Dying by numbers

Covid-19 can cast a “ long shadow ” .
Its aftermath effects include “ fatigue , a racing heartbeat , shortness of breath , achy joints , foggy thinking , a persistent loss of sense of smell , and damage to the heart , lungs , kidneys , and brain ” .
One study suggests that the proportion of those who first catch the virus and then develop such persistent symptoms is about 15 per cent .
But there ’ s still much we don ’ t know about it and evidence is hard to come by .
Nonetheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Coronavirus is no worse than flu .
The long shadow effect is also a reminder that one doesn ’ t either get Covid-19 and end up in hospital , or else not get it at all .
However , the UK , like other countries , would not be responding to the virus with a mix of shutdowns , new laws , voluntary action and testing were the Coronavirus not a killer .
As this site explained yesterday , we believe that a choice between more mass lockdowns and a Swedish option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best policy to counter Covid-19 is mass testing .
But successful testing will inevitably go hand in hand with social distancing and other preventative action .
And the scale , duration and sweep of anti-virus measures will ultimately be shaped not by the long shadow , but by death numbers .
These are notoriously hard to calculate , both here and abroad .
The NHS in England has changed the way in which they are assessed at least twice : in April and August .
The daily figures “ do not include deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care homes ” , and each daily release is always lagging , since “ reporting in central figures can take up to several days ” .
Furthermore , there is over-counting , because the figures include cases in which Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate , which doesn ’ t necessary mean that it was the main cause of the death , and under-counting , because the figures can ’ t catch every single case .
Those that follow are therefore heavily caveated .
Two similar peaks are recorded as having being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 1,172 on April 20 .
Were England to suffer , say , eleven hundred Covid deaths a day for a whole year , that would be some 369,600 deaths in all , plus more in the rest of the UK .
But nothing like that , of course , has actually happened .
Writing on ConservativeHome , Raghib Ali says that “ we now have good evidence from death certificates that Covid-19 was the underlying cause of death in about 50,000 people ” .
Still , that ’ s about 30,000 more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be “ a good outcome ” .
Those recorded deaths began to fall in late April , and the last figure we can find , yesterday ’ s , was 37 .
Since August 8 , they have ranged from 55 to zero .
Those inclined to minimise the severity of Coronavirus will quote those low totals , while those disposed to maximise will quote Vallance ’ s figure , from his presentation earlier this week , of some 200 deaths a day by November – some 5,600 that month .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Replicated each day for a year , that would suggest about 67,000 deaths .
But that ’ s based on cases doubling every seven days , as at present – with no change .
Vallance himself conceded that such an assumption is “ quite a big if ” – which raises the question of whether he should therefore have raised it at all , or at least clearly put it in a more rounded context .
Which would include looking at what ’ s happening in two other European countries whose increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : France and Spain .
( As last spring , the figures suggest that the UK is treading in the footsteps of some other European countries . )
If 50,000 cases in mid-October were to be followed by 200 deaths a day by November ( “ the Vallance model ” ) 10,000 cases a day ( “ the French/Spanish model ” ) would be followed by 40 deaths a day .
If we play the same game of replicated that number each day for a year , we get 13,440 deaths .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totals in England during recent years .
Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people died from flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19 .
But whether the number of deaths each day by November is 200 , more than 200 , or 40 ( or fewer ) , there is no reason to believe that a rise from present levels would be sustained .
Ali says that “ deaths should…be significantly lower due to the lower age profile of cases…better shielding of those at highest risk and possibly a lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
We are also now much better at managing the disease with more effective treatments.
” Were we to follow Spain and France after all , and if test and trace doesn ’ t show clear signs of improvement , the mood on the Conservative backbenches is likely to shift away from Government policy , which is ultimately based on state-enforced lockdowns , and towards Sweden ’ s , and mass voluntary action .

Covid-19 can cast a “long shadow”. Its aftermath effects include “fatigue, a racing heartbeat, shortness of breath, achy joints, foggy thinking, a persistent loss of sense of smell, and damage to the heart, lungs, kidneys, and brain”.
One study suggests that the proportion of those who first catch the virus and then develop such persistent symptoms is about 15 per cent. But there’s still much we don’t know about it and evidence is hard to come by. Nonetheless, it is clearly wrong to claim that the Coronavirus is no worse than flu.
The long shadow effect is also a reminder that one doesn’t either get Covid-19 and end up in hospital, or else not get it at all. However, the UK, like other countries, would not be responding to the virus with a mix of shutdowns, new laws, voluntary action and testing were the Coronavirus not a killer.
As this site explained yesterday, we believe that a choice between more mass lockdowns and a Swedish option would be the wrong one: the best policy to counter Covid-19 is mass testing. But successful testing will inevitably go hand in hand with social distancing and other preventative action. And the scale, duration and sweep of anti-virus measures will ultimately be shaped not by the long shadow, but by death numbers.
These are notoriously hard to calculate, both here and abroad. The NHS in England has changed the way in which they are assessed at least twice: in April and August. The daily figures “do not include deaths outside hospital, such as those in care homes”, and each daily release is always lagging, since “reporting in central figures can take up to several days”.
Furthermore, there is over-counting, because the figures include cases in which Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, which doesn’t necessary mean that it was the main cause of the death, and under-counting, because the figures can’t catch every single case. Those that follow are therefore heavily caveated.
Two similar peaks are recorded as having being reached: 1,152 deaths on April 9 and 1,172 on April 20. Were England to suffer, say, eleven hundred Covid deaths a day for a whole year, that would be some 369,600 deaths in all, plus more in the rest of the UK.
But nothing like that, of course, has actually happened. Writing on ConservativeHome, Raghib Ali says that “we now have good evidence from death certificates that Covid-19 was the underlying cause of death in about 50,000 people”. Still, that’s about 30,000 more than the 20,000 that Patrick Vallance said would be “a good outcome”.
Those recorded deaths began to fall in late April, and the last figure we can find, yesterday’s, was 37. Since August 8, they have ranged from 55 to zero. Those inclined to minimise the severity of Coronavirus will quote those low totals, while those disposed to maximise will quote Vallance’s figure, from his presentation earlier this week, of some 200 deaths a day by November – some 5,600 that month. Or point out that it could be higher.
Replicated each day for a year, that would suggest about 67,000 deaths. But that’s based on cases doubling every seven days, as at present – with no change. Vallance himself conceded that such an assumption is “quite a big if” – which raises the question of whether he should therefore have raised it at all, or at least clearly put it in a more rounded context.
Which would include looking at what’s happening in two other European countries whose increase in numbers we seem to be following: France and Spain. (As last spring, the figures suggest that the UK is treading in the footsteps of some other European countries.)
If 50,000 cases in mid-October were to be followed by 200 deaths a day by November (“the Vallance model”) 10,000 cases a day (“the French/Spanish model”) would be followed by 40 deaths a day. If we play the same game of replicated that number each day for a year, we get 13,440 deaths.
That would be lower than annual flu death totals in England during recent years. Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people died from flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19.
But whether the number of deaths each day by November is 200, more than 200, or 40 (or fewer), there is no reason to believe that a rise from present levels would be sustained.
Ali says that “deaths should…be significantly lower due to the lower age profile of cases…better shielding of those at highest risk and possibly a lower viral load due to social distancing and masks. We are also now much better at managing the disease with more effective treatments.”
Were we to follow Spain and France after all, and if test and trace doesn’t show clear signs of improvement, the mood on the Conservative backbenches is likely to shift away from Government policy, which is ultimately based on state-enforced lockdowns, and towards Sweden’s, and mass voluntary action.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--Profile: Graham Brady, who played a quiet part in deposing May, and now keeps a watchful eye on John

Profile: Graham Brady, who played a quiet part in deposing May, and now keeps a watchful eye on Johnson

