conservativehome--2020-07-29--The Union with Scotland is neither as weak nor as strong as it looks

As with Russia , the Union with Scotland is never as strong as it looks ; the Union with Scotland is never as weak as it looks .
Here are some parts that may add up to a whole .
• The union with Scotland is not as weak as it looks .
A poll showing a lead for independence is a single snapshot of a moving picture .
Debate in Scotland has not begun in earnest about the economic restructuring , with its higher taxes and lower spending , that leaving the UK as well as leaving the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scotland is not as strong as it looks .
The unionist side fought the 2014 independence referendum on the economy .
It won – but not overwhelmingly , and the EU referendum two years later proved that short-term economic arguments don ’ t necessarily prevail over longer-term cultural change .
• The Government insists that there will be no second independence referendum if the SNP sweeps the board in Scotland ’ s elections next year .
It would , wouldn ’ t it ?
But there will be no good solution in such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put the Union at risk .
But so would denying one if the SNP can then cast itself as a victim , and ratchet up its support during the run-up to the next general election .
• It is hard for those of us writing outside Scotland to understand fully the change that devolution has brought over more than 20 years – including a media focus there on Holyrood rather than Westminster , which can therefore feel a very long away away for Scottish voters .
• This distance is psychological as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are inextricably linked – magnified by the way in which the SNP has succeeded over a long period in projecting itself as a neither-left-nor-right national party .
The effect on the civil service , the press and civil society is pervasive .
• To give a single graphic and tellling example : Alex Salmond ’ s private life would have been public long ago if Scotland ’ s media had the same oppositional attitude to the SNP that the British media has to UK governments .
Its longstanding silence spoke eloquently .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole is shaped by first-past-the-post , which usually offers winner-takes-all outcomes at Westminster .
Its establishments have consequently not grasped the profound change that devolution has brought with it – for example , the devolved administrations will arguably have a major role in future trade deals and state aid decisions .
• This casts the question of how Boris Johnson ’ s Government will deal with them in an exacting light .
It can opt for co-operation – as with most pre-Brexit dealings with the EU , in which the devolved administrations participated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions in the Council of Ministers and the Commission .
• Or it can opt for confrontation – for example , by seeking to cut the Scottish Government out of post-Brexit UK decisions on trade , state aid , and the powers that will flow back to Britain when the UK leaves transition with or without a deal at the end of this year .
And minimise discussion with it about non-devolved competences and powers .
• The man leading for the Government as whole is Michael Gove , who chairs its Cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as chairing those that deal with Covid-19 operations and EU exit operations .
This is a colossal burden even for the Government ’ s most dexterous administrator .
• ConservativeHome wanted Gove to be Secretary of State for the Union , and this role is the next best thing .
To date , he has opted for a more confrontational posture though with continuing co-operative substance – a graphic example of the former being the Government ’ s decision to badge the new Shared Prosperity Fund in red , white and blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the UK has failed to project its spending in Scotland in the way that the EU used to project its own in the UK .
The Shared Prosperity Fund is a child of Brexit : our replacement for EU social funds .
Gove intends to let Scottish voters know that the money for it coming from Westminster .
• However , the fight for the Union with Scotland must be lead by Unionists in Scotland .
And no single figure has emerged on the Conservative side to fill the gap that Ruth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t standing for Holyrood next year , and though she remains highly politically aware she is not directly politically engaged .
• Senior Conservatives like to say that this Achilles will re-rampage from her tent in the event of a second referendum .
But her home is one thing and the Lords is another – and she is to go there if reports are correct .
We find it hard to see how it would provide a workable campaigning base for leadership in the event of a second referendum .
• Elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is relatively new to Westminster .
Jackson Carlaw isn ’ t Davidson ( a statement of the obvious ) .
Douglas Ross resigned as a Minister over Dominic Cummings .
Luke Graham , who lost his Ochil and South Perthshire seat last December , has gone to the Number Ten policy unit .
• But the Conservative problems in Scotland look fewer than Labour ’ s – at least in terms of visible leadership at Westminster .
Ian Murray , Labour ’ s Shadow Secretary of State , is an engaged Unionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force in Scotland remains the federalism-obsessed and committedly partisan figure of Gordon Brown .
• Keir Starmer must confront – or be confronted by – the same question that stumped Ed Miliband and menaced Jeremy Corbyn .
Namely , how to angle for SNP support at a general election if there is a hung Parliament without seeming to lash himself to Nicola Sturgeon ’ s coat-tails .
• Boris Johnson isn ’ t governing from Scotland and can ’ t compete with Sturgeon ’ s access to its voters .
But his recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , say , a new govenor of Imperial India arriving to tour the north-west frontier .
Despite the fearsome burden of the Coronavirus crisis , he and other UK Ministers who have a role there should be there more often : for example , Rishi Sunak could help to showcase UK spending .
• In the aftermath of the election , we floated 15 ways to Strengthen the Union , parts of which derived from the work of Policy Exchange , Jonathan Caine and David Shiels .
Gove is running with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand the key point : that UK Ministers must be actively engaged there .
• Finally , Unionists , especially pro-Brexit ones , won ’ t win by arguing that Scotland couldn ’ t hack it as an independent country .
The question here isn ’ t whether it could – but whether it is really up for the economic readjustment involved .
Elsewhere , an independent Scotland would have a sting in the tail for English nationalists .
• Namely , that a largely Conservative England would have to find new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That implies confronting the problem of how to devolve power in a centralised country with little political sense of regional identities – plus the additional knock-on issues for Wales and , particularly , Northern Ireland .

As with Russia, the Union with Scotland is never as strong as it looks; the Union with Scotland is never as weak as it looks. Here are some parts that may add up to a whole.
The union with Scotland is not as weak as it looks. A poll showing a lead for independence is a single snapshot of a moving picture. Debate in Scotland has not begun in earnest about the economic restructuring, with its higher taxes and lower spending, that leaving the UK as well as leaving the EU would provoke.
The union with Scotland is not as strong as it looks. The unionist side fought the 2014 independence referendum on the economy. It won – but not overwhelmingly, and the EU referendum two years later proved that short-term economic arguments don’t necessarily prevail over longer-term cultural change.
The Government insists that there will be no second independence referendum if the SNP sweeps the board in Scotland’s elections next year. It would, wouldn’t it? But there will be no good solution in such an event. Allowing a referendum would put the Union at risk. But so would denying one if the SNP can then cast itself as a victim, and ratchet up its support during the run-up to the next general election.
It is hard for those of us writing outside Scotland to understand fully the change that devolution has brought over more than 20 years – including a media focus there on Holyrood rather than Westminster, which can therefore feel a very long away away for Scottish voters.
This distance is psychological as well as political, because these two factors are inextricably linked – magnified by the way in which the SNP has succeeded over a long period in projecting itself as a neither-left-nor-right national party. The effect on the civil service, the press and civil society is pervasive.
To give a single graphic and tellling example: Alex Salmond’s private life would have been public long ago if Scotland’s media had the same oppositional attitude to the SNP that the British media has to UK governments. Its longstanding silence spoke eloquently.
The UK’s political culture as whole is shaped by first-past-the-post, which usually offers winner-takes-all outcomes at Westminster. Its establishments have consequently not grasped the profound change that devolution has brought with it – for example, the devolved administrations will arguably have a major role in future trade deals and state aid decisions.
This casts the question of how Boris Johnson’s Government will deal with them in an exacting light. It can opt for co-operation – as with most pre-Brexit dealings with the EU, in which the devolved administrations participated, though at one remove, in discussions in the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
Or it can opt for confrontation – for example, by seeking to cut the Scottish Government out of post-Brexit UK decisions on trade, state aid, and the powers that will flow back to Britain when the UK leaves transition with or without a deal at the end of this year. And minimise discussion with it about non-devolved competences and powers.
The man leading for the Government as whole is Michael Gove, who chairs its Cabinet committee on Union policy implementation – as well as chairing those that deal with Covid-19 operations and EU exit operations. This is a colossal burden even for the Government’s most dexterous administrator.
ConservativeHome wanted Gove to be Secretary of State for the Union, and this role is the next best thing. To date, he has opted for a more confrontational posture though with continuing co-operative substance – a graphic example of the former being the Government’s decision to badge the new Shared Prosperity Fund in red, white and blue.
A long-standing complaint among Unionists is the UK has failed to project its spending in Scotland in the way that the EU used to project its own in the UK. The Shared Prosperity Fund is a child of Brexit: our replacement for EU social funds. Gove intends to let Scottish voters know that the money for it coming from Westminster.
However, the fight for the Union with Scotland must be lead by Unionists in Scotland. And no single figure has emerged on the Conservative side to fill the gap that Ruth Davidson has left. She isn’t standing for Holyrood next year, and though she remains highly politically aware she is not directly politically engaged.
Senior Conservatives like to say that this Achilles will re-rampage from her tent in the event of a second referendum. But her home is one thing and the Lords is another – and she is to go there if reports are correct. We find it hard to see how it would provide a workable campaigning base for leadership in the event of a second referendum.
Elsewhere, Alister Jack, the pro-Brexit Scottish Secretary, is relatively new to Westminster. Jackson Carlaw isn’t Davidson (a statement of the obvious). Douglas Ross resigned as a Minister over Dominic Cummings. Luke Graham, who lost his Ochil and South Perthshire seat last December, has gone to the Number Ten policy unit.
But the Conservative problems in Scotland look fewer than Labour’s – at least in terms of visible leadership at Westminster. Ian Murray, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State, is an engaged Unionist. But the most senior pro-Union Labour force in Scotland remains the federalism-obsessed and committedly partisan figure of Gordon Brown.
Keir Starmer must confront – or be confronted by – the same question that stumped Ed Miliband and menaced Jeremy Corbyn. Namely, how to angle for SNP support at a general election if there is a hung Parliament without seeming to lash himself to Nicola Sturgeon’s coat-tails.
Boris Johnson isn’t governing from Scotland and can’t compete with Sturgeon’s access to its voters. But his recent visit was reported almost as though he were, say, a new govenor of Imperial India arriving to tour the north-west frontier. Despite the fearsome burden of the Coronavirus crisis, he and other UK Ministers who have a role there should be there more often: for example, Rishi Sunak could help to showcase UK spending.
In the aftermath of the election, we floated 15 ways to Strengthen the Union, parts of which derived from the work of Policy Exchange, Jonathan Caine and David Shiels. Gove is running with some of them, and the Government seems to understand the key point: that UK Ministers must be actively engaged there.
Finally, Unionists, especially pro-Brexit ones, won’t win by arguing that Scotland couldn’t hack it as an independent country. The question here isn’t whether it could – but whether it is really up for the economic readjustment involved. Elsewhere, an independent Scotland would have a sting in the tail for English nationalists.
Namely, that a largely Conservative England would have to find new ways of accomodating its non-Tory voting parts. That implies confronting the problem of how to devolve power in a centralised country with little political sense of regional identities – plus the additional knock-on issues for Wales and, particularly, Northern Ireland.


