people – and the clash between what David Goodhart has called the Anywheres , gainers from globalisation who identify with similar gainers abroad , and the Somewheres , who are less mobile , more rooted and have a stronger sense of national identity .
One point is certain .
We have decided to quit the EU twice over .
First in the 2016 referendum .
Then in the election of almost a year ago .
So in the event of No Deal , there will be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement of any significance is suggesting rejoining the EU ( which would now take place on less favourable terms than before . )
Which means that the best way of dealing with No Deal , if it has to happen , is to treat it less as a problem than as an opportunity .

The EU is right. If in future it changes its social laws and we don’t change ours; and if then it slaps tariffs on our exports, and raises non-tariff barriers too, this in no way lessens our sovereignty. We do what we like. The EU does what it likes. Brexit is uncompromised.
Having cleared that up, on to present obscurities. The texts of a possible treaty, which some claim is “95 per cent done”, haven’t been made public.
So few outside the negotiating room, and certainly neither this site nor its readers, are able to pronounce authoritatively on exactly who or what is preventing agreement – assuming that disagreement is real, a supposition we’re inclined to make – or why. Or whether a deal will have been agreed by December 31, the real deadline.
Nonetheless, the general contours of the difference between the two sides of the table in this negotiation seem clear enough.
As far as can be seen, both accept a level playing field based on “non-regression” – in other words, that neither party should lower the social standard, as it were, that existed within both the UK and the EU on the day that Brexit took place.
But what happens if either side in future wish to raise that standard? The EU wants “dynamic alignment”. The UK does not. And they disagree on whether the non-binding Political Declaration includes commitments to it.
The EU reportedly wanted arbitration in the event of either the UK or the EU raising its social standard in future. It seems that the UK resisted this particular arbitration proposal, though other reports suggest that the Government is not opposed to arbitration per se – and indeed that a potential solution may now be taking shape.
At any rate, it is agreed that the EU then went further – proposing that it be entitled to respond unilaterally if it raised its own standard and the UK didn’t follow. It is this change in approach that plunged the talks into their recent crisis, which has not been resolved as we write.
Did Emmanuel Macron raise the stakes, mindful of his own domestic elections – and convinced that the UK would crack under pressure? Was Angela Merkel actually the key mover?
Was it the Government’s declared intention to break international law that made the difference, inflaming EU fears of the unpredictability and waywardness of Boris Johnson? (And if so, why – given that the EU itself is, as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has pointed out, a “serial abuser of international law”?)
Such are the most convincing explanations we have of how we got where we are on the crucial issue of a level playing field – leaving the other main ones: state aid and fishing policy.
Fear on both sides is clearly a key factor. The EU sees itself as offering the UK unique quota-free, tariff free access to its Single Market, and worries that we will get the best of both worlds – privileged access and lower standards.
As Catherine Barnard pointed out on this site last week, this reflects a curious lack of confidence in the coherence and power of the Single Market.
Meanwhile, the UK would say in response that such an arrangement suits the EU just fine, since it runs a trade surplus with us, and is offering nothing on services. And that the EU seems set on using its economic muscle to pressure us into becoming an imperial outpost rather than Global Britain.
This, by the way, suggests a point that runs in the opposite direction to Barnard’s. If the UK is confident in its own trading future, why not simply take the hit from any EU reprisal measures, and use our new freedoms as we think fit?
Our answer is that the Government should not, repeat not, settle for accepting a proposal that is manifestly unfair – in other words, one that would give the EU the right first to change its social laws and then, were we not to follow suit, to decide for itself both the width, speed and depth of retaliatory measures.
Such would be the classic bad deal – and, as Theresa May’s original formulation rightly has it, No Deal is better than a bad deal. But we don’t suggest for a moment that the consequences would be an easy ride.
In the long-term, what shapes a country’s economic future is its tax system, its spending control, its regulatory framework, the quality of its workforce, its education system, its capacity for innovation, its openness to investment, its relationship between labour and capital – and so on. Not tariff and non-tariff barriers.
In the short-term, we are not so sanguine about the consequences of disentangling the UK, in the event of No Deal, from an EU with which it has been merged for the best part of 50 years.
In other words, No Deal would present the likelihood of short-term pain (the interplay with Covid; shortages; lower investment; scraps over fishing; damaged co-operation on crime and terrorism) against that of long-term gain, if we get our economic framework right.