An adviser to Boris Johnson warned him earlier this year not to be alone with Graham Brady .
Here already was a sign of prime ministerial weakness , or evasiveness , in the face of a determined upholder , not just of the rights of Conservative backbenchers , but of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive .
Nobody would describe Sir Graham Brady as evasive .
He is sincere , vigilant and as Chairman of the 1922 Committee , considers it his duty to convey , in the manner of a polite but implacable shop steward , the views of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a considerable number of those members , he is furious that ministers have “ got into the habit of ruling by decree ” during the pandemic .
In May , Brady called on ministers to look at “ removing restrictions and removing the arbitrary rules and limitations on freedom as quickly as possible ” , though he recognised that many voters approved of these restrictions : Last weekend , Brady went further , and told The Sunday Telegraph : In other words , Parliament must have the final say on any new measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is the amendment to the Coronavirus Act 2020 demanded by Sir Graham , which as Paul Goodman noted here on Monday , could command widespread assent on the Conservative benches : Every Tory leader has to be mindful of what his or her own troops will wear .
The Conservative Party is a coalition of such disparate or even contradictory elements that many people , unaware of the lesson ( “ never again ” ) learned from the disastrous split over the Corn Laws in 1846 , can not comprehend why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolute independence of mind .
“ He really couldn ’ t stand David Cameron , ” one of his colleagues remarks .
Nor , one may surmise , is he particularly keen on Johnson .
For in Brady , we find a Conservative of a different stamp .
He was born in Salford in 1967 and educated at Altrincham Grammar School for Boys , an establishment to which he remains fiercely loyal , after which he read law at Durham , where he was immensely active in student politics and married Victoria Lowther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his twenties , he earned his living by working for public affairs companies , and also for a couple of years for the Centre for Policy Studies , before gaining selection for his home seat of Altrincham and Sale West , which in the Labour landslide of 1997 he retained by the slender margin of 1505 votes .
At the age of 29 , he was the youngest Conservative MP , and in his maiden speech he declared his passionate loyalty to grammar schools : He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Education spokesman and in 2003 as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the new Leader of the Opposition , Michael Howard .
The following year he became Shadow Europe Minister , a post he retained under Howard ’ s successor , David Cameron .
But in 2007 , when a tremendous row erupted within the party over grammar schools , Brady resigned because “ in conscience ” he had to be free to speak his mind , and to argue his unfashionable case : A generally sympathetic colleague says of Brady that when grammar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with insanity ” , an expression coined by Disraeli , who reported that this was what happened to General Peel on hearing the words “ household suffrage ” .
Cameron says in his memoirs , For The Record : There was a class element in this row .
Etonians couldn ’ t generally see the point of grammar schools .
Conservatives from less gilded backgrounds often knew from personal experience that such schools could transform lives .
In 2010 , Brady stood for the chairmanship of the ’ 22 , just after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that committee as the voice of backbenchers had been seen off , with his proposal to allow members of the Government to vote in its elections being withdrawn .
Brady ’ s resignation three years earlier had proved his independence , and he had indicated , after the 2010 election , that he and other Tory MPs would have preferred a minority Conservative Government – “ That , I think , is generally the feeling of colleagues ” – to the coalition formed by Cameron with the Liberal Democrats .
In a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing : Brady defeated the other candidate , Richard Ottaway , who was thought to be favoured by Cameron , by 126 votes to 85 .
If one wants to see how deeply Brady feels about things , one has only to read the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture which he delivered under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Studies in April 2014 .
He began by quoting with approval Margaret Thatcher when she gave the same lecture in 1996 : Brady went on to say : Conservative backbenchers have not grown disenchanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who became Vice-Chairman of the ’ 22 in 2010 , the same year as Brady became Chairman , told ConHome : The most difficult period in Brady ’ s chairmanship came during the last two years of Theresa May ’ s prime ministership .
He was knighted in the 2018 New Year honours , the investiture taking place in March 2018 , so at this point in the story he becomes once more Sir Graham .
The ’ 22 was fractious and divided , and Sir Graham was the recipient of the letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the 15 per cent threshold was reached – 48 MPs out of 317 – would mean she faced a motion of no confidence .
Nobody knew how many letters he had received , for he did not breathe a word , but nobody doubted he was showing complete integrity in his counting of them .
In December 2018 the 15 per cent threshold was crossed , but the Prime Minister survived the subsequent ballot by 200 votes to 117 .
This supposedly meant she could not be challenged by this method for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , after the Conservatives had performed disastrously in European elections which would not have taken place in the UK had she managed to get Brexit done , out she went .
Brady ’ s role in this was one of the utmost delicacy .
He reckoned the game was up , but had to say so with discretion , for not all his colleagues agreed with him .
Once she realised she had to go , he wished to take soundings to see whether he could launch his own leadership bid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leadership election , he stepped down .
He soon found he had no support , so he did not run .
Nor , to the astonishment of more worldly figures , did he endorse any other candidate : not even his fellow Leaver , Boris Johnson , when it became evident that Johnson was going to win .
Others who rushed to join the winning side were rewarded with Cabinet posts .
A minister told ConHome : “ I know Graham believed he was going to be offered a job , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But he had never come out for Boris , and Boris ’ s whole operation is based on people who are loyal to him .
“ Graham was disappointed he didn ’ t get anything , went back to being Chairman of the ’ 22 , and since then he ’ s been quite grumpy.
” This reading of events comes from a Johnson loyalist , and others will feel it was to Sir Graham ’ s credit that he did not sell out his long-established independence .
Sir Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is in person an affable figure , ready to be amused by things , unperturbed by journalists , and not inclined to idealise Tory MPs , of whom he remarked at the 2018 party conference , when the question of letters demanding a vote of confidence was starting to become of interest : On another occasion , interviewed by ConHome , he lamented the “ ennui , apathy and cynicism ” shown by colleagues who declined to use the machinery set up to enable them to feed in policy proposals for consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyal , as we have seen , to an idea of truth which stands above party politics .
Sir Graham is now a severe impediment to any attempt by Downing Street to go on running things without proper parliamentary scrutiny .
And if and when Johnson suffers a severe loss of confidence on his own side of the House , Sir Graham will once more find himself being asked from day to day , indeed from hour to hour , how many letters he has received .