conservativehome--2020-07-29--Robert Halfon: Do Twitter’s bosses believe that anti-semitism is worth indulging for profit?

What is the difference between Radio des Mille Collines and Twitter ?
Radio des Mille Collines ( RDMC ) was a radio station that broadcast in Rwanda between 1993 and 1994 .
One of its founders ( and primary funder ) was businessman , Felcien Kabuga , who was recently arrested in France for alleged war crimes against the Rwandan Tutsi population in 1994 .
One million – predominantly Tutsi – Rwandans were killed over three months in a genocide that shocked the world .
In the summers of 2008 and 2009 , I spent time teaching in Rwanda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Umabano .
What I learnt and saw first-hand in that country will haunt me for the rest of my life .
The Tutsi people were , first , systematically demonised , then , marginalised and , finally , murdered .
As so often in human history , the Free World stood by and let it happen .
In part , what made the mass-slaughter humanly possible were the activities of the RDMC .
Listened to by millions , the station would broadcast regular propaganda against the Tutsis , notably describing them as , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desensitise ’ the Hutu population in terms of the killings they would go on to carry out .
I thought of Radio des Mille Collines on Monday this week as , for the first time since joining Twitter in 2009 , I began a 48-hour boycott in solidarity with Jewish groups , Jews in public life , the former Chief Rabbi and supportive friends .
As RDMC showed , the power of broadcasting – whether it be social media , TV or radio – can , at worst , facilitate a genocide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage with it , so much so that they no longer see racial hatred as an offence , but merely part of everyday parlance .
Clearly , Jack Dorsey is not Felicien Kabuga .
Nor is Twitter as an organisation encouraging genocide .
But was RDMC the early equivalent of Twitter for the Hutu militia ?
Whilst the Hutus may not have had the internet , they did have access to pocket radio .
They were able to switch on and hear ‘ ordinary ’ folk call in to tell their stories about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cockroach ” population .
Was the ability of the RDMC to spread evil and hatred any different to some of the vile Tweets that anti-Semites write on Twitter , seemingly with both impunity and immunity ?
In essence , the question to be asked is whether Twitter has created a safe haven to spread hatred of Jewish people ?
What I have never understood from some of these social media websites is why the onus is always on the victim to report abuse .
Why is it that the advanced algorithms do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it is reported , especially when it comes to anti-semitism , rarely is it followed through .
At the time of writing this article for ConservativeHome , despite reporting an anti-semitic tweet a week or so ago , it has still not been removed .
This inaction – as exemplified in the case of Wiley , the rapper who wrote anti-semitic tweets last week , which are still up as I write -is why so many good people have decided to stage a 48-hour boycott of Twitter .
Often , Twitter goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dealing with extremism , yet when it comes to specific and regular instances of anti-Semitism , the social media site appears to turn a blind eye .
Why does all this matter ?
In February , the Jewish Community Security Trust reported that anti-Semitic incidents were at an all-time high , with 1,805 cases recorded in 2019 .
Online anti-Semitism made up the greatest proportion of abuse , at 39 per cent , with the vast majority taking place on Twitter .
Perhaps the management of Twitter just don ’ t care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Why should a few upset Jews upset its golden applecart ?
As far as I am aware , none of us Twitter boycotters have left Twitter for good .
I will still use the social media site as , on balance , it is more useful than not .
But , I have a very different opinion of Twitter from a few years ago , when I thought the social media site was a genuine benefit to mediakind .
There might come a time that this 48-hour boycott – a chip of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may become an avalanche .
Millions of decent people may decide that Twitter is no longer worth the candle .
I think that time could be nearer than we think .
Michael Gove , in the past , described countries that treat their Jewish citizens well , as being the countries in history that were most liberal , enlightened , democratic and having deep respect for the rule of law .
In the same way , perhaps , we can judge the enlightenment of social media sites by the way they genuinely – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be – work to combat anti-Semitism .
P.S .
Readers may be interested in this article I wrote on the Rwandan genocide in August 2008 for ConservativeHome : “ How Bergen Belsen came to the hills of Rwanda ” .

What is the difference between Radio des Mille Collines and Twitter?
Radio des Mille Collines (RDMC) was a radio station that broadcast in Rwanda between 1993 and 1994. One of its founders (and primary funder) was businessman, Felcien Kabuga, who was recently arrested in France for alleged war crimes against the Rwandan Tutsi population in 1994. One million – predominantly Tutsi – Rwandans were killed over three months in a genocide that shocked the world. In the summers of 2008 and 2009, I spent time teaching in Rwanda, as part of the Andrew Mitchell-led Project Umabano.
What I learnt and saw first-hand in that country will haunt me for the rest of my life. The Tutsi people were, first, systematically demonised, then, marginalised and, finally, murdered. As so often in human history, the Free World stood by and let it happen.
In part, what made the mass-slaughter humanly possible were the activities of the RDMC. Listened to by millions, the station would broadcast regular propaganda against the Tutsis, notably describing them as, “cockroaches”. It helped ‘desensitise’ the Hutu population in terms of the killings they would go on to carry out.
I thought of Radio des Mille Collines on Monday this week as, for the first time since joining Twitter in 2009, I began a 48-hour boycott in solidarity with Jewish groups, Jews in public life, the former Chief Rabbi and supportive friends.
As RDMC showed, the power of broadcasting – whether it be social media, TV or radio – can, at worst, facilitate a genocide. At best, it desensitises those who engage with it, so much so that they no longer see racial hatred as an offence, but merely part of everyday parlance.
Clearly, Jack Dorsey is not Felicien Kabuga. Nor is Twitter as an organisation encouraging genocide.
But was RDMC the early equivalent of Twitter for the Hutu militia? Whilst the Hutus may not have had the internet, they did have access to pocket radio. They were able to switch on and hear ‘ordinary’ folk call in to tell their stories about the so-called horrific actions of the Tutsi “cockroach” population.
Was the ability of the RDMC to spread evil and hatred any different to some of the vile Tweets that anti-Semites write on Twitter, seemingly with both impunity and immunity?
In essence, the question to be asked is whether Twitter has created a safe haven to spread hatred of Jewish people? What I have never understood from some of these social media websites is why the onus is always on the victim to report abuse. Why is it that the advanced algorithms do not pick this up? Moreover, when it is reported, especially when it comes to anti-semitism, rarely is it followed through.
At the time of writing this article for ConservativeHome, despite reporting an anti-semitic tweet a week or so ago, it has still not been removed. This inaction – as exemplified in the case of Wiley, the rapper who wrote anti-semitic tweets last week, which are still up as I write -is why so many good people have decided to stage a 48-hour boycott of Twitter.
Often, Twitter goes after the big high-profile cases in terms of dealing with extremism, yet when it comes to specific and regular instances of anti-Semitism, the social media site appears to turn a blind eye.
Why does all this matter? In February, the Jewish Community Security Trust reported that anti-Semitic incidents were at an all-time high, with 1,805 cases recorded in 2019. Online anti-Semitism made up the greatest proportion of abuse, at 39 per cent, with the vast majority taking place on Twitter.
Perhaps the management of Twitter just don’t care because they are making so much money? Why should a few upset Jews upset its golden applecart?
As far as I am aware, none of us Twitter boycotters have left Twitter for good. I will still use the social media site as, on balance, it is more useful than not. But, I have a very different opinion of Twitter from a few years ago, when I thought the social media site was a genuine benefit to mediakind. There might come a time that this 48-hour boycott – a chip of ice, slipping down the mountain – may become an avalanche. Millions of decent people may decide that Twitter is no longer worth the candle. I think that time could be nearer than we think.
Michael Gove, in the past, described countries that treat their Jewish citizens well, as being the countries in history that were most liberal, enlightened, democratic and having deep respect for the rule of law. In the same way, perhaps, we can judge the enlightenment of social media sites by the way they genuinely – or not, as the case may be – work to combat anti-Semitism.
P.S. Readers may be interested in this article I wrote on the Rwandan genocide in August 2008 for ConservativeHome: “How Bergen Belsen came to the hills of Rwanda”.


conservativehome--2020-07-29--Darren Grimes: “Hey folks, eat out and spend more – no, not you, fatty. And here’s a new tax for you

Darren Grimes: “Hey folks, eat out and spend more – no, not you, fatty. And here’s a new tax for you, consumer-friendly online retailer.”