Nonetheless, No Deal also has the potential to cut both ways, as John Redwood suggests on this site this morning. For example, a fall in the pound could more than make up for the effect of tariffs.
Much will depend, if it happens, on how agile Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma are response. Meanwhile, No Deal would hit our EU neighbours hard, too. In particular, it would be a political and diplomatic defeat for Ireland, in the wake of its win in the Withdrawal Agreement over the land border.
In the first few days after No Deal, the Cabinet would rally round the Prime Minister; so would Conservative MPs; so, beyond a doubt, would ConHome’s panel of Party members.
The EU and, in particular, France would be blamed by the Tory press and many voters. The effects wouldn’t simply spill over into fishing and the North Sea. Potentially, they would menace the security co-operation of the only two substantial military powers in western Europe.
We are less sure of what would happen in week eleven than week one. We would put money on the response of Tory members hardening, together with that of some Conservative MPs.
However, we wouldn’t slap down a bet on all the Cabinet behaving in the same way. The institutional interests of the Treasury and BEIS are against No Deal. Michael Gove will be exposed if it happens, as the Cabinet Minister responsible for the UK’s response.
Our sense it that there would soon be stories of splits between Cabinet “hawks” and “doves”. And Tory MPs, many of unfamiliar with normal Parliamentary proceedings and unprepared for unpopular decisions – how would they respond?
That would ultimately depend on their constituents, the British people – and the clash between what David Goodhart has called the Anywheres, gainers from globalisation who identify with similar gainers abroad, and the Somewheres, who are less mobile, more rooted and have a stronger sense of national identity.
One point is certain. We have decided to quit the EU twice over. First in the 2016 referendum. Then in the election of almost a year ago.
So in the event of No Deal, there will be no going back. No political party or movement of any significance is suggesting rejoining the EU (which would now take place on less favourable terms than before.) Which means that the best way of dealing with No Deal, if it has to happen, is to treat it less as a problem than as an opportunity.


conservativehome--2020-12-14--Neil O’Brien: How can we make the economy grow faster?

How can we make the economy grow faster ?
That ’ s going to be a big question in 2021 as we bounce back from an unprecedented recession , and start trying to make up lost ground .
There ’ s lots of things we need to look at .
Obviously the big questions are about whether we get an EU deal and how fast we recover from the virus .
But one of the other places to look is how we turn our savings into investments .
Rishi Sunak ’ s clearly interested .
Recent weeks have seen him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solvency II ( regulating insurance firms investments ) ; creating Long Term Asset Funds and extending a tax break to encourage investment .
During his first weeks as Chancellor , he mandated the Bank of England to work on “ the supply of productive finance , in all regions and nations of the UK ” to “ assist the Government ’ s levelling up agenda.
” They ’ re all welcome moves , because this is a huge issue for the UK .
One recent review noted that “ the proportion of UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly behind the US ” , and lots of start ups complain about access to finance .
From a macro point of view , Britain has long had a lower stock of capital than other similar countries – at least when it comes to tangible , physical stuff .
More machinery , better IT , more automation and stronger infrastructure would help us be more productive .
These are long-running challenges .
Previous attempts to address them include the Myners Review ( 2001 ) , Kay Review ( 2012 ) , and Patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ select committee reports .
So what might be getting in the way of successful matchmaking between opportunities and funding ?
Riskier , longer term investments have higher returns .
Pensions , banks and insurers face complex rules governing their investments , to control the share of their investments in such things .
In some cases , UK investors are putting less of their money into these growth areas than firms elsewhere .
As Anna Sweeney from the Bank of England notes , “ UK insurance companies only allocate around two per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a smaller share than many of their European peers.
” By reviewing regulations like Solvency II , as the Chancellor is , we could refine the rules to safely enable more growth , not least because it was designed to fit the EU as a whole , not tailored to each country .
We could also reshape regulations to make it easier to invest in long term funds .
That ’ s the thought behind the plan to create Long Term Asset Funds .
And on top of the regulations , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the Bank of England Financial Stability Report notes , the current industry norm is to value pensions ( a long term investment ) in ways that force them to behave like short term investors : “ Daily trading and pricing is also common practice for [ Defined Contribution ] schemes , which is another constraint on investment in illiquid assets.
” The Bank should be prepared to act radically : tackling these barriers could mean more money for long term investment and more in your pension because of it .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short termism .
Plenty of money is being piled into tech firms that have never turned a profit , so clearly there are investors out there prepared to wait and accept risk in the hope of a good return .