An adviser to Boris Johnson warned him earlier this year not to be alone with Graham Brady. Here already was a sign of prime ministerial weakness, or evasiveness, in the face of a determined upholder, not just of the rights of Conservative backbenchers, but of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive.
Nobody would describe Sir Graham Brady as evasive. He is sincere, vigilant and as Chairman of the 1922 Committee, considers it his duty to convey, in the manner of a polite but implacable shop steward, the views of his members to the Prime Minister.
Like a considerable number of those members, he is furious that ministers have “got into the habit of ruling by decree” during the pandemic. In May, Brady called on ministers to look at “removing restrictions and removing the arbitrary rules and limitations on freedom as quickly as possible”, though he recognised that many voters approved of these restrictions:
“The public have been willing to assist. If anything, in some instances it may be that the public have been a little bit too willing to stay at home.”
Last weekend, Brady went further, and told The Sunday Telegraph:
“In March, Parliament gave the Government sweeping emergency powers at a time when Parliament was about to go into recess and there was realistic concern that NHS care capacity might be overwhelmed by Covid-19. “We now know that the NHS coped well with the challenge of the virus and Parliament has been sitting largely since April. There is now no justification for ministers ruling by emergency powers without reference to normal democratic processes. “It is essential that going forward all of these massively important decisions for family life, and affecting people’s jobs and businesses, should be exercised with proper supervision and control.”
In other words, Parliament must have the final say on any new measures the Government introduces to fight the pandemic. That is the amendment to the Coronavirus Act 2020 demanded by Sir Graham, which as Paul Goodman noted here on Monday, could command widespread assent on the Conservative benches:
“The danger for Downing Street, if it comes to a debate and a vote, is that it faces a coalition of high-minded constitutionalists, supporters of a Swedish option, low-minded opportunists who dislike Johnson, feel under-promoted, are grievance-haunted (or all three), plus backbenchers who are simply unhappy and bewildered.”
Every Tory leader has to be mindful of what his or her own troops will wear. The Conservative Party is a coalition of such disparate or even contradictory elements that many people, unaware of the lesson (“never again”) learned from the disastrous split over the Corn Laws in 1846, cannot comprehend why it remains together.
Brady possesses a resolute independence of mind. “He really couldn’t stand David Cameron,” one of his colleagues remarks. Nor, one may surmise, is he particularly keen on Johnson.
For in Brady, we find a Conservative of a different stamp. He was born in Salford in 1967 and educated at Altrincham Grammar School for Boys, an establishment to which he remains fiercely loyal, after which he read law at Durham, where he was immensely active in student politics and married Victoria Lowther, with whom he has two children.
In his twenties, he earned his living by working for public affairs companies, and also for a couple of years for the Centre for Policy Studies, before gaining selection for his home seat of Altrincham and Sale West, which in the Labour landslide of 1997 he retained by the slender margin of 1505 votes.
At the age of 29, he was the youngest Conservative MP, and in his maiden speech he declared his passionate loyalty to grammar schools:
“In the borough of Trafford, successive Conservative administrations have worked, not only to preserve our excellent grammar schools, but to raise standards in the high schools as well. What we have achieved is an example of selective education that works and it should be taken as a model for improving education across the country. “I believe passionately in the role of the grammar schools as the greatest of social levellers and I fear that before long I will be called upon to defend my old school, Altrincham boys grammar school, from those who would see the remaining 160 grammar schools destroyed. As a believer in grammar schools, I have always thought that the goal of state education should be to achieve such high standards that parents would not wish to send their children to private schools.”
He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Ancram, a junior Whip, Education spokesman and in 2003 as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the new Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard.
The following year he became Shadow Europe Minister, a post he retained under Howard’s successor, David Cameron. But in 2007, when a tremendous row erupted within the party over grammar schools, Brady resigned because “in conscience” he had to be free to speak his mind, and to argue his unfashionable case:
“Grammar schools in selective areas are exactly the motor that does drive social mobility more effectively than comprehensive areas.”
A generally sympathetic colleague says of Brady that when grammar schools are mentioned “his eye lights up with insanity”, an expression coined by Disraeli, who reported that this was what happened to General Peel on hearing the words “household suffrage”.
Cameron says in his memoirs, For The Record:
“I felt that the call to ‘bring back grammars’ was an anti-modernisation proxy, and I wasn’t going to stand for it.”
There was a class element in this row. Etonians couldn’t generally see the point of grammar schools. Conservatives from less gilded backgrounds often knew from personal experience that such schools could transform lives.
In 2010, Brady stood for the chairmanship of the ’22, just after Cameron’s brazen attempt to neuter that committee as the voice of backbenchers had been seen off, with his proposal to allow members of the Government to vote in its elections being withdrawn.
Brady’s resignation three years earlier had proved his independence, and he had indicated, after the 2010 election, that he and other Tory MPs would have preferred a minority Conservative Government – “That, I think, is generally the feeling of colleagues” – to the coalition formed by Cameron with the Liberal Democrats.
In a piece for ConHome he explained why he was standing:
“Coalition government has been hailed as a part of a ‘new politics’. I believe that enhancing the role of Parliament and the status of MPs as the elected champions of our constituents is just as important. For too many years the Executive has eroded the power of Parliament and back benchers have increasingly been marginalised, I want to play a part in reversing that process.”
Brady defeated the other candidate, Richard Ottaway, who was thought to be favoured by Cameron, by 126 votes to 85.
If one wants to see how deeply Brady feels about things, one has only to read the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture which he delivered under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Studies in April 2014. He began by quoting with approval Margaret Thatcher when she gave the same lecture in 1996:
“In politics, integrity really lies in the conviction that it’s only on the basis of truth that power should be won – or indeed can be worth winning. It lies in the unswerving belief that you have to be right.”
Brady went on to say:
“Political parties have become over-reliant on focus groups and opinion research to identify the key target voters in the key ‘swing’ seats. The message is too often crafted to appeal – not to be right, and the biggest focus group of all – the British electorate – grows ever more disenchanted.”
Conservative backbenchers have not grown disenchanted with Brady. Sir Charles Walker, who became Vice-Chairman of the ’22 in 2010, the same year as Brady became Chairman, told ConHome:
“He’s a man who believes in Parliament and a man who believes in doing things properly. Graham is straight as a die. He’s straight in his dealings with people. So it’s no surprise he’s moving this Amendment. The Chairman of the ’22 should be spiky. That’s his role – to be a critical friend. The ’22 is rightly regarded as being a powerful organisation and leaders are best advised to be wary of it. But it’s also capable of providing great support in time of difficulty.”
The most difficult period in Brady’s chairmanship came during the last two years of Theresa May’s prime ministership. He was knighted in the 2018 New Year honours, the investiture taking place in March 2018, so at this point in the story he becomes once more Sir Graham.
The ’22 was fractious and divided, and Sir Graham was the recipient of the letters from Tory MPs which, if and when the 15 per cent threshold was reached – 48 MPs out of 317 – would mean she faced a motion of no confidence.
Nobody knew how many letters he had received, for he did not breathe a word, but nobody doubted he was showing complete integrity in his counting of them.
In December 2018 the 15 per cent threshold was crossed, but the Prime Minister survived the subsequent ballot by 200 votes to 117. This supposedly meant she could not be challenged by this method for another year.
But on 24th May 2019, after the Conservatives had performed disastrously in European elections which would not have taken place in the UK had she managed to get Brexit done, out she went.
Brady’s role in this was one of the utmost delicacy. He reckoned the game was up, but had to say so with discretion, for not all his colleagues agreed with him.
Once she realised she had to go, he wished to take soundings to see whether he could launch his own leadership bid. Since the ’22 would be running the leadership election, he stepped down.
He soon found he had no support, so he did not run. Nor, to the astonishment of more worldly figures, did he endorse any other candidate: not even his fellow Leaver, Boris Johnson, when it became evident that Johnson was going to win.
Others who rushed to join the winning side were rewarded with Cabinet posts. A minister told ConHome: “I know Graham believed he was going to be offered a job, and thought it should be a Cabinet position.
“But he had never come out for Boris, and Boris’s whole operation is based on people who are loyal to him.
“Graham was disappointed he didn’t get anything, went back to being Chairman of the ’22, and since then he’s been quite grumpy.”
This reading of events comes from a Johnson loyalist, and others will feel it was to Sir Graham’s credit that he did not sell out his long-established independence.
Sir Graham, who is still only 53 years old, is in person an affable figure, ready to be amused by things, unperturbed by journalists, and not inclined to idealise Tory MPs, of whom he remarked at the 2018 party conference, when the question of letters demanding a vote of confidence was starting to become of interest:
“The distance between what some of my colleagues say they might have done and what they actually have done can be considerable.”
On another occasion, interviewed by ConHome, he lamented the “ennui, apathy and cynicism” shown by colleagues who declined to use the machinery set up to enable them to feed in policy proposals for consideration in the 2015 manifesto.
He is loyal, as we have seen, to an idea of truth which stands above party politics. Sir Graham is now a severe impediment to any attempt by Downing Street to go on running things without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
And if and when Johnson suffers a severe loss of confidence on his own side of the House, Sir Graham will once more find himself being asked from day to day, indeed from hour to hour, how many letters he has received.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--Garvan Walshe: Four actions we can take to help Belarus achieve its freedom

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
The streets of Minsk , bathed in September morning sun , were absolutely empty yesterday .
Not a soul under the clear blue sky .
A sudden U-turn towards tough anti-Covid policies ?
Belarus making it to the world cup final ?
Of course not .
The real reason was that Aleksandr Lukashenko had decided to get himself reinaugurated as president – weeks early – and in secret .
Lukashenko ’ s regime has been shaken by almost two months of street protests following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off against Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , whose husband he had imprisoned in order to take him out of the race .
The rigging was farcical : observers recorded a middle-aged woman climbing down a ladder outside a polling station with bags of surplus ballots ( a ballot-stuffing plan had gone awry when too many voters turned up , and space had to be created for their votes ) , and nobody believed the 80 per cent vote share officially recorded .
Those deserted Minsk streets must have been filled by everyone who actually voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in place since the Soviet Union collapsed , and so unreformed that its security service is still called the KGB , is looking very vulnerable .
Regime thugs initially responded to peaceful demonstrations with extreme violence , but have found protests led by women to be much harder to contain .
Balaclava-clad men have been snatching protesters off the streets , but predictably just caused the protests to grow further .
Vladimir Putin has offered the Belarusian regime $ 1.5 billion , and perhaps covert riot-control support , but appears to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigging his own constitutional referendum to allow him to stay on beyond the term limits he himself included in the previous version of Russia ’ s fundamental law , Putin finds himself on the ropes .
Covid has dramatically reduced oil and gas demand , while protests have taken off , not only in Moscow , but across the country .
It was on a flight back from one of those protests , in Siberia , that Alexei Navalny collapsed with Novichok poisoning .
The last thing Russia needs right now is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the survival of the regime depends on projecting a sense of “ inevitability ” , Rob Thomas , an Eastern Europe analyst , tells me .
Legitimacy has long been forfeited , and the state lacks the sheer repressive capacity to put down such a large uprising .
The best he can hope to do is to try and outlast the protesters , and hope the winter cold can send them home .
As much as Putin and Lukashenko might want to believe their own propaganda that this revolution is a CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact a domestic movement to overthrow an unaccountable leaders who has overstayed his welcome .
The pressure for change is coming from inside Belarus .
Our job is to keep it in the international spotlight .
As well what might be called the standard toolkit – applying Magnitsky sanctions to regime-connected figures , clamping down on money laundering , preventing the export of surveillance and internet censorship technology , and stepping up funding of civil society through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy – there are specific things that can put pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belarus has a surprisingly successful tech sector , responsible for over five per cent of GDP .
Such work can be done anywhere , so we can help Belarusian firms and programmers set up legal structures to keep their earnings outside Belarus while continuing to work where they are .
Taxes due on this activity could be held in trust , and released to Belarus after it holds free and fair elections .
Second , visas should be relaxed to allow Belarusians who want to work and study abroad to come to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal red tape , on the same terms as the Ankara Agreement used to allow for Turkey .
Third , to blunt Russia ’ s energy weapon , we should work with Lithuania in particular to enable gas pipelines to Belarus to flow in reverse , and , together with other democracies , provide financial guarantees for liquified natural gas to be sent to a transitional Belarusian government .
Fourth , if further pressure is needed to create pressure for a transition to free and fair elections we could recognise Tikhanovskaya as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a negotiating process that would allow both her and Lukashenko to stand down in favour of a neutral but democratic figure .
The empty streets and secret inauguration show that despite Cyprus blocking EU sanctions ( an action surely unconnected to the large quantities of Russian money deposited in his banks ) Lukashenko is running scared .
If we can deny him international legitimacy , and put further economic pressure on the regime , we can play our part in supporting Belarusians ’ struggle to choose their own future .