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
“ C ’ mon folks , Dine Out To Help Out at the taxpayer ’ s expense , feast like a Bourbon King to help Britain ’ s hospitality sector… !
“ C ’ mon folks , get splashing the cash on retail to get the economy moving again and speed up our economic recovery… !
” “ …Online retailer ?
Not you , I think you ’ ve caused quite enough trouble on our high streets , ta very much.
” It used to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked in the think tank world and would see article after article from left-wing columnists about the so-called influence that think tanks have upon influencing and shaping the Conservative Party and government policy .
They do , of course , achieve way beyond their size and numbers – but with HS2 still going ahead , strict new junk food rules that ban pre-9pm , advertisements and a proposed online sales tax , if there is a think tank playing the role of puppet master , it certain ; y isn ’ t one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumer .
By nature Conservatives , especially the rank and file membership , are wary of taxes , and are therefore unsympathetic to tax rises .
They tend to think that people spend their own money more wisely than the Government spends it .
They regard taxes as an unfortunate necessity , because some things , such as defence , law and order , foreign policy , and some parts of care for those needing to be caught by society ’ s safety net have to be handled collectively .
Polling carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveals this to be the case beyond the Conservative Party ’ s card carriers .
There is popular support for reducing taxes after the lockdown to help boost the economy and jobs – with young people the most supportive of tax cuts after the lockdown .
You can understand why : they might not be casualties of Covid-19 , but they have disproportionately suffered from the economic response to the disease .
Young people who are trying to enter the workforce might well experience long-run lost earnings too .
I have two brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ younger than I am at the ripe old age of 27 ; both struggling to find employment as many receive their P45 ; both wondering what their post-Covidtax future will look like , and both desperate for the experience that only gainful employment can offer .
We should be doing all they can to ensure that young people like them , in those highly-targeted former Red Wall areas and beyond , are offered the best possible chance to get back into work as quickly as possible .
That ’ s why I find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party seems to be doing all it can to kick consumers and businesses whilst they ’ re down .
It ’ s those consumers and employers that we need to be helping to secure precious economic growth , and to regain those record levels of employment that we recently enjoyed and benefited from .
We should have a laser-like focus on reducing the tax burden on enterprises , supporting housing reform , improving accessibility to childcare and championing trade over vested interests – instead of waxing lyrical about how fat Britain is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all we need to get us off of our bottoms and away from our calorific excesses .
It really is quite something to see the Prime Minister , who once railed against paternalistic Toryism , becoming the champion of it – only days before the Government offers a taxpayer bung to encourage us all to stuff our faces to support British hospitality .
The proposals for taxes on online goods also don ’ t make any sense .
At a time when many had no other choice but to shop online , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get passed on to workers and consumers .
They would make it much more difficult to sign a trade agreement with our American allies , are not what we should be doing at this unfrozen Brexit moment and will do nothing to alleviate the burden our consumers and high streets are facing .
The solution to solving the issues our brick and mortar stores face will not be solved through clobbering online shoppers .
The question that it ’ s about time Her Majesty ’ s Treasury should ask itself would be : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost growth and jobs ?
” The answer is the taxes that discourage employment – such as National Insurance .
We should reduce Corporation Tax , not by cutting the rate , but by allowing businesses to deduct the full cost of expenses they incur in the year that they incur them .
In general , we should reduce or eliminate the taxes that discourage enterprise , employment and expansion – God knows , my younger brothers and millions like them could do with the helping hand .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.
“C’mon folks, Dine Out To Help Out at the taxpayer’s expense, feast like a Bourbon King to help Britain’s hospitality sector…!
“…Except you, fatty!”
“C’mon folks, get splashing the cash on retail to get the economy moving again and speed up our economic recovery…!”
“…Online retailer? Not you, I think you’ve caused quite enough trouble on our high streets, ta very much.”
It used to be a source of much hilarity when I worked in the think tank world and would see article after article from left-wing columnists about the so-called influence that think tanks have upon influencing and shaping the Conservative Party and government policy.
They do, of course, achieve way beyond their size and numbers – but with HS2 still going ahead, strict new junk food rules that ban pre-9pm, advertisements and a proposed online sales tax, if there is a think tank playing the role of puppet master, it certain;y isn’t one on the side of business and the consumer.
By nature Conservatives, especially the rank and file membership, are wary of taxes, and are therefore unsympathetic to tax rises. They tend to think that people spend their own money more wisely than the Government spends it.
They regard taxes as an unfortunate necessity, because some things, such as defence, law and order, foreign policy, and some parts of care for those needing to be caught by society’s safety net have to be handled collectively.
Polling carried out by Survation for the Adam Smith Institute reveals this to be the case beyond the Conservative Party’s card carriers. There is popular support for reducing taxes after the lockdown to help boost the economy and jobs – with young people the most supportive of tax cuts after the lockdown. You can understand why: they might not be casualties of Covid-19, but they have disproportionately suffered from the economic response to the disease. Young people who are trying to enter the workforce might well experience long-run lost earnings too.
I have two brothers back home in County Durham, both younger than I am at the ripe old age of 27; both struggling to find employment as many receive their P45; both wondering what their post-Covidtax future will look like, and both desperate for the experience that only gainful employment can offer.
We should be doing all they can to ensure that young people like them, in those highly-targeted former Red Wall areas and beyond, are offered the best possible chance to get back into work as quickly as possible.
That’s why I find it completely and utterly baffling that the Conservative Party seems to be doing all it can to kick consumers and businesses whilst they’re down. It’s those consumers and employers that we need to be helping to secure precious economic growth, and to regain those record levels of employment that we recently enjoyed and benefited from.
We should have a laser-like focus on reducing the tax burden on enterprises, supporting housing reform, improving accessibility to childcare and championing trade over vested interests – instead of waxing lyrical about how fat Britain is and how one extra dose of nannying is all we need to get us off of our bottoms and away from our calorific excesses.
It really is quite something to see the Prime Minister, who once railed against paternalistic Toryism, becoming the champion of it – only days before the Government offers a taxpayer bung to encourage us all to stuff our faces to support British hospitality.
The proposals for taxes on online goods also don’t make any sense. At a time when many had no other choice but to shop online, these are taxes that are likely to get passed on to workers and consumers. They would make it much more difficult to sign a trade agreement with our American allies, are not what we should be doing at this unfrozen Brexit moment and will do nothing to alleviate the burden our consumers and high streets are facing. The solution to solving the issues our brick and mortar stores face will not be solved through clobbering online shoppers.
The question that it’s about time Her Majesty’s Treasury should ask itself would be: “which taxes should we cut to boost growth and jobs?” The answer is the taxes that discourage employment – such as National Insurance. We should reduce Corporation Tax, not by cutting the rate, but by allowing businesses to deduct the full cost of expenses they incur in the year that they incur them. In general, we should reduce or eliminate the taxes that discourage enterprise, employment and expansion – God knows, my younger brothers and millions like them could do with the helping hand.


conservativehome--2020-07-29--Simon Kaye: The scale of the community and voluntary response to the pandemic has been a wake up cal

Simon Kaye: The scale of the community and voluntary response to the pandemic has been a wake up call