But there is a real problem , particularly for public companies .
It ’ s striking that privately owned companies invest somewhere between four to eight times more than public listed companies of the same size .
There ’ s long been concerns that relentless quarterly scrutiny of returns faced by public firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in R & D or entry into risky new markets means profits will be better today , but worse tomorrow .
But if your remuneration is based on your share price today , its tempting to go short term .
Managers agree there ’ s a problem : A survey of over 400 executives found three quarters would give up a project with a positive value in the longer term to smooth out earnings .
Investors agree too : in a CFA Institute survey of European investors 70 per cent said short-period evaluation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to long-term investing .
Two-thirds of members of the National Association of Pension Funds said investment mandates encouraged short-termism .
If the investment gap between public and private firms reflects short termism , the economic costs of it would be pretty huge .
As a paper by Andrew Haldane , the Bank of England ’ s Chief Economist and others , notes : “ the elimination of short-termism would then result in a level of output around 20 per cent higher than would otherwise be the case.
” That ’ s a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has led to two trends .
First , more and more public firms being taken private .
“ Public-to-private ” deals where publicly-traded firms are taken private , plus fewer public listings ( at least until this year ) , has been leading to “ de-equitisation ” .
Across the US , UK and Eurozone the number of public listed companies has declined .
But publicly listed firms remain a huge part of the economy , so if there is a short-termism problem there , it ’ s still going to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US new tech firms increasingly set up voting structures to keep founders in charge through dual-class share structures .
Mark Zuckerberg has special shares with ten times more votes than ordinary shares .
US firms like Google , Lyft , Pintrest and Snap use this kind of structure , allowed there since the 1980s .
But in the UK dual class structures aren ’ t able to get premium listings .
If this model particularly suits tech firms with hard to value intangible assets , perhaps that should change ?
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distortions is the differential taxation of debt and equity .
The fact that you can get tax relief on debt but not equity means firms load up on debt more than they otherwise would , and invest less overall .
The Institute for Fiscal Studies ’ landmark Mirlees Review suggested creating an “ Allowance for Corporate Equity ” to fix this .
But the cost to the Exchequer of such taxbreaks would be huge .
Alternatively , any rebalancing by reducing the tax relief on debt would probably have to grandfather this debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the assumption of relief .
It ’ s a very , very hard problem to crack , but that doesn ’ t mean a ( very ) long term solution is impossible .
The most common financing problems MPs hear about is bank lending to small businesses .
The problem ’ s a long running one .
The truth is that it ’ s a low-margin business for banks to analyse the finances of zillions of small firms , yet the provision of such loans has wider benefits to the economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have created a succession of bodies to support lending : from ICFC to 3i to the British Business Bank ( BBB ) we created in 2012 .
With the Bank of England predicting large numbers of unlisted firms will need to raise equity to grow ( given their post-pandemic debts ) , it ’ s encouraging to see the BBB now growing its role in providing equity too .
It ’ s a success story , and we should continue to support its growth .
As the economy bounces back next year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But there are also real opportunities to reform regulation and market structures to help money flow into new opportunities .
It ’ s a great place for the Chancellor to be looking to get growth going .

How can we make the economy grow faster? That’s going to be a big question in 2021 as we bounce back from an unprecedented recession, and start trying to make up lost ground.
There’s lots of things we need to look at. Obviously the big questions are about whether we get an EU deal and how fast we recover from the virus. But one of the other places to look is how we turn our savings into investments.
Rishi Sunak’s clearly interested. Recent weeks have seen him announcing a new infrastructure bank; reviewing Solvency II (regulating insurance firms investments); creating Long Term Asset Funds and extending a tax break to encourage investment. During his first weeks as Chancellor, he mandated the Bank of England to work on “the supply of productive finance, in all regions and nations of the UK” to “assist the Government’s levelling up agenda.”
They’re all welcome moves, because this is a huge issue for the UK.
One recent review noted that “the proportion of UK start-ups which scale into large businesses lags significantly behind the US”, and lots of start ups complain about access to finance. From a macro point of view, Britain has long had a lower stock of capital than other similar countries – at least when it comes to tangible, physical stuff. More machinery, better IT, more automation and stronger infrastructure would help us be more productive.
These are long-running challenges. Previous attempts to address them include the Myners Review (2001), Kay Review (2012), and Patient Capital Taskforce (2017) plus various select committee reports.
So what might be getting in the way of successful matchmaking between opportunities and funding?
