conservativehome--2020-05-25--John Moss: More working from home means we will need larger homes

Cllr John Moss is a councillor in Waltham Forest and a former Parliamentary Candidate .
Local councillors know only too well the tightrope we walk between the very reasonable requirement to build new homes and the opposition to that , which comes from existing residents , fearful of the impact of new homes on their community and their current lifestyles .
The coronavirus pandemic has led to huge changes in the way we live and work .
Many are calling for some of these changes to become permanent – more walking and cycling for example – and the market will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , leisure , and shopping patterns change .
One thing that is almost certain to change is the amount of working from home .
Early in the lockdown the hashtag # WFH was used by millions to show how they were coping .
I suspect many enjoyed the extra time freed up by not commuting and the ability to put the washing on or do a bit of baking – and how it was possible to fit this all around a zoom call in a smart shirt and your pyjama bottoms at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning ?
I suspect there will be two fundamental shifts .
More emphasis on accessibility to local retail , leisure , and community facilities , and a far greater demand for space in which to work and to take a break from work .
Commuting long distances for an hour or more every day , in some cases crammed into busy trains , tubes , and buses , is not going to be popular .
Nor do we want to return to the days when almost everybody drove to work ( though a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centres apart from London ) .
This should lead to a greater demand for the distribution of workplaces into smaller suburban centres around major cities and into more distant towns around the country .
We are unlikely to return to the old normal of being “ in the office ” 36 hours a week when we can efficiently work from home and travel only for important meetings .
Think of many local high streets and you will picture two storey shops with ground floor retail and storage above .
Those upper floors could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this demand .
Redevelopment in these centres could have a couple of floors of apartments on top , but they will need to be different to meet the new demands .
In larger towns , look at some of the larger retail space , abandoned because that retail model has failed .
Imagine instead , a vertical mix of retail , café , office , and cinema/bar/restaurant on the roof , bringing people and activity to the town centre 18 hours a day .
So , this crisis could have an upside in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centres as more people are there for more of their time and accordingly spending more of their money there .
But what about the homes in which we are going to be working from home ?
It is often cited that the UK has old housing stock .
I live in a much adapted 1920s semi-detached house and there are quite literally millions of Georgian , Victorian , Edwardian , and early Second Elizabethan houses ( and I mean houses ) across the UK .
The English Housing Survey shows , mostly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Put simply , there is the space in them to # WFH without too much difficulty .
But what of the homes built in the last 20-30 years ?
These are often smaller , mostly apartments – especially in cities – and in many cases , they are occupied at the designed level or over-crowded .
Very often , these properties are occupied by younger people or families with young adult family members .
Working from home in these circumstances is much much harder .
So , my view is that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are going to need them closer to our suburban high streets and the centres of our smaller towns and less in our major cities .
The received wisdom of denser town and city centres being the answer to the conundrum of continuing growth and tackling climate change isn ’ t wrong .
But the economics of tall buildings with high numbers of small apartments falls apart if space to work and access to sufficiently generous external space is added to the design requirements .
We will need flexible workspaces in town centres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and larger apartments for younger people in smaller blocks , where they can use shared external spaces with neighbours they know .
If some good is to come out of the pandemic , a re-think on how and where we live and work which helps spread economic success beyond London can be one of them .