Simon Kaye is a Senior Policy Researcher at the New Local Government Network .
We live – as we ’ re constantly told – in turbulent times .
Even before the arrival of a new viral pandemic and months of self-induced economic coma , changes were clearly on the horizon .
Politically polarised culture war , drastic and unpredicted shake-ups of the UK ’ s constitutional status quo , the slowly-boiling-frog feeling of technological progress , environmental degradation , collapsing faith in democratic institutions , and ever-growing , ever-more-complex demands on public services .
But this turbulence also creates a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency has highlighted a structurally different way of approaching the most serious challenges we face .
The thousands of mutual aid groups that have emerged in the last few months – the subject of our new report at NLGN – reflect a general rise in neighbourliness , community cohesion , and attachment to place .
While this is an effect visible almost everywhere affected by the pandemic , there is evidence to suggest that Britain has experienced this effect in a more pronounced way than everywhere else .
Perhaps this is because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The UK is , by many measures , one of the most centralised countries in the world .
This was never more visible than in the systematic failure of the centre to respond to the pandemic – with over-centralisation ruining our efforts to set up test-and-trace systems , create useful tracking apps , and work effectively with facilities and resources not under direct government control .
While the current government seems to be alive to the pressing need for modernisation and streamlining at the crowded centre of Whitehall , there had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and decentralisation agenda which could genuinely ‘ level-up ’ regional economies and give people a real sense of ‘ taking back control ’ .
Little interest , that is , until now .
The scale of the community and voluntary response to the pandemic may have just about served as the wake up call that the centre needs .
The Prime Minister has called for new proposals to support and sustain the community response that we have seen as the country turns toward recovery .
There are lessons aplenty in our report on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of people spontaneously responded to the crisis by supporting their shielding and vulnerable neighbours , sometimes by meeting essential needs for food and medicine , and at other times in a surprisingly sophisticated way that addressed welfare issues too .
Our research revealed an extraordinary diversity of approaches and experiences .
In many places mutual aid was the only thing that made the government ’ s ‘ shielding ’ policy at all workable .
Mutual aid groups show an appetite for self-governance and localism that many thought to be extinct in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to invest time in the places they live and the people they live near , and improve their lives independently of the state .
Many of the groups we spoke to expressed a desire to sustain their newfound local cohesion and spirit of friendly collaboration after the end of the crisis .
Our research shows that the success of these groups often hinged on the special circumstances of the current emergency .
This means that , for community action of this sort to continue , ways must be found to create space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and citizen-driven activity at the neighbourhood level .
So how can this be done ?
First – embrace the role of local government .
In the best cases we observed , councils offered expertise , resources and spaces for mutual aid groups to thrive .
They also stood out of the way and allowed these groups the freedom to respond quickly and on their own terms .
We suggest that councils work to build up the skills , tools , and culture they need to help facilitate and empower community groups in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should go without saying that councils will need to be properly resourced if they are to do this important work .
Second , and just as importantly , create the time for people to be better neighbours .
In many places the conditions for these groups ’ strength was created by the free time of working-age people who were furloughed or otherwise found they had little work to do .
We think it would be appropriate to incentivise employers to allow more free and flexible time for employees – perhaps specifically earmarked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time on being good neighbours .
Normalising a shorter and more flexible working week , introducing new bank holidays , and increasing statutory holiday time could all help , too .
We don ’ t long for permanent economic lockdown , of course , but the mutual aid phenomenon does demonstrate that many people will use their free time in extraordinarily productive and pro-social ways .
As the economy fires up again , this free time is likely to evaporate – but the needs that the mutual aid groups are meeting will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures would help begin the work of building up the resilience and fortitude of our communities , and even help replace dependence on top-down systems with meaningful localism and autonomy .
We owe it to ourselves to find a very different starting-point before the next big challenge arrives .

Simon Kaye is a Senior Policy Researcher at the New Local Government Network.
We live – as we’re constantly told – in turbulent times.
Even before the arrival of a new viral pandemic and months of self-induced economic coma, changes were clearly on the horizon. Politically polarised culture war, drastic and unpredicted shake-ups of the UK’s constitutional status quo, the slowly-boiling-frog feeling of technological progress, environmental degradation, collapsing faith in democratic institutions, and ever-growing, ever-more-complex demands on public services.
But this turbulence also creates a moment of radical possibility.
The COVID-19 emergency has highlighted a structurally different way of approaching the most serious challenges we face. The thousands of mutual aid groups that have emerged in the last few months – the subject of our new report at NLGN – reflect a general rise in neighbourliness, community cohesion, and attachment to place.
While this is an effect visible almost everywhere affected by the pandemic, there is evidence to suggest that Britain has experienced this effect in a more pronounced way than everywhere else. Perhaps this is because we are measuring from such a low starting-point. The UK is, by many measures, one of the most centralised countries in the world. This was never more visible than in the systematic failure of the centre to respond to the pandemic – with over-centralisation ruining our efforts to set up test-and-trace systems, create useful tracking apps, and work effectively with facilities and resources not under direct government control.
While the current government seems to be alive to the pressing need for modernisation and streamlining at the crowded centre of Whitehall, there had been very little interest in a meaningful devolution and decentralisation agenda which could genuinely ‘level-up’ regional economies and give people a real sense of ‘taking back control’.
Little interest, that is, until now. The scale of the community and voluntary response to the pandemic may have just about served as the wake up call that the centre needs. The Prime Minister has called for new proposals to support and sustain the community response that we have seen as the country turns toward recovery.
There are lessons aplenty in our report on the new mutual aid groups, where thousands of people spontaneously responded to the crisis by supporting their shielding and vulnerable neighbours, sometimes by meeting essential needs for food and medicine, and at other times in a surprisingly sophisticated way that addressed welfare issues too. Our research revealed an extraordinary diversity of approaches and experiences. In many places mutual aid was the only thing that made the government’s ‘shielding’ policy at all workable.
Mutual aid groups show an appetite for self-governance and localism that many thought to be extinct in the UK. They represent a way for people to invest time in the places they live and the people they live near, and improve their lives independently of the state. Many of the groups we spoke to expressed a desire to sustain their newfound local cohesion and spirit of friendly collaboration after the end of the crisis.
Our research shows that the success of these groups often hinged on the special circumstances of the current emergency. This means that, for community action of this sort to continue, ways must be found to create space for the flourishing of flexible, autonomous, and citizen-driven activity at the neighbourhood level.
So how can this be done?
First – embrace the role of local government. In the best cases we observed, councils offered expertise, resources and spaces for mutual aid groups to thrive. They also stood out of the way and allowed these groups the freedom to respond quickly and on their own terms. We suggest that councils work to build up the skills, tools, and culture they need to help facilitate and empower community groups in the future. Of course, it should go without saying that councils will need to be properly resourced if they are to do this important work.
Second, and just as importantly, create the time for people to be better neighbours.
In many places the conditions for these groups’ strength was created by the free time of working-age people who were furloughed or otherwise found they had little work to do. We think it would be appropriate to incentivise employers to allow more free and flexible time for employees – perhaps specifically earmarked for community engagement – so they can spend that time on being good neighbours. Normalising a shorter and more flexible working week, introducing new bank holidays, and increasing statutory holiday time could all help, too.
We don’t long for permanent economic lockdown, of course, but the mutual aid phenomenon does demonstrate that many people will use their free time in extraordinarily productive and pro-social ways. As the economy fires up again, this free time is likely to evaporate – but the needs that the mutual aid groups are meeting will not fade nearly as fast.
Such measures would help begin the work of building up the resilience and fortitude of our communities, and even help replace dependence on top-down systems with meaningful localism and autonomy. We owe it to ourselves to find a very different starting-point before the next big challenge arrives.


conservativehome--2020-07-29--Ben Roback: Trump’s facing an uphill battle to convince voters he’s the man to bring the US out of t

Ben Roback: Trump’s facing an uphill battle to convince voters he’s the man to bring the US out of the pandemic