1) Regulation and market structures
Riskier, longer term investments have higher returns. Pensions, banks and insurers face complex rules governing their investments, to control the share of their investments in such things.
In some cases, UK investors are putting less of their money into these growth areas than firms elsewhere. As Anna Sweeney from the Bank of England notes, “UK insurance companies only allocate around two per cent of their assets to unlisted equity. This is a smaller share than many of their European peers.”
By reviewing regulations like Solvency II, as the Chancellor is, we could refine the rules to safely enable more growth, not least because it was designed to fit the EU as a whole, not tailored to each country. We could also reshape regulations to make it easier to invest in long term funds. That’s the thought behind the plan to create Long Term Asset Funds.
And on top of the regulations, there might be related factors we could fix. As the Bank of England Financial Stability Report notes, the current industry norm is to value pensions (a long term investment) in ways that force them to behave like short term investors: “Daily trading and pricing is also common practice for [Defined Contribution] schemes, which is another constraint on investment in illiquid assets.”
The Bank should be prepared to act radically: tackling these barriers could mean more money for long term investment and more in your pension because of it.
(2) Public listed companies & short termism
We shouldn’t be too doomsterish about short termism. Plenty of money is being piled into tech firms that have never turned a profit, so clearly there are investors out there prepared to wait and accept risk in the hope of a good return.
But there is a real problem, particularly for public companies. It’s striking that privately owned companies invest somewhere between four to eight times more than public listed companies of the same size.
There’s long been concerns that relentless quarterly scrutiny of returns faced by public firms pushes managers towards short-termism: cutting investment in R&D or entry into risky new markets means profits will be better today, but worse tomorrow. But if your remuneration is based on your share price today, its tempting to go short term.
Managers agree there’s a problem: A survey of over 400 executives found three quarters would give up a project with a positive value in the longer term to smooth out earnings.
Investors agree too: in a CFA Institute survey of European investors 70 per cent said short-period evaluation cycles by asset owners are an impediment to long-term investing. Two-thirds of members of the National Association of Pension Funds said investment mandates encouraged short-termism.
If the investment gap between public and private firms using the best stock apps reflects short termism, the economic costs of it would be pretty huge. As a paper by Andrew Haldane, the Bank of England’s Chief Economist and others, notes: “the elimination of short-termism would then result in a level of output around 20 per cent higher than would otherwise be the case.” That’s a big number.
Trying to escape short termism has led to two trends.
First, more and more public firms being taken private. “Public-to-private” deals where publicly-traded firms are taken private, plus fewer public listings (at least until this year), has been leading to “de-equitisation”. Across the US, UK and Eurozone the number of public listed companies has declined. But publicly listed firms remain a huge part of the economy, so if there is a short-termism problem there, it’s still going to have a huge economic impact.
Second, in the US new tech firms increasingly set up voting structures to keep founders in charge through dual-class share structures. Mark Zuckerberg has special shares with ten times more votes than ordinary shares. US firms like Google, Lyft, Pintrest and Snap use this kind of structure, allowed there since the 1980s. But in the UK dual class structures aren’t able to get premium listings. If this model particularly suits tech firms with hard to value intangible assets, perhaps that should change?
3) Tax?
One of the biggest, but hardest to fix distortions is the differential taxation of debt and equity. The fact that you can get tax relief on debt but not equity means firms load up on debt more than they otherwise would, and invest less overall. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ landmark Mirlees Review suggested creating an “Allowance for Corporate Equity” to fix this.
But the cost to the Exchequer of such taxbreaks would be huge. Alternatively, any rebalancing by reducing the tax relief on debt would probably have to grandfather this debt somehow, as firms have borrowed heavily on the assumption of relief. It’s a very, very hard problem to crack, but that doesn’t mean a (very) long term solution is impossible.
4) Small business lending and equity
The most common financing problems MPs hear about is bank lending to small businesses. The problem’s a long running one.
The truth is that it’s a low-margin business for banks to analyse the finances of zillions of small firms, yet the provision of such loans has wider benefits to the economy. That’s why over decades governments have created a succession of bodies to support lending: from ICFC to 3i to the British Business Bank (BBB) we created in 2012. With the Bank of England predicting large numbers of unlisted firms will need to raise equity to grow (given their post-pandemic debts), it’s encouraging to see the BBB now growing its role in providing equity too. It’s a success story, and we should continue to support its growth.