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party.
The streets of Minsk, bathed in September morning sun, were absolutely empty yesterday. Not a soul under the clear blue sky. A sudden U-turn towards tough anti-Covid policies? Belarus making it to the world cup final? Of course not.
The real reason was that Aleksandr Lukashenko had decided to get himself reinaugurated as president – weeks early – and in secret.
Lukashenko’s regime has been shaken by almost two months of street protests following an election, in which he faced off against Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, whose husband he had imprisoned in order to take him out of the race.
The rigging was farcical: observers recorded a middle-aged woman climbing down a ladder outside a polling station with bags of surplus ballots (a ballot-stuffing plan had gone awry when too many voters turned up, and space had to be created for their votes), and nobody believed the 80 per cent vote share officially recorded. Those deserted Minsk streets must have been filled by everyone who actually voted for him.
Lukashenko’s regime, in place since the Soviet Union collapsed, and so unreformed that its security service is still called the KGB, is looking very vulnerable.
Regime thugs initially responded to peaceful demonstrations with extreme violence, but have found protests led by women to be much harder to contain. Balaclava-clad men have been snatching protesters off the streets, but predictably just caused the protests to grow further.
Vladimir Putin has offered the Belarusian regime $1.5 billion, and perhaps covert riot-control support, but appears to have balked at more decisive intervention. Despite rigging his own constitutional referendum to allow him to stay on beyond the term limits he himself included in the previous version of Russia’s fundamental law, Putin finds himself on the ropes. Covid has dramatically reduced oil and gas demand, while protests have taken off, not only in Moscow, but across the country. It was on a flight back from one of those protests, in Siberia, that Alexei Navalny collapsed with Novichok poisoning. The last thing Russia needs right now is another rebellious province.
In these revolutionary moments, the survival of the regime depends on projecting a sense of “inevitability”, Rob Thomas, an Eastern Europe analyst, tells me. Legitimacy has long been forfeited, and the state lacks the sheer repressive capacity to put down such a large uprising. The best he can hope to do is to try and outlast the protesters, and hope the winter cold can send them home.
As much as Putin and Lukashenko might want to believe their own propaganda that this revolution is a CIA or George Soros plot, it is in fact a domestic movement to overthrow an unaccountable leaders who has overstayed his welcome. The pressure for change is coming from inside Belarus. Our job is to keep it in the international spotlight.
As well what might be called the standard toolkit – applying Magnitsky sanctions to regime-connected figures, clamping down on money laundering, preventing the export of surveillance and internet censorship technology, and stepping up funding of civil society through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy – there are specific things that can put pressure on Lukashenko’s regime.
First, Belarus has a surprisingly successful tech sector, responsible for over five per cent of GDP. Such work can be done anywhere, so we can help Belarusian firms and programmers set up legal structures to keep their earnings outside Belarus while continuing to work where they are. Taxes due on this activity could be held in trust, and released to Belarus after it holds free and fair elections.
Second, visas should be relaxed to allow Belarusians who want to work and study abroad to come to the UK and also set up businesses with minimal red tape, on the same terms as the Ankara Agreement used to allow for Turkey.
Third, to blunt Russia’s energy weapon, we should work with Lithuania in particular to enable gas pipelines to Belarus to flow in reverse, and, together with other democracies, provide financial guarantees for liquified natural gas to be sent to a transitional Belarusian government.
Fourth, if further pressure is needed to create pressure for a transition to free and fair elections we could recognise Tikhanovskaya as an interim legitimate president, as part of a negotiating process that would allow both her and Lukashenko to stand down in favour of a neutral but democratic figure.
The empty streets and secret inauguration show that despite Cyprus blocking EU sanctions (an action surely unconnected to the large quantities of Russian money deposited in his banks) Lukashenko is running scared. If we can deny him international legitimacy, and put further economic pressure on the regime, we can play our part in supporting Belarusians’ struggle to choose their own future.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--Frances Lasok: This pandemic has shown that the Conservatives need to focus on local communities

Frances Lasok is a political campaign manager for local elections .
What are the challenges for the first post-COVID elections , what will we stand for , and what should our strategy be ?
The beginning of the pandemic was defined by civic unity .
Roadside banners went up to the NHS , and we suddenly became a society that asked after our neighbours .
But then came the after-effects .
An end to the political ceasefire , plummeting GDP , a doubling of reported symptoms of depression , the beginnings of the long-term effects of economic decline , increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will rally round in a crisis ; it ’ s as we move out of it that the uncertainty hits .
As the governing party , it leaves us in a difficult place : elected on a manifesto less than a year old where the biggest challenge was Brexit .
And as Theresa May proved , it isn ’ t enough to just promise competent government or more-of-the-same small-c conservativism .
Boris rallied the country on “ Get Brexit Done ” but since then the world turned upside down , leaving the levelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservative Party .
It ’ s relevant .
But for it to be more than words , it needs local engagement and local co-operation : a united drive between Government and the bodies at the coal face rather than , as is often the case , good ideas from the centre killed by falling into a gap between multiple overlapping authorities with different agendas , motives or political stripes .
The potential gap between idea and implementation is huge .
Which brings us on to the first post-COVID elections , in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than just political capital , because the seats up are the major players : the County , unitary , and combined authorities that will hold the purse strings and implementation responsibilities for huge swathes of the Government ’ s post-COVID agenda : schools , social care , economic development and transport .
Many of these seats were last up in May 2017 , the record high for Theresa May ’ s Conservatives .
In a good year , simply holding what we ’ ve got would be a high bar to clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first post COVID elections ?
Looking back to the Queen ’ s Speech in October 2019 , what ’ s striking is how many themes of the pre-COVID agenda – community , social care , small business , towns – have been driven to the forefront thanks to the pandemic .
And many of these ideas knit together : one of the biggest barriers to levelling up is dying town centres .
Off the back of the Taylor Review , the proposed Employment Bill was highlighting flexible working and use of technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Help Out gave the “ use it or lose it ” message about local businesses , flexible working means there are people who now have the time and money to get lunch at a local café or stop for essentials in a local shop , rather than a 5am rise for a £30 train then home for 8pm and order online .
These points on the national agenda have knock-on effects to the local : small business , levelling up towns , greener transport .
There ’ s been a surprising return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few months : the Big Society .
Isolation and loneliness , and the knock-on effects to social care and mental health , have been on the backburner for years .
The COVID mutual aid groups that sprung up across the country were an organic network of community minded people who wanted to help others , had the ability , and saw the need .
They were often made up of the demographic of 30s-50s or younger , professionals , working parents that local initiatives often struggle to engage .
When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roger Scruton ’ s Building Better Building Beautiful initiative , in refreshingly plain English the Planning Reform White Paper said this : “ Planning matters .
Where we live has a measurable effect on our physical and mental health : on how much we walk , on how many neighbours we know or how tense we feel on the daily journey to work or school.
” Policy and technology affect community .
Someone commuting 6am-8pm is not likely to get involved with local initiatives .
Technology is a friend that could change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government entirely , making it possible for someone to fit in Council around the school run or a 4pm meeting .
The Conservative Party should seize on this – and if we don ’ t , the Greens and the Lib Dems will – because these are the people we need running councils .
It ’ s helpful because another challenge will be socially distanced recruitment .
Campaigners across the country will have breathed a quiet sigh of relief at the prospect of no more rubber chicken dinners .
But humans are social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have Zoom calls with the Chancellor is fantastic , the remote nature means that the local MP doesn ’ t meet the new joiners .
The same will be true of campaigning , with social distancing currently means no canvassing .
The alternatives to knock-every-door data collection are post ( expensive and only a proportion will answer ) or demographic targeting .
Targeting is not yet perfect and carries risks .
But it ’ s ideally suited for the local elections where only an engaged minority are going to vote .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corner is for Generation Z .
Already , they are the hardest to reach using traditional methods : more likely to live in HMOs or difficult-to-access flats , less likely to read snail mail , more likely to move frequently which affects the data we can manually gather , less likely to engage locally , more likely to engage online .
The challenge isn ’ t just their hearts and minds , but reaching their ears and eyes .
If we ’ re forced away from traditional methods of engagement in 2021 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what “ normal ” will be in twenty years .
After a crisis , any incumbent party is dealt a difficult hand .
The temptation is to fight a rear-guard action piecemeal , but we don ’ t need to do that .
Capitalism adapts and we are the party of innovation and opportunity .
The solutions we need across the board – on communities , planning , transport , localism , mental health – link together into an achievable local manifesto with the levelling up agenda and compassionate Conservativism at its heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local communities at the centre .
And these are questions that we have to ask and answer now because when we face a shaken and worried electorate in nine months ’ time , we need to know what we will say ; how we will say it ; and what , as Conservatives , we stand for .