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
There are now fewer than 100 days to go until the November 3rd election .
Donald Trump and Joe Biden will invariably describe it as the most important election in a generation , in the same way that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton did in 2016 .
This time around , the candidates might be right .
The challenges facing the next leader of the free world are stark .
A global health pandemic that continues to ravage the United States ; a rampant China and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrest that is bubbling over now after decades of suppression ; an increasingly angry population split more than ever by political anger and culture wars over age-old issues like abortion and LGBT rights and newer dividing lines like monuments and masks .
In that respect , whilst the job for the next President of the United States is daunting , the opportunities are vast .
To try and bring the country together is the immediate task for the victor come November .
To rally the nation behind a domestic and international strategy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great challenge .
With under 100 days until the election , there are three major trends to look out for : A ‘ new Trump ’ or the same old ways ?
The President is facing an uphill battle to convince voters that he is the man to bring the United States out of the Coronavirus pandemic – evidenced by the firing of Brad Parscale , the President ’ s election campaign manager .
In simpler terms , you don ’ t sack Jurgen Klopp if his side are top of the Premier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition from the White House that their re-election campaign was stuttering .
Instead , Bill Stepien , a field director for the 2016 Trump campaign , is tasked with plotting a path to re-election .
Since Stepien ’ s tenure began , we have seen hints of a different side to the President on COVID-19 .
Political commentators have flocked to describe the President ’ s ‘ new tone ’ .
They have evidence .
Trump has described wearing masks as “ patriotic ” having previously refrained from doing so in public resolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House COVID-19 press briefings , the President warned the virus may “ get worse before it gets better ” .
His message discipline at the Presidential podium has seemed tighter , with fewer musings seemingly offered at random .
But will it last ?
Only yesterday , the President returned to the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a way to prevent Coronavirus , contradicting the consistent advice of his own public health officials .
Social media posts shared by the President and his son advocating the drug were removed by Facebook and Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a period of détente , Dr Anthony Fauci , a lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force , has returned as the subject of the President ’ s indignation .
A presidential retweet criticising Fauci for having “ misled the public on many issues ” remains visible for his 84 million followers .
Trump yesterday raged that his approval rating did not match Fauci ’ s .
That ‘ new tone ’ ?
It might be short-lived .
This is not a president who likes to be controlled or shaped by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hard way when he was despatched to lie to the press about the size of the Presidential inauguration crowd .
Push back against the President and you will be fired .
If the polling picture does not improve for the President – and fast – then Stepien might be the next former Trump 2020 campaign manager .
What appears evident is that , unless the White House can be seen to get a tighter grip of case numbers in the United States , the President ’ s chances of re-election will falter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than normal What motivates the choice of a running mate ?
Age .
Diversity .
Experience .
Geographical balance .
Popularity .
It differs in each election .
Although the lack of journalistic rigour at the time makes it hard to verify , VP John Nance Garner is reported to have once famously said that the office of the vice president “ is not worth a bucket of warm spit.
” This time around it matters more .
The presumptive Democratic nominee , Joe Biden , has confirmed that he will announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in August before the Democratic convention ( August 17-20 ) .
Biden has pledged to name a woman as his running mate and his team has been vetting four African American women understood to be Senator Kamala Harris , former national security adviser Susan Rice , and Reps. Val Demings and Karen Bass .
At 77 years old and – 78 by the time he might assume office – Joe Biden is , respectfully , no spring chicken .
For the Biden campaign , his choice of running mate matters more because voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the President at any given moment .
When Barack Obama became president at age 47 , voters were not concerned that his age could become a hindrance to his tenure .
On that basis , he selected Joe Biden , a political veteran with decades of experience .
Further , mental acuity has become a wedge issue this election .
The President has bragged in an interview of his stellar performance in a cognitive test , recalling ‘ person , woman , man , camera , TV ’ in the correct order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent advertising money portraying Joe Biden as forgetful and in poor control of the facts .
For these reasons , Biden ’ s choice of running mate is a hugely significant moment in the election campaign .
Keep one eye on the polls and the other on the map The polling industry has taken a battering ever since it got – for the majority – Brexit and the 2016 presidential election wrong .
But just as night follows day , we all return to the polls as the most reliable reference point for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no proven better alternative .
As such , with fewer than 100 days to go , one eye should be kept on the polls .
The Real Clear Politics average ( Biden +9 ) paints a useful national picture , but swing state polling is more important in the electoral college system that operates on a state-by-state basis .
What becomes crucial is swing states moving from ‘ toss up ’ to likely Trump/Biden , as was the case with Florida this week when the Cook Political Report moved it to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the polls , the other should be focussed on planes , trains and automobiles .
Look closely where the Trump and Biden campaigns are going to rally and fundraise ( within the current limitations of COVID-19 ) .
A defensive strategy by the President suggests he will seek to only defend his 2016 map and not expand on it by focussing on the 2016 swing states that went to Hillary Clinton by five points or fewer .
An offensive strategy by the Biden campaign will be visible if he focusses on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play – like Texas ( Trump +0.2 ) and Georgia ( Trump +2.7 ) .
Both men will be desperate to avoid the mistake made by the Clinton campaign in 2016 .
Wisconsin has been such a reliably Democratic state that Hillary Clinton failed to visit it entirely , the fist major-party nominee since 1972 to do so .
Polls put Clinton ahead by over 6 points as election day neared .
Then Trump won the state and its 10 electoral college votes .
The running joke was that instead of calling her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton might have called it “ Should have Gone to Wisconsin ” .
The lesson ?
Don ’ t take anything , anywhere for granted .
Even the most solidly red or blue states will require attention and the promise of a new injection of political and financial capital .
It means both candidates will have to balance shoring up their reliable support with the temptation to campaign in purple states that could possibly tip either way .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
There are now fewer than 100 days to go until the November 3rd election. Donald Trump and Joe Biden will invariably describe it as the most important election in a generation, in the same way that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton did in 2016. This time around, the candidates might be right. The challenges facing the next leader of the free world are stark.
A global health pandemic that continues to ravage the United States; a rampant China and a resurgent Russia; domestic social and racial unrest that is bubbling over now after decades of suppression; an increasingly angry population split more than ever by political anger and culture wars over age-old issues like abortion and LGBT rights and newer dividing lines like monuments and masks.
In that respect, whilst the job for the next President of the United States is daunting, the opportunities are vast. To try and bring the country together is the immediate task for the victor come November. To rally the nation behind a domestic and international strategy for the four years that follow is the great challenge.
With under 100 days until the election, there are three major trends to look out for:
A ‘new Trump’ or the same old ways?
The President is facing an uphill battle to convince voters that he is the man to bring the United States out of the Coronavirus pandemic – evidenced by the firing of Brad Parscale, the President’s election campaign manager. In simpler terms, you don’t sack Jurgen Klopp if his side are top of the Premier League. It was the first major recognition from the White House that their re-election campaign was stuttering. Instead, Bill Stepien, a field director for the 2016 Trump campaign, is tasked with plotting a path to re-election.
Since Stepien’s tenure began, we have seen hints of a different side to the President on COVID-19. Political commentators have flocked to describe the President’s ‘new tone’. They have evidence. Trump has described wearing masks as “patriotic” having previously refrained from doing so in public resolutely. On the resumption of the daily White House COVID-19 press briefings, the President warned the virus may “get worse before it gets better”. His message discipline at the Presidential podium has seemed tighter, with fewer musings seemingly offered at random.
But will it last?
Only yesterday, the President returned to the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a way to prevent Coronavirus, contradicting the consistent advice of his own public health officials. Social media posts shared by the President and his son advocating the drug were removed by Facebook and Twitter on the grounds of misinformation. After a period of détente, Dr Anthony Fauci, a lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has returned as the subject of the President’s indignation. A presidential retweet criticising Fauci for having “misled the public on many issues” remains visible for his 84 million followers. Trump yesterday raged that his approval rating did not match Fauci’s. That ‘new tone’? It might be short-lived.
This is not a president who likes to be controlled or shaped by dictatorial advisers. Sean Spicer learned that the hard way when he was despatched to lie to the press about the size of the Presidential inauguration crowd. Push back against the President and you will be fired. If the polling picture does not improve for the President – and fast – then Stepien might be the next former Trump 2020 campaign manager.
What appears evident is that, unless the White House can be seen to get a tighter grip of case numbers in the United States, the President’s chances of re-election will falter.
Why the Democratic VP pick matters more than normal
What motivates the choice of a running mate? Age. Diversity. Experience. Geographical balance. Popularity. It differs in each election. Although the lack of journalistic rigour at the time makes it hard to verify, VP John Nance Garner is reported to have once famously said that the office of the vice president “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” This time around it matters more.
The presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, has confirmed that he will announce his running mate in the first week in August before the Democratic convention (August 17-20). Biden has pledged to name a woman as his running mate and his team has been vetting four African American women understood to be Senator Kamala Harris, former national security adviser Susan Rice, and Reps. Val Demings and Karen Bass.
At 77 years old and – 78 by the time he might assume office – Joe Biden is, respectfully, no spring chicken. For the Biden campaign, his choice of running mate matters more because voters could well be choosing an imminent successor to the President at any given moment. When Barack Obama became president at age 47, voters were not concerned that his age could become a hindrance to his tenure. On that basis, he selected Joe Biden, a political veteran with decades of experience.
Further, mental acuity has become a wedge issue this election. The President has bragged in an interview of his stellar performance in a cognitive test, recalling ‘person, woman, man, camera, TV’ in the correct order. Similarly, the Trump campaign has spent advertising money portraying Joe Biden as forgetful and in poor control of the facts. For these reasons, Biden’s choice of running mate is a hugely significant moment in the election campaign.
Keep one eye on the polls and the other on the map
The polling industry has taken a battering ever since it got – for the majority – Brexit and the 2016 presidential election wrong. But just as night follows day, we all return to the polls as the most reliable reference point for how elections might pan out. There is no proven better alternative.
As such, with fewer than 100 days to go, one eye should be kept on the polls. The Real Clear Politics average (Biden +9) paints a useful national picture, but swing state polling is more important in the electoral college system that operates on a state-by-state basis. What becomes crucial is swing states moving from ‘toss up’ to likely Trump/Biden, as was the case with Florida this week when the Cook Political Report moved it to ‘lean Democrat’.
With one eye on the polls, the other should be focussed on planes, trains and automobiles. Look closely where the Trump and Biden campaigns are going to rally and fundraise (within the current limitations of COVID-19). A defensive strategy by the President suggests he will seek to only defend his 2016 map and not expand on it by focussing on the 2016 swing states that went to Hillary Clinton by five points or fewer. An offensive strategy by the Biden campaign will be visible if he focusses on the traditionally red states that are now in play – like Texas (Trump +0.2) and Georgia (Trump +2.7).
Both men will be desperate to avoid the mistake made by the Clinton campaign in 2016. Wisconsin has been such a reliably Democratic state that Hillary Clinton failed to visit it entirely, the fist major-party nominee since 1972 to do so. Polls put Clinton ahead by over 6 points as election day neared. Then Trump won the state and its 10 electoral college votes. The running joke was that instead of calling her post-election book ‘What Happened’, Hillary Clinton might have called it “Should have Gone to Wisconsin”.
The lesson? Don’t take anything, anywhere for granted. Even the most solidly red or blue states will require attention and the promise of a new injection of political and financial capital. It means both candidates will have to balance shoring up their reliable support with the temptation to campaign in purple states that could possibly tip either way.


conservativehome--2020-07-30--Carlaw resigns. Counter-intuitively, the Scottish Tories may need a proper leadership contest.