As the economy bounces back next year, lots of firms will be in debt. But there are also real opportunities to reform regulation and market structures to help money flow into new opportunities. It’s a great place for the Chancellor to be looking to get growth going.


conservativehome--2020-12-14--Mark Shelford: Independent Police and Crime Commissioners are less accountable than party politician

Mark Shelford: Independent Police and Crime Commissioners are less accountable than party politicians

Mark Shelford is the Conservative candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset Bristol-born merchant , philanthropist , and slave-trader , Edward Colston , is not the only public figure to have fallen dramatically in public estimation in the West of England in recent months .
As his statue was toppled in June , Colston also brought crashing down with him the reputation of the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner , Sue Mountstevens .
It is quite a fall for Mountstevens , who was re-elected to her post as an independent in 2016 .
She is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across England and Wales .
Interestingly , two of the other three are from the West .
The police forces covering Gloucestershire and Dorset also have independents attempting to hold them to account .
The cry of “ keep politics out of policing ” resonated in parts of the country in 2012 but has been increasingly silent nationwide ever since .
In 2016 , seven independent PCCs were replaced by Conservatives and after the events of the last few weeks , attitudes here in the West of England are also shifting .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed .
An analysis of ONS statistics published earlier this year highlights areas with the lowest crime rates , across a wide range of offences .
These overwhelmingly have Conservatives in charge .
Avon and Somerset is listed just once as a good performer , under “ miscellaneous crime ” .
The idea that frontline policing should not be party political is beyond argument .
The police must enforce the law , and keep order , without fear or favour .
Ensuring police forces and their Chief Constables uphold this principle is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 PCCs in England and Wales , plus the Mayors of London and Greater Manchester , who fulfil the same role .
But in the West of England , while there is sympathy with the general sentiments expressed by those demonstrating in Bristol last June , attitudes towards how the police acted , and have policed large unlawful public gatherings since , are much less nuanced .
Most local people I speak to , from across the political spectrum , remain aghast at local police leaders ’ chosen approach .
Many hoped that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the force leadership would be at least questioned by the PCC .
Sadly , “ independent ” Mountstevens not only took no such action , she wholeheartedly endorsed the police leadership approach .
Not long after Colston ’ s fall , Mountstevens issued a rather extraordinary statement , which suggested that if there were enough protesters , if they appeared potentially violent , and if they were protesting against something deemed politically incorrect , the current Police and Crime Commissioner was more than happy for the police not to intervene .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that was the end of the matter .
Would a party politician have been able to make such a statement and then move on unchallenged ?
Now Mountstevens ’ newly-appointed deputy ( and conveniently for her , her former chief executive , John Smith ) is being lined up to stand for election as an independent to replace her when she steps down next May .
In what appears an overly-cosy relationship between the Avon and Somerset operational and political police offices , Smith ’ s appointment as deputy PCC was endorsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – on the face of it a peculiar blurring of the lines between operational independence and political oversight .
What will “ independent ” John Smith ’ s views be on holding the police to account , and how will voters know ?
What guarantee can there be that his independent views , whatever they are , will remain consistent , were he to be elected ?
What checks will there be , and from whom , to ensure this independent sticks to his campaign promises ?
And can residents be sure he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constable who recommended him for his current job ?
Contrast such an independent candidate with me , running as a Conservative .
Voters know what they will get from me on law and order – effectiveness and efficiency , support for frontline officers and putting the victims of crime first .
If there were any question of me deviating from that position , there would be plenty of people , not least in my own party , ready to haul me over the coals .
There is a democratic party structure which delivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independents have none of this to worry about .
Once elected , they can do as much , or as little , as they please .
In the past few months , I have met community groups , parish councils , MPs , and councillors of all parties and none , across this region .
As a former councillor myself , I know how important this direct contact is .
I have talked to hundreds of party members , alongside members of the general public and serving police officers .
A key role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice of the public .
My political links and experience would mean I ’ d have no choice but to be accountable to the public .
I couldn ’ t get away with avoiding public meetings or not responding to concerns raised by the public .
There is no way I , as a party politician , could retreat to a cosy cabal of advisers and cronies , even if I wanted to .
An independent PCC like Mountstevens or her prospective replacement , John Smith , is indeed independent of the day-to-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with , and especially Conservative politicians when it comes to law and order .
The public know we have to deliver .
It ’ s a leap into the dark with independents .
Across the West of England , the notion that those overseeing the local police should be ‘ independent ’ is an idea whose time has gone .