Frances Lasok is a Westminster aide and is a former campaign manager for national and local elections.
What are the challenges for the first post-COVID elections, what will we stand for, and what should our strategy be?
The beginning of the pandemic was defined by civic unity. Roadside banners went up to the NHS, and we suddenly became a society that asked after our neighbours. But then came the after-effects. An end to the political ceasefire, plummeting GDP, a doubling of reported symptoms of depression, the beginnings of the long-term effects of economic decline, increased isolation and post-furlough job losses. People will rally round in a crisis; it’s as we move out of it that the uncertainty hits.
As the governing party, it leaves us in a difficult place: elected on a manifesto less than a year old where the biggest challenge was Brexit. And as Theresa May proved, it isn’t enough to just promise competent government or more-of-the-same small-c conservativism. Boris rallied the country on “Get Brexit Done” but since then the world turned upside down, leaving the levelling up agenda as the philosophical drive behind the Conservative Party.
It’s relevant. But for it to be more than words, it needs local engagement and local co-operation: a united drive between Government and the bodies at the coal face rather than, as is often the case, good ideas from the centre killed by falling into a gap between multiple overlapping authorities with different agendas, motives or political stripes. The potential gap between idea and implementation is huge. Which brings us on to the first post-COVID elections, in 2021.
The stakes are high, higher than just political capital, because the seats up are the major players: the County, unitary, and combined authorities that will hold the purse strings and implementation responsibilities for huge swathes of the Government’s post-COVID agenda: schools, social care, economic development and transport. Many of these seats were last up in May 2017, the record high for Theresa May’s Conservatives. In a good year, simply holding what we’ve got would be a high bar to clear.
So, what do we say in the first post COVID elections? Looking back to the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, what’s striking is how many themes of the pre-COVID agenda – community, social care, small business, towns – have been driven to the forefront thanks to the pandemic. And many of these ideas knit together: one of the biggest barriers to levelling up is dying town centres. Off the back of the Taylor Review, the proposed Employment Bill was highlighting flexible working and use of technology to increase productivity. Whilst Eat Out to Help Out gave the “use it or lose it” message about local businesses, flexible working means there are people who now have the time and money to get lunch at a local café or stop for essentials in a local shop, rather than a 5am rise for a £30 train then home for 8pm and order online. These points on the national agenda have knock-on effects to the local: small business, levelling up towns, greener transport.
There’s been a surprising return of an old friend in the last few months: the Big Society. Isolation and loneliness, and the knock-on effects to social care and mental health, have been on the backburner for years. The COVID mutual aid groups that sprung up across the country were an organic network of community minded people who wanted to help others, had the ability, and saw the need. They were often made up of the demographic of 30s-50s or younger, professionals, working parents that local initiatives often struggle to engage. When it comes to community, logistics matter. Influenced by Roger Scruton’s Building Better Building Beautiful initiative, in refreshingly plain English the Planning Reform White Paper said this:
“Planning matters. Where we live has a measurable effect on our physical and mental health: on how much we walk, on how many neighbours we know or how tense we feel on the daily journey to work or school.”
Policy and technology affect community. Someone commuting 6am-8pm is not likely to get involved with local initiatives. Technology is a friend that could change the face of the voluntary sector and local government entirely, making it possible for someone to fit in Council around the school run or a 4pm meeting. The Conservative Party should seize on this – and if we don’t, the Greens and the Lib Dems will – because these are the people we need running councils.
It’s helpful because another challenge will be socially distanced recruitment. Campaigners across the country will have breathed a quiet sigh of relief at the prospect of no more rubber chicken dinners. But humans are social creatures and whilst the opportunity for members to have Zoom calls with the Chancellor is fantastic, the remote nature means that the local MP doesn’t meet the new joiners.
The same will be true of campaigning, with social distancing currently means no canvassing. The alternatives to knock-every-door data collection are post (expensive and only a proportion will answer) or demographic targeting. Targeting is not yet perfect and carries risks. But it’s ideally suited for the local elections where only an engaged minority are going to vote. And long-term, the next battle around the corner is for Generation Z. Already, they are the hardest to reach using traditional methods: more likely to live in HMOs or difficult-to-access flats, less likely to read snail mail, more likely to move frequently which affects the data we can manually gather, less likely to engage locally, more likely to engage online. The challenge isn’t just their hearts and minds, but reaching their ears and eyes. If we’re forced away from traditional methods of engagement in 2021, it’s a learning curve for what “normal” will be in twenty years.
After a crisis, any incumbent party is dealt a difficult hand. The temptation is to fight a rear-guard action piecemeal, but we don’t need to do that. Capitalism adapts and we are the party of innovation and opportunity. The solutions we need across the board – on communities, planning, transport, localism, mental health – link together into an achievable local manifesto with the levelling up agenda and compassionate Conservativism at its heart, deliverable in a way that has local communities at the centre. And these are questions that we have to ask and answer now because when we face a shaken and worried electorate in nine months’ time, we need to know what we will say; how we will say it; and what, as Conservatives, we stand for.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Ben Roback: Trump may not win, but this sudden Supreme Court vacancy gives him a chance to make a lo

Ben Roback: Trump may not win, but this sudden Supreme Court vacancy gives him a chance to make a long-term mark on America.