Almost a year to the day after Ruth Davidson dramatically decided to step down as leader of the Scottish Conservatives , her successor has done the same .
Jackson Carlaw , who stepped in as interim leader before being effectively crowned in a lopsided leadership contest against Michelle Ballantyne in February , has decided that he is not the man to lead the Tories into the 2021 Scottish elections .
The immediate result is a great deal of confusion .
As the Scottish Tories have two deputy leaders , at the time of writing not even the MSPs know who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More uncertain still is the question of who will succeed him .
There is no obvious dauphin amongst the Scottish Parliament group , many of whom were only elected in 2016 .
Adam Tomkins , one of Ruth Davidson ’ s most high-profile allies , is stepping down in 2021 ( as is Davidson herself , at least at the time of writing ) and in any event had perhaps blotted his copybook by toying with Murdo Fraser ’ s old idea of breaking away from the Conservative Party .
( The band @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan didn ’ t field a candidate in February – will they this time ? )
Twitter , meanwhile , is abuzz with speculation that Douglas Ross , the Member of Parliament for Moray , is about to throw his hat into the ring .
Ross , who was reportedly Davidson ’ s preferred successor before winning his Westminster seat , resigned from the Government in May rather than defend Dominic Cummings .
This may give him some distance from the Government which may help him with Scottish voters who haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also precedent for an MP simultaneously sitting at Holyrood for a time – Alex Salmond did it between 2007 and 2010 .
But would the man Downing Street sources branded ‘ Mr Nobody ‘ , and who split with the UK close-knit leadership , be able to count on the support he ’ ll need from the UK Conservative machine ?
All of which leads to the question of how the transition should be managed .
With less than a year to go until what could be a make-or-break Holyrood poll the temptation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong .
But there is also a case to be made that the Party needs a fuller debate about where it is and how it got here .
Carlaw ’ s resignation follows the planned departures of both Davidson and Tomkins and the stepping down in January of Eddie Barnes , the Tories ’ long-serving ‘ top spinner ’ .
The machine which delivered their stand-out 2016 result , of which Davidson was a necessary but not sufficient component , has been shedding parts for a while .
A new leader is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old one was the whole problem .

Almost a year to the day after Ruth Davidson dramatically decided to step down as leader of the Scottish Conservatives, her successor has done the same.
Jackson Carlaw, who stepped in as interim leader before being effectively crowned in a lopsided leadership contest against Michelle Ballantyne in February, has decided that he is not the man to lead the Tories into the 2021 Scottish elections.
The immediate result is a great deal of confusion. As the Scottish Tories have two deputy leaders, at the time of writing not even the MSPs know who is stepping up as deputy leader.
More uncertain still is the question of who will succeed him. There is no obvious dauphin amongst the Scottish Parliament group, many of whom were only elected in 2016.
Adam Tomkins, one of Ruth Davidson’s most high-profile allies, is stepping down in 2021 (as is Davidson herself, at least at the time of writing) and in any event had perhaps blotted his copybook by toying with Murdo Fraser’s old idea of breaking away from the Conservative Party. (The band of Scottish Tories who believe in this plan didn’t field a candidate in February – will they this time?)
Twitter, meanwhile, is abuzz with speculation that Douglas Ross, the Member of Parliament for Moray, is about to throw his hat into the ring.
Ross, who was reportedly Davidson’s preferred successor before winning his Westminster seat, resigned from the Government in May rather than defend Dominic Cummings. This may give him some distance from the Government which may help him with Scottish voters who haven’t warmed to Boris Johnson. There is also precedent for an MP simultaneously sitting at Holyrood for a time – Alex Salmond did it between 2007 and 2010.
Unless they bring someone like Douglas Ross back from Westminster it’s hard to see who would be an improvement on Carlaw — Chris Deerin (@chrisdeerin) July 30, 2020
But would the man Downing Street sources branded ‘Mr Nobody‘, and who split with the UK close-knit leadership, be able to count on the support he’ll need from the UK Conservative machine?
All of which leads to the question of how the transition should be managed. With less than a year to go until what could be a make-or-break Holyrood poll the temptation to avoid a full contest will be strong.
But there is also a case to be made that the Party needs a fuller debate about where it is and how it got here. Carlaw’s resignation follows the planned departures of both Davidson and Tomkins and the stepping down in January of Eddie Barnes, the Tories’ long-serving ‘top spinner’.
The machine which delivered their stand-out 2016 result, of which Davidson was a necessary but not sufficient component, has been shedding parts for a while. A new leader is not the whole solution, any more than the old one was the whole problem.


conservativehome--2020-07-30--Daniel Pryor: Letting asylum seekers work is common-sense Conservatism

Daniel Pryor is Head of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute .
Just over a year ago , former Home Secretary Sajid Javid told Parliament that “ it is time for reform ” of the outdated ban on asylum seekers working in the UK .
The world has hugely changed since then .
But there remains an urgent need to allow asylum seekers to become less dependent on taxpayers , contribute to our economy , and support integration .
That ’ s why we at the Adam Smith Institute are proud members of the Lift the Ban Coalition : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions , charities , think tanks and faith groups that campaign for the right to seek work for people seeking asylum .
In a new report , the coalition is calling for the Government to lower the waiting period before asylum seekers can work from one year to six months , as well as letting them apply for jobs outside the highly restrictive Shortage Occupation List ( which includes classical ballet dancers and hydrogeologists ) .
Giving those seeking asylum the right to seek work – unconstrained by bureaucrats who think they understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – is common sense .
Relaxing our current year-long work ban would promote integration with local communities , protect vulnerable people from forced labour , save the taxpayer money , and give asylum seekers the dignity of providing for themselves and their families .
The Home Office announced a review of the current policy 18 months ago , but have been silent since .
Unfortunately , Home Office delays are a big part of the problem with our asylum system .
By March 2020 , the majority of people ( 31,516 ) waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were doing so for more than six months : the highest number since public records began .
Those awaiting the results are left struggling to support themselves and their families on just £5.66 a day .
Conservatives pride themselves on championing the dignity of work : the sense of meaning , purpose , and belonging that comes from gainful employment .
This is something that many millions of us have come to appreciate the value of even more as vast swathes of the United Kingdom remain furloughed .
Frankly , it is cruel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asylum seekers who want to use their skills to help rebuild our economy .
Sitting at home all day with no job and a meagre government-granted allowance – all in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic – is a challenge for anyone ’ s mental well-being .
It also makes it more difficult to successfully integrate into their local communities .
Work would give asylum seekers the opportunity to meet and socialise with people , as well as a strong incentive to improve English language skills .
The economic case for reform is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lifting the work ban could save taxpayers £98 million through more income tax receipts and less asylum support payments .
Previous research on the effects of work bans also points to a potential reduction in crime from lifting the ban : hardly a surprise for conservatives who recognise the link between labour market opportunities and crime .
Other developed countries seem to recognise the benefits , and the UK remains an international outlier on its waiting periods : Australia , Canada and many European countries have far less restrictive rules .
Critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work would encourage more to come to Britain .
But worries about creating such a ‘ pull factor ’ are not based on real-world experience .
A systematic review of research into the relationship between labour market access for asylum seekers and overall numbers failed to find a single study showing a long-term relationship .
This should hardly be surprising – most asylum seekers aren ’ t even aware that they are banned from working upon arrival in the UK , never mind the idea that they base their decision on such information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ‘ pull factor ’ argument .
Reform has proven to be consistently popular with the electorate and UK businesses .
Survation polling has found that a remarkable 71 per cent of the public believe lifting the ban would help integration , while more than two-thirds of business leaders are supportive of the change .
Lifting the ban is also in keeping with this Government ’ s wider approach to immigration policy .
The Prime Minister has already scrapped the notorious ‘ tens of thousands ’ target , revived the post-study work visa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thresholds in our post-Brexit immigration system .
Following these sensible changes with asylum working reform would be a welcome instance of consistency from the Government .
If we ’ re serious about rebooting Britain post-Covid , we should let asylum seekers work .
People from many different political backgrounds support reform , but the key arguments in favour are most familiar to Conservatives .
If this Government continually denies access to paid work in favour of state handouts , maintains barriers to integration , and hobbles our vulnerable economy with unnecessary red tape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party ?