Cllr John Moss is a councillor in Waltham Forest and a former Parliamentary Candidate.
Local councillors know only too well the tightrope we walk between the very reasonable requirement to build new homes and the opposition to that, which comes from existing residents, fearful of the impact of new homes on their community and their current lifestyles.
The coronavirus pandemic has led to huge changes in the way we live and work. Many are calling for some of these changes to become permanent – more walking and cycling for example – and the market will also force such changes, as traditional work, leisure, and shopping patterns change.
One thing that is almost certain to change is the amount of working from home. Early in the lockdown the hashtag #WFH was used by millions to show how they were coping. I suspect many enjoyed the extra time freed up by not commuting and the ability to put the washing on or do a bit of baking – and how it was possible to fit this all around a zoom call in a smart shirt and your pyjama bottoms at 8am.
So how will this affect planning? I suspect there will be two fundamental shifts. More emphasis on accessibility to local retail, leisure, and community facilities, and a far greater demand for space in which to work and to take a break from work.
Commuting long distances for an hour or more every day, in some cases crammed into busy trains, tubes, and buses, is not going to be popular. Nor do we want to return to the days when almost everybody drove to work (though a majority still do in all major urban centres apart from London).
This should lead to a greater demand for the distribution of workplaces into smaller suburban centres around major cities and into more distant towns around the country. We are unlikely to return to the old normal of being “in the office” 36 hours a week when we can efficiently work from home and travel only for important meetings.
Think of many local high streets and you will picture two storey shops with ground floor retail and storage above. Those upper floors could be the flexible workspaces needed to meet this demand. Redevelopment in these centres could have a couple of floors of apartments on top, but they will need to be different to meet the new demands.
In larger towns, look at some of the larger retail space, abandoned because that retail model has failed. Imagine instead, a vertical mix of retail, café, office, and cinema/bar/restaurant on the roof, bringing people and activity to the town centre 18 hours a day.
So, this crisis could have an upside in the revitalisation of smaller towns and suburban centres as more people are there for more of their time and accordingly spending more of their money there. But what about the homes in which we are going to be working from home?
It is often cited that the UK has old housing stock. I live in a much adapted 1920s semi-detached house and there are quite literally millions of Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian, and early Second Elizabethan houses (and I mean houses) across the UK. The English Housing Survey shows, mostly, these are owner-occupied and under-occupied as well. Put simply, there is the space in them to #WFH without too much difficulty.
But what of the homes built in the last 20-30 years? These are often smaller, mostly apartments – especially in cities – and in many cases, they are occupied at the designed level or over-crowded. Very often, these properties are occupied by younger people or families with young adult family members. Working from home in these circumstances is much much harder.
So, my view is that we are going to need larger homes. We are going to need them closer to our suburban high streets and the centres of our smaller towns and less in our major cities. The received wisdom of denser town and city centres being the answer to the conundrum of continuing growth and tackling climate change isn’t wrong. But the economics of tall buildings with high numbers of small apartments falls apart if space to work and access to sufficiently generous external space is added to the design requirements.
We will need flexible workspaces in town centres, more houses with gardens for families, and larger apartments for younger people in smaller blocks, where they can use shared external spaces with neighbours they know.
If some good is to come out of the pandemic, a re-think on how and where we live and work which helps spread economic success beyond London can be one of them.


conservativehome--2020-05-25--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Social Security Advisory Committee ( SSAC ) is an independent statutory advisory body , funded by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has the following statutory functions : to perform , on behalf of both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Parliament , a mandatory scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that underpins the social welfare system ; and to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State , whether in response to a specific request from the UK Government or on its own initiative .
In addition to the scrutiny of proposals for secondary legislation , the Committee ’ s general advisory functions are deployed to : inform the Committee ’ s work , improving members ’ ability to scrutinise regulations and provide independent advice to Ministers ; add value to the debate on a topic that is of current interest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a specific topic within the Committee and amongst stakeholders.
” “ The Independent Review of Prevent will deliver on the Government ’ s commitment set out in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and will critically examine and report on the Prevent strategy , as set out in CONTEST June 2018 .
We are seeking a highly talented individual of unquestionable independence , integrity and credibility , who can demonstrate his or her ability to exercise sound judgment and analysis at pace and under pressure , with close public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public-facing role , so we are seeking to appoint a credible and talented Independent Reviewer who is confident engaging with a wide range of interested parties , from civil society and community organisations , to Ministers and local practitioners.
” “ The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK ’ s border and immigration functions , providing security , confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency .
They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament .
Leading a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strive to continually improve the UK ’ s approach to the Border , Immigration and Citizenship System .
Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level , ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena .
Whatever your background , you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents .
Excellent communication skills , decisiveness , independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.
” “ The Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and today , IWM is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and the Commonwealth , from the First World War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ministers , the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services under the Inspectorate ’ s scrutiny .
The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.
” “ The Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roles are provided for separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ will therefore cover both roles .
TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Social Security Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) is an independent statutory advisory body, funded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has the following statutory functions: to perform, on behalf of both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Parliament, a mandatory scrutiny of most of the proposed secondary legislation that underpins the social welfare system; and to provide advice and assistance to the Secretary of State, whether in response to a specific request from the UK Government or on its own initiative. In addition to the scrutiny of proposals for secondary legislation, the Committee’s general advisory functions are deployed to: inform the Committee’s work, improving members’ ability to scrutinise regulations and provide independent advice to Ministers; add value to the debate on a topic that is of current interest to Government and stakeholders; and stimulate debate of a specific topic within the Committee and amongst stakeholders.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £22,000 per annum.
Closes: 01 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Reviewer of Prevent
“The Independent Review of Prevent will deliver on the Government’s commitment set out in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and will critically examine and report on the Prevent strategy, as set out in CONTEST June 2018. We are seeking a highly talented individual of unquestionable independence, integrity and credibility, who can demonstrate his or her ability to exercise sound judgment and analysis at pace and under pressure, with close public and ministerial scrutiny. This is high profile and public-facing role, so we are seeking to appoint a credible and talented Independent Reviewer who is confident engaging with a wide range of interested parties, from civil society and community organisations, to Ministers and local practitioners.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £140,000 pro rata.
Closes: 01 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions, providing security, confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency. They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament. Leading a team of approximately 30 staff you will strive to continually improve the UK’s approach to the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System. Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level, ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena. Whatever your background, you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents. Excellent communication skills, decisiveness, independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £130,000
Closes: 06 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June


conservativehome--2020-05-25--Cummings made a reasonable case today, and his critics should accept it – and move on