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
RIP RBG .
You will have seen those six letters plastered across news websites and social media since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the Supreme Court Justice , was announced last Saturday morning .
Entirely irrespective of your politics – red or blue , either side of the Atlantic – Ginsburg commanded respect .
During a long and distinguished career , she was a titan in American politics and law .
Posthumously , she continues to push barriers and chip away at the glass ceiling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ever receive the honour of lying in state in the Capitol ’ s National Statuary Hall on Friday .
She will be remembered for her brilliant legal mind and unprecedented leadership on women ’ s rights .
Ginsburg became a multigenerational vanguard for women across America .
Her story , told with wit and precision in the 2019 documentary ‘ RBG ’ , is a lesson both for our sons , as well as our daughters .
A vacancy on the nation ’ s most important bench The death of the longest-serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vacancy that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are in a hurry to fill .
Ginsburg ’ s death , 46 days before the election , is the second-shortest amount of time between an opening on the court and an election .
The President announced he will unveil his Supreme Court nominee in an event at the White House on Saturday .
Democrats are crying foul .
They have good reason .
In 2016 , Barack Obama sought to nominate Merrick Garland to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat .
Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the most candid political operator on Capitol Hill , blocked a hearing on Mr Garland on the grounds that only eight months remained before the presidential election .
“ The American people should have a voice in the selection their next Supreme Court Justice ” , Senator McConnell said four years ago .
How times have changed .
Hypocrisy has become the watchword in one half of Washington .
One can not understate the importance of Ginsburg ’ s successor on the highest court in the land .
Supreme Court Justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett , at age of 48 , could feasibly serve on the bench for four decades .
Ginsburg ’ s replacement will therefore shape the court for a generation to come , putting in serious doubt seismic legal rulings on cases like Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) which gave women the right to an abortion and Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) which paved the way for same sex marriage across the whole country .
These are not just judicial precedents .
They are decisions which have immediate and serious impacts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already appointed two Justices – Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
Both replaced Justices appointed by Republican presidents , meaning their appointments merely maintained the existing balance of the Court .
A conservative constitutional scholar ennobled by Trump would fundamentally shift the balance of the Court , ensuring a clear conservative majority of 6-3 .
Speculation on Ginsburg ’ s replacement has centred thus far on two federal appeals court judges – Barrett , and Barbara Lagoa .
The former is the favourite having met with the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the latter would represent a safer bet .
The Senate confirmed Lagoa 80-15 last year , so she has previous support amongst many Senate Democrats .
The President wants a vote on his proposed nominee before the election , but that requires procedural support in the Senate .
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski oppose a vote before the election , which means that two more Republican defections would force the vote to be delayed until the lame-duck session of Congress .
Should Donald Trump lose the election , huge pressure would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the incoming president .
Mitt Romney , who has made a habit of being an outspoken critic of the president in the Senate , has come out in favour of pushing a vote on the vacancy .
His support had not been guaranteed , and has therefore given the President and McConnell a boost .
That all but ensures a nominee put forward by the president will be confirmed – bar any major missteps from the nominee .
For Trump and his 2020 re-election team , the Supreme Court vacancy comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For all the president ’ s warm words about Ginsburg , there is no hiding the naked political benefit of shifting the conversation away from Coronavirus – America has now passed the grim milestone of 200,000 deaths – and the subsequently ravaged US jobs market .
Instead , the political dynamic focuses on appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court .
The President has tried to make judicial appointments a major plank of his election campaign .
Pushing through a third Supreme Court Justice would imprint a major Trump stamp on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond a first or second term in the White House .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
RIP RBG. You will have seen those six letters plastered across news websites and social media since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court Justice, was announced last Saturday morning.
Entirely irrespective of your politics – red or blue, either side of the Atlantic – Ginsburg commanded respect. During a long and distinguished career, she was a titan in American politics and law. Posthumously, she continues to push barriers and chip away at the glass ceiling, as she becomes the first woman to ever receive the honour of lying in state in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall on Friday.
She will be remembered for her brilliant legal mind and unprecedented leadership on women’s rights. Ginsburg became a multigenerational vanguard for women across America. Her story, told with wit and precision in the 2019 documentary ‘RBG’, is a lesson both for our sons, as well as our daughters.
A vacancy on the nation’s most important bench
The death of the longest-serving liberal Justice on the Supreme Court creates a vacancy that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are in a hurry to fill. Ginsburg’s death, 46 days before the election, is the second-shortest amount of time between an opening on the court and an election.
The President announced he will unveil his Supreme Court nominee in an event at the White House on Saturday. Democrats are crying foul. They have good reason.
In 2016, Barack Obama sought to nominate Merrick Garland to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat. Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s Majority Leader, and the most candid political operator on Capitol Hill, blocked a hearing on Mr Garland on the grounds that only eight months remained before the presidential election.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection their next Supreme Court Justice”, Senator McConnell said four years ago. How times have changed. Hypocrisy has become the watchword in one half of Washington.
One cannot understate the importance of Ginsburg’s successor on the highest court in the land. Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments meaning that Amy Coney Barrett, at age of 48, could feasibly serve on the bench for four decades.
Ginsburg’s replacement will therefore shape the court for a generation to come, putting in serious doubt seismic legal rulings on cases like Roe v. Wade (1973) which gave women the right to an abortion and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which paved the way for same sex marriage across the whole country. These are not just judicial precedents. They are decisions which have immediate and serious impacts on the fabric of American society.
Trump has already appointed two Justices – Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Both replaced Justices appointed by Republican presidents, meaning their appointments merely maintained the existing balance of the Court. A conservative constitutional scholar ennobled by Trump would fundamentally shift the balance of the Court, ensuring a clear conservative majority of 6-3.
A shortlist of two
Speculation on Ginsburg’s replacement has centred thus far on two federal appeals court judges – Barrett, and Barbara Lagoa. The former is the favourite having met with the president at the White House on Monday, but the latter would represent a safer bet. The Senate confirmed Lagoa 80-15 last year, so she has previous support amongst many Senate Democrats.
The President wants a vote on his proposed nominee before the election, but that requires procedural support in the Senate. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski oppose a vote before the election, which means that two more Republican defections would force the vote to be delayed until the lame-duck session of Congress.
Should Donald Trump lose the election, huge pressure would then build on Senate Republicans to defer to the incoming president.
Mitt Romney, who has made a habit of being an outspoken critic of the president in the Senate, has come out in favour of pushing a vote on the vacancy. His support had not been guaranteed, and has therefore given the President and McConnell a boost. That all but ensures a nominee put forward by the president will be confirmed – bar any major missteps from the nominee.
For Trump and his 2020 re-election team, the Supreme Court vacancy comes as an unexpected gift amid a fledgling campaign. For all the president’s warm words about Ginsburg, there is no hiding the naked political benefit of shifting the conversation away from Coronavirus – America has now passed the grim milestone of 200,000 deaths – and the subsequently ravaged US jobs market.
Instead, the political dynamic focuses on appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. The President has tried to make judicial appointments a major plank of his election campaign. Pushing through a third Supreme Court Justice would imprint a major Trump stamp on the future of American society, long beyond a first or second term in the White House.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--The Government and self-ID. Scrapped for now. But the pressure isn’t going away.

Given the enormous amount of news about Coronavirus and Brexit , a contentious matter has gone under the radar in recent months .
That is , whether the Government would drop proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act ( GRA ) 2004 to allow for “ self-ID ” ; in other words , a person being able to change their legal gender without a doctor ’ s approval or undertaking other administrative processes .
In 2017 , Theresa May announced her government would run a consultation on reforming the GRA , with the expectation that it would allow transgender people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical diagnosis .
Johnson ’ s Government , on the other hand , has reversed the idea .
In April Liz Truss , the Equalities Minister , signalled that the existing checks would stay in place – something she confirmed to Parliament this week , and has received an incredibly polarised response over .
The strength of feeling on GRA is obvious from the fact that 102,000 people responded to the Government ’ s initial consultation on the subject .
It is reported that thirty nine per cent of these came from Stonewall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the concept argue that the current processes are intrusive and distressing ; these include providing two medical reports ( one to show a diagnosis of “ gender dysphoria ” , and the other to outline details of what treatment has been received ) , obtaining the consent of a spouse if married , demonstrating that a transgender person has lived in their acquired gender for at least two years , and paying £140 .
Self-ID would put an end to all this .
Many , particularly women ’ s rights groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While polls routinely show that the public is sympathetic to trans rights , there are concerns about transgender women with male anatomy being able to access female-only facilities , such as prisons and changing rooms .
From women ’ s sport , to census data collection , self-ID would have enormous practical and legal implications .
The Government clearly wants to achieve a compromise on the matter .
Although ministers haven ’ t carried forward self-ID , they want to speed up the process for those wanting to change gender .
Truss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government would be “ opening at least three new gender clinics this year ” to reduce waiting lists ; that the process would be “ kinder and more straightforward ” , mainly by moving online , and that the fee would be reduced to a “ nominal ” amount .
Is the debate closed , though ?
While it looked that way this week , the Government will still find itself under enormous pressure to reform the GRA – not only from activist groups .
For starters , there ’ s its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most vocal about the decision .
He said it had caused “ crushing disappointment ” , and accused Truss of not proposing legislation – so as to avoid it being voted down .
“ Does she appreciate that her statement does not command a majority in this House ?
” Were his words .
There ’ s also the fact that Scotland is close to implementing self-ID , as Rebecca Lowe and Victoria Hewson recently pointed out in their column for ConHome .
This will either exacerbate demands on Johnson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give it evidence of why self-ID is practically untenable .
Lastly , one of the big surprises this year was that Google UK attacked Truss over self-ID .
On June 18 , the company Tweeted a petition to its followers ( which now stand at 190,000 ) , inviting them to sign a petition asking her to reform the GRA .
“ Don ’ t roll back on trans dignity ” , it read , along with the hashtag : # TRUSSTME .
It emphasised a sinister , broader point , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and influence political policy ( something troubling considering the Government ’ s increasing reliance on them – not least to help get out Britain ’ s contact tracing app ) .
With all that being said , Truss was robust in her response to Blunt ’ s criticisms , and no doubt many people will have been impressed with her actions .
But with Conservatives having u-turned on the matter , it ’ s a reminder that shifts in leadership can easily change the direction of this battle .
The Government has got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate is far from over .