Daniel Pryor is Head of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute.
Just over a year ago, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid told Parliament that “it is time for reform” of the outdated ban on asylum seekers working in the UK.
The world has hugely changed since then. But there remains an urgent need to allow asylum seekers to become less dependent on taxpayers, contribute to our economy, and support integration.
That’s why we at the Adam Smith Institute are proud members of the Lift the Ban Coalition: a group of over 200 businesses, trade unions, charities, think tanks and faith groups that campaign for the right to seek work for people seeking asylum.
In a new report, the coalition is calling for the Government to lower the waiting period before asylum seekers can work from one year to six months, as well as letting them apply for jobs outside the highly restrictive Shortage Occupation List (which includes classical ballet dancers and hydrogeologists).
Giving those seeking asylum the right to seek work – unconstrained by bureaucrats who think they understand the labour market better than British businesses – is common sense. Relaxing our current year-long work ban would promote integration with local communities, protect vulnerable people from forced labour, save the taxpayer money, and give asylum seekers the dignity of providing for themselves and their families.
The Home Office announced a review of the current policy 18 months ago, but have been silent since. Unfortunately, Home Office delays are a big part of the problem with our asylum system. By March 2020, the majority of people (31,516) waiting for a decision on an asylum claim were doing so for more than six months: the highest number since public records began. Those awaiting the results are left struggling to support themselves and their families on just £5.66 a day.
Conservatives pride themselves on championing the dignity of work: the sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging that comes from gainful employment. This is something that many millions of us have come to appreciate the value of even more as vast swathes of the United Kingdom remain furloughed.
Frankly, it is cruel and counterproductive to deny that opportunity to asylum seekers who want to use their skills to help rebuild our economy. Sitting at home all day with no job and a meagre government-granted allowance – all in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic – is a challenge for anyone’s mental well-being.
It also makes it more difficult to successfully integrate into their local communities. Work would give asylum seekers the opportunity to meet and socialise with people, as well as a strong incentive to improve English language skills.
The economic case for reform is equally compelling. Our latest estimates show that lifting the work ban could save taxpayers £98 million through more income tax receipts and less asylum support payments. Previous research on the effects of work bans also points to a potential reduction in crime from lifting the ban: hardly a surprise for conservatives who recognise the link between labour market opportunities and crime.
Other developed countries seem to recognise the benefits, and the UK remains an international outlier on its waiting periods: Australia, Canada and many European countries have far less restrictive rules.
Critics raise concerns that allowing asylum seekers to work would encourage more to come to Britain. But worries about creating such a ‘pull factor’ are not based on real-world experience. A systematic review of research into the relationship between labour market access for asylum seekers and overall numbers failed to find a single study showing a long-term relationship. This should hardly be surprising – most asylum seekers aren’t even aware that they are banned from working upon arrival in the UK, never mind the idea that they base their decision on such information.
Most Brits are rightly unconvinced by the ‘pull factor’ argument. Reform has proven to be consistently popular with the electorate and UK businesses. Polling has found that a remarkable 71 per cent of the public believe lifting the ban would help integration, while more than two-thirds of business leaders are supportive of the change.
Lifting the ban is also in keeping with this Government’s wider approach to immigration policy. The Prime Minister has already scrapped the notorious ‘tens of thousands’ target, revived the post-study work visa, and mandated lower, looser salary thresholds in our post-Brexit immigration system. Following these sensible changes with asylum working reform would be a welcome instance of consistency from the Government.
If we’re serious about rebooting Britain post-Covid, we should let asylum seekers work. People from many different political backgrounds support reform, but the key arguments in favour are most familiar to Conservatives. If this Government continually denies access to paid work in favour of state handouts, maintains barriers to integration, and hobbles our vulnerable economy with unnecessary red tape – what is the point of the Conservative Party?


conservativehome--2020-07-30--Henry Hill: If Gove and Johnson want to save Britain, they’re going to have to use the word ‘Britain

Henry Hill: If Gove and Johnson want to save Britain, they’re going to have to use the word ‘Britain’

Gove digs out Better Together ’ s greatest hits as Davidson heads to the Lords Michael Gove has been in Scotland this week , fronting a new push by the Cabinet to raise the Government ’ s profile north of the border ahead of next year ’ s Holyrood vote – with a particular focus on the under-35s .
Following polls which suggest that independence is not a priority for the Scottish electorate , the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that he will not be ‘ distracted ’ by those showing majority support for breaking up Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ style – perhaps informed by Downing Street polling – which appears to be setting the tone for the pro-UK effort .
It includes repeatedly stressing that devolution is not only ‘ working ’ but , in a phrase dredged up from 2014 , offers “ the best of both worlds ” .
As I wrote for the Daily Telegraph this week , this is a tactical position with huge strategic dangers .
The insistence that ‘ devolution is working ‘ makes it difficult to attack the SNP ’ s many failures , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the simple question of why , if Holyrood is using all these powers so well , should it not have even more ?
Worse still , Gove ’ s article for the Times makes repeated references to the “ four nations ” and “ different nations ” of the UK , but doesn ’ t mention ‘ Britain ’ or ‘ British ’ once .
It bodes ill for any effort to build an ’ emotional case ’ for the Union if Cabinet ministers dare not speak the nation ’ s name .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different note to this softly-softly approach , suggesting that Unionists should have been more combative and “ put the boot in ” to the SNP in the aftermath of the 2014 vote .
This comes as the Press & Journal reports SNP fears that she is being elevated to the Lords to launch high-profile attacks on them ( surely a reasonable assumption ) .
With the Government preparing to face down the Scottish Government over control of the British internal market , and another row brewing over the proposed ‘ Shared Prosperity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be hoped is that Gove is speaking softly so as not to draw attention to a big , big stick .
Or boot .
New parties shaking up the unionist and separatist camps in Scotland With the possibility of a second independence referendum possibly riding on the results of next year ’ s Scottish Parliament elections ( although it shouldn ’ t ) , the stakes are extremely high – and have tempted new entrants into the ring .
In the nationalist corner is the new Alliance for Independence .
This has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaming Holyrood ’ s electoral system by contesting only the list vote , attracting vast numbers of SNP second preferences , and delivering a separatist supermajority next year .
However it has already become a locus for deeper tensions within the independence movement , with Nationalist figures dissatisfied with Nicola Sturgeon ’ s safety-first strategy rallying to its defence .
There are also concerns that it could become a vehicle for Alex Salmond to stage his next comeback .
On the pro-UK side , meanwhile , is George Galloway ’ s Alliance 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort , distinct from his Workers Party GB : he has openly stated that he will work with Tories in the name of defeating the SNP , and attracted candidates from a range of backgrounds to stand under the A4U banner .
Despite that , Galloway ’ s big opening might be on the left , exploiting the gap in the market created by the moribund Scottish Labour Party ( more below ) and wooing Lab-Nat switchers tempted by the radical promises of independence supporters .
Crack in DUP unity as Foster spurs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the discipline of the Democratic Unionist Party appeared this week , when Arlene Foster found herself facing the largest Stormont rebellion in the Party ’ s history .
The revolt was staged over a controversial bill intended to give increased powers to individual ministers in Northern Ireland ’ s power-sharing executive , the News Letter reports .
The move has been pushed through by the DUP and Sinn Fein , whilst being opposed by the Ulster Unionists .
Senior DUP figures have accused the First Minister of trading away important safeguards secured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observers have also suggested that it will increase the exposure of Executive decisions to legal challenge .
If this comes to pass , it will join the St Andrews Agreement in the line of Stormont fouling itself up with self-directed reform .
The BBC has been urged to stop broadcasting Nicola Sturgeon ’ s coronavirus press briefings on the basis that she is using them for party political purposes .
According to the Herald , Scottish Labour have demanded a meeting with the head of BBC Scotland and claim that the broadcasts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BBC ” .
The Tories have made the same claim – in their case slightly awkwardly , as the Prime Minister is in the process of trying to set up a similar press briefing at Westminster .
Sturgeon has been accused of misrepresenting Scotland ’ s Covid-19 statistics , and downplaying the scandal in Scottish care homes revealed by the BBC .
Labour veteran calls on Leonard to step down ‘ for the Party ’ Lord Foulkes has called on Richard Leonard , the leader of the Scottish Labour Party , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Scottish Parliament electons , the Daily Record reports .
The peer , a former MP and MSP , suggests that Jackie Baillie , the punchy and relatively right-wing deputy leader , could take over on an interim basis for the 2021 campaign .
Leonard is a left-winger who was a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn .
His leadership has seen a fresh waning in the Party ’ s fortunes , losing all but one of its MPs ( again ) at the 2019 election and fifth place at the final European elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 per cent in the Holyrood polls .