Roll on the PCC elections next May .
From what local residents are telling me , they can ’ t come soon enough .

Mark Shelford is the Conservative candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset
Bristol-born merchant, philanthropist, and slave-trader, Edward Colston, is not the only public figure to have fallen dramatically in public estimation in the West of England in recent months. As his statue was toppled in June, Colston also brought crashing down with him the reputation of the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner, Sue Mountstevens.
It is quite a fall for Mountstevens, who was re-elected to her post as an independent in 2016. She is one of only four remaining non-party PCCs across England and Wales. Interestingly, two of the other three are from the West. The police forces covering Gloucestershire and Dorset also have independents attempting to hold them to account.
The cry of “keep politics out of policing” resonated in parts of the country in 2012 but has been increasingly silent nationwide ever since. In 2016, seven independent PCCs were replaced by Conservatives and after the events of the last few weeks, attitudes here in the West of England are also shifting.
The limitations of Independent candidates are being increasingly exposed. An analysis of ONS statistics published earlier this year highlights areas with the lowest crime rates, across a wide range of offences. These overwhelmingly have Conservatives in charge. Avon and Somerset is listed just once as a good performer, under “miscellaneous crime”.
The idea that frontline policing should not be party political is beyond argument. The police must enforce the law, and keep order, without fear or favour. Ensuring police forces and their Chief Constables uphold this principle is an important part of the job for the 40 PCCs in England and Wales, plus the Mayors of London and Greater Manchester, who fulfil the same role.
But in the West of England, while there is sympathy with the general sentiments expressed by those demonstrating in Bristol last June, attitudes towards how the police acted, and have policed large unlawful public gatherings since, are much less nuanced. Most local people I speak to, from across the political spectrum, remain aghast at local police leaders’ chosen approach.
Many hoped that the relaxed attitude to keeping order taken by the force leadership would be at least questioned by the PCC. Sadly, “independent” Mountstevens not only took no such action, she wholeheartedly endorsed the police leadership approach. Not long after Colston’s fall, Mountstevens issued a rather extraordinary statement, which suggested that if there were enough protesters, if they appeared potentially violent, and if they were protesting against something deemed politically incorrect, the current Police and Crime Commissioner was more than happy for the police not to intervene. And, as an independent, for her, that was the end of the matter. Would a party politician have been able to make such a statement and then move on unchallenged?
Now Mountstevens’ newly-appointed deputy (and conveniently for her, her former chief executive, John Smith) is being lined up to stand for election as an independent to replace her when she steps down next May. In what appears an overly-cosy relationship between the Avon and Somerset operational and political police offices, Smith’s appointment as deputy PCC was endorsed in writing by the current Chief Constable – on the face of it a peculiar blurring of the lines between operational independence and political oversight.
What will “independent” John Smith’s views be on holding the police to account, and how will voters know? What guarantee can there be that his independent views, whatever they are, will remain consistent, were he to be elected? What checks will there be, and from whom, to ensure this independent sticks to his campaign promises? And can residents be sure he will exercise effective oversight of a Chief Constable who recommended him for his current job?
Contrast such an independent candidate with me, running as a Conservative. Voters know what they will get from me on law and order – effectiveness and efficiency, support for frontline officers and putting the victims of crime first. If there were any question of me deviating from that position, there would be plenty of people, not least in my own party, ready to haul me over the coals. There is a democratic party structure which delivers checks and balances and protects voters. Independents have none of this to worry about. Once elected, they can do as much, or as little, as they please.
In the past few months, I have met community groups, parish councils, MPs, and councillors of all parties and none, across this region. As a former councillor myself, I know how important this direct contact is. I have talked to hundreds of party members, alongside members of the general public and serving police officers. A key role of the PCC is to be the voice of the public. My political links and experience would mean I’d have no choice but to be accountable to the public. I couldn’t get away with avoiding public meetings or not responding to concerns raised by the public. There is no way I, as a party politician, could retreat to a cosy cabal of advisers and cronies, even if I wanted to.
An independent PCC like Mountstevens or her prospective replacement, John Smith, is indeed independent of the day-to-day scrutiny which any party politician has to deal with, and especially Conservative politicians when it comes to law and order. The public know we have to deliver. It’s a leap into the dark with independents.
Across the West of England, the notion that those overseeing the local police should be ‘independent’ is an idea whose time has gone. Roll on the PCC elections next May. From what local residents are telling me, they can’t come soon enough.