Given the enormous amount of news about Coronavirus and Brexit, a contentious matter has gone under the radar in recent months. That is, whether the Government would drop proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 to allow for “self-ID”; in other words, a person being able to change their legal gender without a doctor’s approval or undertaking other administrative processes.
In 2017, Theresa May announced her government would run a consultation on reforming the GRA, with the expectation that it would allow transgender people to change their birth certificates without a medical diagnosis. Johnson’s Government, on the other hand, has reversed the idea. In April Liz Truss, the Equalities Minister, signalled that the existing checks would stay in place – something she confirmed to Parliament this week, and has received an incredibly polarised response over.
The strength of feeling on GRA is obvious from the fact that 102,000 people responded to the Government’s initial consultation on the subject. It is reported that thirty nine per cent of these came from Stonewall, which advocates for self-ID.
Proponents of the concept argue that the current processes are intrusive and distressing; these include providing two medical reports (one to show a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria”, and the other to outline details of what treatment has been received), obtaining the consent of a spouse if married, demonstrating that a transgender person has lived in their acquired gender for at least two years, and paying £140. Self-ID would put an end to all this.
Many, particularly women’s rights groups, feel it goes too far, however. While polls routinely show that the public is sympathetic to trans rights, there are concerns about transgender women with male anatomy being able to access female-only facilities, such as prisons and changing rooms. From women’s sport, to census data collection, self-ID would have enormous practical and legal implications.
The Government clearly wants to achieve a compromise on the matter. Although ministers haven’t carried forward self-ID, they want to speed up the process for those wanting to change gender. Truss, for instance, said that the Government would be “opening at least three new gender clinics this year” to reduce waiting lists; that the process would be “kinder and more straightforward”, mainly by moving online, and that the fee would be reduced to a “nominal” amount.
Is the debate closed, though? While it looked that way this week, the Government will still find itself under enormous pressure to reform the GRA – not only from activist groups.
For starters, there’s its own MPs. Crispin Blunt has been one of the most vocal about the decision. He said it had caused “crushing disappointment”, and accused Truss of not proposing legislation – so as to avoid it being voted down. “Does she appreciate that her statement does not command a majority in this House?” Were his words.
There’s also the fact that Scotland is close to implementing self-ID, as Rebecca Lowe and Victoria Hewson recently pointed out in their column for ConHome. This will either exacerbate demands on Johnson’s Government to change direction – or give it evidence of why self-ID is practically untenable.
Lastly, one of the big surprises this year was that Google UK attacked Truss over self-ID. On June 18, the company Tweeted a petition to its followers (which now stand at 190,000), inviting them to sign a petition asking her to reform the GRA. “Don’t roll back on trans dignity”, it read, along with the hashtag: #TRUSSTME.
It emphasised a sinister, broader point, which is the capacity for tech giants to try and influence political policy (something troubling considering the Government’s increasing reliance on them – not least to help get out Britain’s contact tracing app).
With all that being said, Truss was robust in her response to Blunt’s criticisms, and no doubt many people will have been impressed with her actions.
But with Conservatives having u-turned on the matter, it’s a reminder that shifts in leadership can easily change the direction of this battle. The Government has got its way for now, but the debate is far from over.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--‘I cannot save every business. I cannot save every job. No Chancellor could.’ Statement to the House

‘I cannot save every business. I cannot save every job. No Chancellor could.’ Statement to the House – full text

Thank you for granting me permission to make this Statement to the House today .
Earlier this week the Prime Minister set out the next stage of the government ’ s health response to Coronavirus .
Today I want to explain the next phase of our planned economic response .
The House will be reassured to know I have been developing plans to protect jobs and the economy over the winter period .
Plans that seek to strike the finely-judged balance between managing the virus and protecting the jobs and livelihoods of millions .
Mr Speaker , I know people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhausted , at the prospect of further restrictions on our economic and social freedoms .
I share those feelings , but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic .
We are in a fundamentally different position than we were in March .
And we now know much more about this virus .
Public awareness of the risks , and how to mitigate them , is far greater .
And we have met our promise to give the NHS whatever it needs , with significant new funding for NHS capacity , for PPE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , we have now provided over £12 billion for test and trace .
In economic terms , while our output remains well below where it was in February , we have seen three consecutive months of growth .
And millions of people have moved off the furlough and back to work .
But the resurgence of the virus , and the measures we need to take in response , pose a threat to this fragile economic recovery .
So our task now is to move to the next stage of our economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs through the difficult winter months .
The underlying rationale for the next phase of economic support must be different to what came before .
The primary goal of our economic policy remains unchanged : to support people ’ s jobs .
But the way we achieve that must evolve .
Back in March , we hoped we were facing a temporary period of disruption .
In response , we provided one of the most generous and comprehensive economic plans anywhere in the world with £190 billion of support for people , businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economic capacity .
It is now clear , as the Prime Minister and our scientific advisers have said for at least the next six months the virus and restrictions are going to be a fact of our lives .
Our economy is now likely to undergo a more permanent adjustment .
The sources of our economic growth and the kinds of jobs we create , will adapt and evolve to the new normal .
And our plan needs to adapt and evolve in response .
Above all , we need to face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus presents .
And , Mr Speaker , there has been no harder choice than the decision to end the furlough scheme .
The furlough was the right policy at the time we introduced it .
It provided immediate , short-term protection for millions of jobs through a period of acute crisis .
But as the economy reopens it is fundamentally wrong to hold people in jobs that only exist inside the furlough .
We need to create new opportunities and allow the economy to move forward and that means supporting people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security .
As I ’ ve said throughout this crisis , I can not save every business .
But what we can and must do is deal with the real problems businesses and employees are facing now .
In March , the problem was that we ordered businesses to close .
In response , we paid people to stay at home and not work .
Today , the problem is different .
Many businesses are operating safely and viably , but they now face uncertainty and reduced demand over the winter months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring people back to work and protect as many viable jobs as we can .
To do that , I am announcing today the new Jobs Support Scheme .
The government will directly support the wages of people in work giving businesses who face depressed demand the option of keeping employees in a job on shorter hours rather than making them redundant .
The Jobs Support Scheme is built on three principles .
First , it will support viable jobs .
To make sure of that , employees must work at least a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid for that work , as normal , by their employer .
The government , together with employers , will then increase those people ’ s wages covering two-thirds of the pay they have lost by reducing their working hours .
And the employee will keep their job .
Second , we will target support at firms who need it the most .
All small and medium sized businesses are eligible .
But larger businesses , only when their turnover has fallen through the crisis .
Third , it will be open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they have not previously used the furlough scheme .
The scheme will run for six months starting in November .
And employers retaining furloughed staff on shorter hours can claim both the Jobs Support Scheme and the Jobs Retention Bonus .
Throughout this crisis , we have sought parity between employees and the self-employed providing more than £13 billion of support to over 2.6 million self-employed small businesses .
So I am extending the existing self-employed grant on similar terms and conditions as the new Jobs Support Scheme … These are radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies we have never tried in this country before .
Together with the Jobs Retention Bonus , the Kickstart scheme for young people , tens of billions of pounds of job creation schemes , new investment in training and apprenticeships , we are protecting millions of jobs and businesses .
If we want to protect jobs this winter , the second major challenge is helping businesses with cash flow .
Over the last six months , we ’ ve supported business with tens of billions of pounds of tax deferrals and generous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lifeline .
But right now , businesses need every extra pound to protect jobs rather than repaying loans and tax deferrals .
So I ’ m taking four further steps today to make that happen .
First , Bounce Back Loans have given over a million small businesses a £38 billion boost to survive this pandemic .
To give those businesses more time and greater flexibility to repay their loans , we are introducing Pay As You Grow .
• loans can now be extended from six to ten years – nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are struggling can now choose to make interest-only payments • and , anyone in real trouble can apply to suspend repayments altogether for up to six months No business taking up Pay As You Grow will see their credit rating affected as a result .
Second , I am also changing the terms of our other loan schemes .
More than 60,000 Small and Medium sized businesses have now taken out Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans .
To help them , I plan to extend the government guarantee on these loans for up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lenders to give people more time to repay .
I am also extending the deadline of all our loan schemes to the end of the year .
And we are starting work on a new , successor loan programme , set to begin in January .
Third , I want to give businesses more time and flexibility over their deferred tax bills .
Nearly half a million businesses deferred more than £30 billion of VAT this year .
On current plans , those payments fall due in March .
Instead , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill over 11 smaller repayments , with no interest to pay .
And any of the millions of self-assessed income taxpayers who need extra help , can also now extend their outstanding tax bill over 12 months from next January .
The final step I ’ m taking today will support two of the most affected sectors : hospitality and tourism .
On current plans , their VAT rates will increase from 5 % back to the standard rate of 20 % on January the 13th .
So to support more than 150,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the winter I am announcing today that we are cancelling the planned increase and will keep the lower 5 % VAT rate until March 31st next year .
Today ’ s measures mark an important evolution in our approach .
Our lives can no longer be put on hold .
Since May , we have taken steps to liberate our economy and society .
We did these things because life means more than simply existing .
We find meaning and hope through our friends and family , through our work , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for wanting that meaning , for striving towards normality , and nor was the government wrong to want this for them .
I said in the summer that we must endure and live with the uncertainty of the moment .
This means learning our new limits as we go .
Because the truth is the responsibility for defeating Coronavirus can not be held by government alone .
It is a collective responsibility , shared by all .
Because the cost is paid by all .
We have so often spoken about this virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the price our country is paying is wider than that .
The government has done much to mitigate the effects of the awful trade-offs between health , education and employment .
And as we think about the next few weeks and months , we need to bear all of those costs in mind .
As such , it would be dishonest to say there is now some risk-free solution .
Or that we can mandate behaviour to such an extent we lose any sense of personal responsibility .
What was true at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s on all of us .
And we must learn to live with it and live without fear .
I commend this Statement to the House .
”