Gove digs out Better Together’s greatest hits as Davidson heads to the Lords
Michael Gove has been in Scotland this week, fronting a new push by the Cabinet to raise the Government’s profile north of the border ahead of next year’s Holyrood vote – with a particular focus on the under-35s.
Following polls which suggest that independence is not a priority for the Scottish electorate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that he will not be ‘distracted’ by those showing majority support for breaking up Britain.
He has also adopted an identifiable style – perhaps informed by Downing Street polling – which appears to be setting the tone for the pro-UK effort. It includes repeatedly stressing that devolution is not only ‘working’ but, in a phrase dredged up from 2014, offers “the best of both worlds”.
As I wrote for the Daily Telegraph this week, this is a tactical position with huge strategic dangers. The insistence that ‘devolution is working‘ makes it difficult to attack the SNP’s many failures, or to answer the separatists when they pose the simple question of why, if Holyrood is using all these powers so well, should it not have even more?
Worse still, Gove’s article for the Times makes repeated references to the “four nations” and “different nations” of the UK, but doesn’t mention ‘Britain’ or ‘British’ once. It bodes ill for any effort to build an ’emotional case’ for the Union if Cabinet ministers dare not speak the nation’s name.
Ruth Davidson, however, has struck a different note to this softly-softly approach, suggesting that Unionists should have been more combative and “put the boot in” to the SNP in the aftermath of the 2014 vote. This comes as the Press & Journal reports SNP fears that she is being elevated to the Lords to launch high-profile attacks on them (surely a reasonable assumption).
With the Government preparing to face down the Scottish Government over control of the British internal market, and another row brewing over the proposed ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’, the best that can be hoped is that Gove is speaking softly so as not to draw attention to a big, big stick. Or boot.
New parties shaking up the unionist and separatist camps in Scotland
With the possibility of a second independence referendum possibly riding on the results of next year’s Scottish Parliament elections (although it shouldn’t), the stakes are extremely high – and have tempted new entrants into the ring.
In the nationalist corner is the new Alliance for Independence. This has been set up with the express intention of gaming Holyrood’s electoral system by contesting only the list vote, attracting vast numbers of SNP second preferences, and delivering a separatist supermajority next year.
However it has already become a locus for deeper tensions within the independence movement, with Nationalist figures dissatisfied with Nicola Sturgeon’s safety-first strategy rallying to its defence. There are also concerns that it could become a vehicle for Alex Salmond to stage his next comeback.
(On a related note, the Daily Record reports that the Scottish Government is set to miss an important deadline for turning over documents to the inquiry into the debacle with the former First Minister.)
On the pro-UK side, meanwhile, is George Galloway’s Alliance 4 Unity. This is an explicitly ecumenical effort, distinct from his Workers Party GB: he has openly stated that he will work with Tories in the name of defeating the SNP, and attracted candidates from a range of backgrounds to stand under the A4U banner.
Despite that, Galloway’s big opening might be on the left, exploiting the gap in the market created by the moribund Scottish Labour Party (more below) and wooing Lab-Nat switchers tempted by the radical promises of independence supporters.
Crack in DUP unity as Foster spurs rebellion over Stormont changes
A major crack in the discipline of the Democratic Unionist Party appeared this week, when Arlene Foster found herself facing the largest Stormont rebellion in the Party’s history.
The revolt was staged over a controversial bill intended to give increased powers to individual ministers in Northern Ireland’s power-sharing executive, the News Letter reports. The move has been pushed through by the DUP and Sinn Fein, whilst being opposed by the Ulster Unionists.
Senior DUP figures have accused the First Minister of trading away important safeguards secured for Unionism at previous negotiations. Outside observers have also suggested that it will increase the exposure of Executive decisions to legal challenge.
If this comes to pass, it will join the St Andrews Agreement in the line of Stormont fouling itself up with self-directed reform.
BBC urged to drop Sturgeon’s ‘political broadcasts’
The BBC has been urged to stop broadcasting Nicola Sturgeon’s coronavirus press briefings on the basis that she is using them for party political purposes.
According to the Herald, Scottish Labour have demanded a meeting with the head of BBC Scotland and claim that the broadcasts are “in breach of the Charter of the BBC”. The Tories have made the same claim – in their case slightly awkwardly, as the Prime Minister is in the process of trying to set up a similar press briefing at Westminster.
Sturgeon has been accused of misrepresenting Scotland’s Covid-19 statistics, and downplaying the scandal in Scottish care homes revealed by the BBC.
Labour veteran calls on Leonard to step down ‘for the Party’
Lord Foulkes has called on Richard Leonard, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, to step aside ahead of next year’s Scottish Parliament electons, the Daily Record reports.
The peer, a former MP and MSP, suggests that Jackie Baillie, the punchy and relatively right-wing deputy leader, could take over on an interim basis for the 2021 campaign.
Leonard is a left-winger who was a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn. His leadership has seen a fresh waning in the Party’s fortunes, losing all but one of its MPs (again) at the 2019 election and fifth place at the final European elections. Labour are currently bumping along at 15 per cent in the Holyrood polls.


conservativehome--2020-07-30--There is more than a hint of moral coercion in the way ministers have addressed us in the name of th

There is more than a hint of moral coercion in the way ministers have addressed us in the name of the NHS

Nothing is more tiresome than to find ourselves subjected by those in authority to a coercive morality .
When politicians or officials suppose that because they possess , or imagine they possess , a superior understanding of the right thing to do , they are entitled to order us around , they create enormous resentment .
This is what people mean when they condemn “ the nanny state ” .
We bridle at the implication that we are infants , unable to make decisions for ourselves , obliged to respect the higher wisdom of the grown ups .
We expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , whose consent can not be taken for granted , but must be won by addressing us as equals and respecting our opinions .
All of which makes communicating any message to do with public health tricky .
If handed down from on high , it is likely to be counter-productive .
But if delivered in a tactful , watered down way , in order to avoid putting people ’ s backs up , it can seem too feeble and evasive to be worth saying .
Then people start to call for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : something they would almost certainly find objectionable if actually administered .
The Government recognised , at the start of the pandemic , that it had to show it was listening to the best scientific and medical advice .
For ministers to start telling us what to do purely on their own authority would have been intolerable .
But there was still more than a hint of moral coercion in the way ministers wrapped themselves in the NHS .
However much one may revere the memory of Sir Henry Willink , the Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the head of this article , and who in 1944 announced the setting up of the NHS , and however grateful one may feel for the efforts of those who now work for the service , one does not wish to feel compelled by the Government to issue a blanket seal of approval .
Freely given praise is one thing , forced applause quite another .
We do not want to be told whom to cheer , or how often and loudly to do so .
The wider public understands this .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denouncing with puritanical self-righteousness whatever heretical deviations they can find from their own narrowly defined yet often rapidly evolving version of the truth , tend not to understand it .
Oddly enough , a good nanny understands the need to give children , and those children ’ s parents , a certain freedom of initiative .
Mary Poppins got Mr Banks , that purblind banker and father , to change his ideas .
Politicians and officials seldom have the confidence to do this .
They suppose they should pretend to an almost totalitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life seem to be spared this approach .
Ministers even pretend to know what to do about obesity .
If they contented themselves with the less ambitious role of encouraging the rest of us to show what we can do , the results would be better .

Nothing is more tiresome than to find ourselves subjected by those in authority to a coercive morality. When politicians or officials suppose that because they possess, or imagine they possess, a superior understanding of the right thing to do, they are entitled to order us around, they create enormous resentment.
This is what people mean when they condemn “the nanny state”. We bridle at the implication that we are infants, unable to make decisions for ourselves, obliged to respect the higher wisdom of the grown ups.
We expect to be regarded as free men and women, whose consent cannot be taken for granted, but must be won by addressing us as equals and respecting our opinions.
All of which makes communicating any message to do with public health tricky. If handed down from on high, it is likely to be counter-productive.
But if delivered in a tactful, watered down way, in order to avoid putting people’s backs up, it can seem too feeble and evasive to be worth saying.
Then people start to call for “the smack of firm government”: something they would almost certainly find objectionable if actually administered.
The Government recognised, at the start of the pandemic, that it had to show it was listening to the best scientific and medical advice. For ministers to start telling us what to do purely on their own authority would have been intolerable.
But there was still more than a hint of moral coercion in the way ministers wrapped themselves in the NHS. However much one may revere the memory of Sir Henry Willink, the Conservative Minister of Health whose photograph appears at the head of this article, and who in 1944 announced the setting up of the NHS, and however grateful one may feel for the efforts of those who now work for the service, one does not wish to feel compelled by the Government to issue a blanket seal of approval.
Freely given praise is one thing, forced applause quite another. We do not want to be told whom to cheer, or how often and loudly to do so.
The wider public understands this. The infuriated moralists who infest social media, denouncing with puritanical self-righteousness whatever heretical deviations they can find from their own narrowly defined yet often rapidly evolving version of the truth, tend not to understand it.
Oddly enough, a good nanny understands the need to give children, and those children’s parents, a certain freedom of initiative. Mary Poppins got Mr Banks, that purblind banker and father, to change his ideas.
Politicians and officials seldom have the confidence to do this. They suppose they should pretend to an almost totalitarian infallibility.
Fewer and fewer areas of life seem to be spared this approach. Ministers even pretend to know what to do about obesity.
If they contented themselves with the less ambitious role of encouraging the rest of us to show what we can do, the results would be better.