“
Mr Speaker,
Thank you for granting me permission to make this Statement to the House today.
Earlier this week the Prime Minister set out the next stage of the government’s health response to Coronavirus.
Today I want to explain the next phase of our planned economic response.
The House will be reassured to know I have been developing plans to protect jobs and the economy over the winter period.
Plans that seek to strike the finely-judged balance between managing the virus and protecting the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Mr Speaker,
I know people are anxious, and afraid, and exhausted, at the prospect of further restrictions on our economic and social freedoms.
I share those feelings, but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic.
We are in a fundamentally different position than we were in March.
And we now know much more about this virus.
Public awareness of the risks, and how to mitigate them, is far greater.
And we have met our promise to give the NHS whatever it needs, with significant new funding for NHS capacity, for PPE, and, I can inform the House today, we have now provided over £12 billion for test and trace.
In economic terms, while our output remains well below where it was in February, we have seen three consecutive months of growth.
And millions of people have moved off the furlough and back to work.
But the resurgence of the virus, and the measures we need to take in response, pose a threat to this fragile economic recovery.
So our task now is to move to the next stage of our economic plan, nurturing the recovery by protecting jobs through the difficult winter months.
Mr Speaker,
The underlying rationale for the next phase of economic support must be different to what came before.
The primary goal of our economic policy remains unchanged: to support people’s jobs.
But the way we achieve that must evolve.
Back in March, we hoped we were facing a temporary period of disruption.
In response, we provided one of the most generous and comprehensive economic plans anywhere in the world with £190 billion of support for people, businesses and public services, as we protected our economic capacity.
It is now clear, as the Prime Minister and our scientific advisers have said for at least the next six months the virus and restrictions are going to be a fact of our lives.
Our economy is now likely to undergo a more permanent adjustment.
The sources of our economic growth and the kinds of jobs we create, will adapt and evolve to the new normal. And our plan needs to adapt and evolve in response.
Above all, we need to face up to the trade-offs and hard choices Coronavirus presents.
And, Mr Speaker, there has been no harder choice than the decision to end the furlough scheme.
The furlough was the right policy at the time we introduced it.
It provided immediate, short-term protection for millions of jobs through a period of acute crisis.
But as the economy reopens it is fundamentally wrong to hold people in jobs that only exist inside the furlough.
We need to create new opportunities and allow the economy to move forward and that means supporting people to be in viable jobs which provide genuine security.
As I’ve said throughout this crisis, I cannot save every business.
I cannot save every job.
No Chancellor could.
But what we can and must do is deal with the real problems businesses and employees are facing now.
In March, the problem was that we ordered businesses to close.
In response, we paid people to stay at home and not work.
Today, the problem is different.
Many businesses are operating safely and viably, but they now face uncertainty and reduced demand over the winter months.
What those businesses need is support to bring people back to work and protect as many viable jobs as we can.
To do that, I am announcing today the new Jobs Support Scheme.
The government will directly support the wages of people in work giving businesses who face depressed demand the option of keeping employees in a job on shorter hours rather than making them redundant.
The Jobs Support Scheme is built on three principles.
First, it will support viable jobs.
To make sure of that, employees must work at least a third of their normal hours and be paid for that work, as normal, by their employer.
The government, together with employers, will then increase those people’s wages covering two-thirds of the pay they have lost by reducing their working hours.
And the employee will keep their job.
Second, we will target support at firms who need it the most.
All small and medium sized businesses are eligible.
But larger businesses, only when their turnover has fallen through the crisis.
Third, it will be open to employers across the United Kingdom, even if they have not previously used the furlough scheme.
The scheme will run for six months starting in November.
And employers retaining furloughed staff on shorter hours can claim both the Jobs Support Scheme and the Jobs Retention Bonus.
Mr Speaker,
Throughout this crisis, we have sought parity between employees and the self-employed providing more than £13 billion of support to over 2.6 million self-employed small businesses.
So I am extending the existing self-employed grant on similar terms and conditions as the new Jobs Support Scheme …
Mr Speaker,
These are radical interventions in the UK labour market; policies we have never tried in this country before.
Together with the Jobs Retention Bonus, the Kickstart scheme for young people, tens of billions of pounds of job creation schemes, new investment in training and apprenticeships, we are protecting millions of jobs and businesses.
Mr Speaker,
If we want to protect jobs this winter, the second major challenge is helping businesses with cash flow.
Over the last six months, we’ve supported business with tens of billions of pounds of tax deferrals and generous, government-backed loans.
Those policies have been a lifeline.
But right now, businesses need every extra pound to protect jobs rather than repaying loans and tax deferrals.
So I’m taking four further steps today to make that happen.
First, Bounce Back Loans have given over a million small businesses a £38 billion boost to survive this pandemic. To give those businesses more time and greater flexibility to repay their loans, we are introducing Pay As You Grow.
This means:
loans can now be extended from six to ten years – nearly halving the average monthly repayment
businesses who are struggling can now choose to make interest-only payments
and, anyone in real trouble can apply to suspend repayments altogether for up to six months
No business taking up Pay As You Grow will see their credit rating affected as a result.
Second, I am also changing the terms of our other loan schemes.
More than 60,000 Small and Medium sized businesses have now taken out Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans.
To help them, I plan to extend the government guarantee on these loans for up to ten years, making it easier for lenders to give people more time to repay.
I am also extending the deadline of all our loan schemes to the end of the year. And we are starting work on a new, successor loan programme, set to begin in January.
Third, I want to give businesses more time and flexibility over their deferred tax bills.
Nearly half a million businesses deferred more than £30 billion of VAT this year.
On current plans, those payments fall due in March.
Instead, I will allow businesses to spread that VAT bill over 11 smaller repayments, with no interest to pay.
And any of the millions of self-assessed income taxpayers who need extra help, can also now extend their outstanding tax bill over 12 months from next January.
The final step I’m taking today will support two of the most affected sectors: hospitality and tourism.
On current plans, their VAT rates will increase from 5% back to the standard rate of 20% on January the 13th.
So to support more than 150,000 businesses and help protect 2.4 million jobs through the winter I am announcing today that we are cancelling the planned increase and will keep the lower 5% VAT rate until March 31st next year.
Mr Speaker,
Today’s measures mark an important evolution in our approach.
Our lives can no longer be put on hold.
Since May, we have taken steps to liberate our economy and society.
We did these things because life means more than simply existing.
We find meaning and hope through our friends and family, through our work, through our community.
People were not wrong for wanting that meaning, for striving towards normality, and nor was the government wrong to want this for them.
I said in the summer that we must endure and live with the uncertainty of the moment.
This means learning our new limits as we go.
Because the truth is the responsibility for defeating Coronavirus cannot be held by government alone.
It is a collective responsibility, shared by all.
Because the cost is paid by all.
We have so often spoken about this virus in terms of lives lost.
But the price our country is paying is wider than that.
The government has done much to mitigate the effects of the awful trade-offs between health, education and employment.
And as we think about the next few weeks and months, we need to bear all of those costs in mind.
As such, it would be dishonest to say there is now some risk-free solution.
Or that we can mandate behaviour to such an extent we lose any sense of personal responsibility.
What was true at the beginning of this crisis remains true now.
It’s on all of us.
And we must learn to live with it and live without fear.
I commend this Statement to the House.”


conservativehome--2020-09-25--The full list of 41 Conservative MPs backing Brady’s amendment on coronavirus regulations

“ Line [ 1 ] , leave out from “ expire ” to end and add “ provided Ministers ensure @ @ @ @ @ practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ legislation , including for example part 2A of the Public Health ( Control of Disease @ @ @ @ @ has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the @ @ @ @ @ whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect .
”

Updated September 29
Amendment: Prior parliamentary scrutiny of major national coronavirus regulations
“Line [1], leave out from “expire” to end and add “provided Ministers ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and other primary legislation, including for example part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the whole of England or the whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect.”
Sir Graham Brady
John Cryer
David Davis
Harriet Harman
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
John Spellar
Other signatories:
Conservatives:
Steve Baker
Harriet Baldwin
Bob Blackman
Peter Bone
Andrew Bridgen
Paul Bristow
Christopher Chope
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
James Daly
Philip Davies
Dehenna Davison
Jonathan Djanogly
Jackie Doyle-Price
Richard Drax
George Freeman
Richard Fuller
Sir Roger Gale
Nus Ghani
Cheryl Gillan
James Gray
Damian Green
Sally-Ann Hart
John Hayes
Philip Hollobone
Tom Hunt
Bernard Jenkin
David Jones
Daniel Kawczynski
Pauline Latham
Edward Leigh
Chris Loder
Tim Loughton
Craig Mackinlay
Karl McCartney
Stephen McPartland
Esther McVey
Stephen Metcalfe new
Huw Merriman
Bob Neil
John Redwood
Laurence Robertson
Bob Seely
Henry Smith
David Simmonds
Greg Smith
Sir Robert Syms
Julian Sturdy
Craig Tracey
Tom Tugendhat
Charles Walker