Dominic Cummings began his statement this afternoon by sitting down , in a garden , and continued by reading his words out loud from behind a desk .
While he didn ’ t go so far as to don a suit and tie for the occasion , he at least discarded the usual scruffy T-shirt for a tidier white shirt , with its sleeves rolled up .
He looked like a nervy teacher on the first day of term .
This lecturely style of presentation from Cummings , amidst the greenery and sunshine , somehow bled passion away from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that many won ’ t have seen previously .
Indeed , many people will never have seen him before ( and the majority still won ’ t have seen him at all ) .
But those who had heard rumour of him may have been surprised .
For instead of War Cummings ( hunched , baiting , goading and contemptuous ) , they got Peace Cummings : not exactly wearing his heart on his sleeve , to be sure , but at least with his head firmly screwed on .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who know him see a lot : analytical , polite , highly intelligent , agile but unyielding – cool rather than chilly .
There will now follow a rush from his opponents to pick holes in the tapestry he wove .
Shouldn ’ t he have told the Prime Minister that he was leaving London ?
Why test drive for a journey to the capital by motoring to Castle Barnard , rather than simply driving part of the way home ?
Wasn ’ t that trip itself in breach of the lockdown regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in them that he used publicised by the Government ?
And so on .
But essentially , everything boils down to two contrasting views .
Both turn on an agreed fact : that Cummings is in a comfortable position , because he has family members with an empty property , and a privileged one , because he ’ s Boris Johnson ’ s most special adviser .
One take will be that he is using legalistic loopholes to justify exploiting his social advantages , while those same wrinkles in the law weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no bolt-holes to go to anyway .
In short , that this proclaimed anti-establishment firebrand has hypocritically married into the elites , and that it ’ s one law from him – literally – and another for everyone else .
The other view will be that what we saw today was a resolute and honest man , stepping out from backstage and blinking in the light , striving to describe the trade-offs between work , home , family , time and dashes to hospital .
This perspective understands the downsides that come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upsides , such as the threats to his family ’ s safety – and the impossibility of making perfect choices while his wife , his child and Johnson were ill. You must take your pick between the two , and those who will do so represent the full spectrum of human attitudes and dispositions , or something like it .
At one end are those who have been unable to visit their sick relatives , grieve at family funerals , comfort the dying , and haven ’ t departed with their sick children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have been raging at Cummings .
The rainbow then shifts through the permanently affronted or resentful to Cummings ’ Remainer and Labour and Cadwalladresque opponents , who will never forgive him for trouncing them in 2016 and last December… …And on to his Tory enemies , most of whom he has insulted or bested or both , at one time or another .
As we say here at ConservativeHome , few come to Cummings will clean hands .
Our own assessement is that he is a peerless campaign winner – the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not yet a deliverer in government .
Indeed , the experience of Coronavirus suggests – now that Red Wall gain triumphalism has been knocked sideways – that his preferred model of wielding centralised power via pliant Ministers doesn ’ t work .
We ’ d like to see a more traditional model of strong Cabinet Ministers exercising the freedom to run their own departments , with some policy shifts , too .
But these are matters for another time .
As far as today goes , any fair-minded observer would think better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moral , at the end of today ’ s press conference than he or she may have done at the beginning .
However , the determinants of his fate will ultimately be crudely political , and there are two crucial audiences : Tory MPs , plus party members , and everyone else .
As far as the former are concerned , we suspect that the 1922 Committee Executive , if it meets this week , is unlikely to demand that the Prime Minister dismiss his adviser .
In the absence of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the temperature among most Conservative MPs will drop , at least for the moment .
The number openly calling for Cummings to go is still only about 20 .
The public may be a tougher nut to crack .
Cummings would not have spoken today , in the wake of Johnson backing him yesterday , with no official inquiry pending , and with the threat from the ’ 22 remote , without them in mind .
And as we wrote earlier today , Cummings will undoubtedly have been driven to take the gamble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or research which he ’ s seen that ’ s bad for him personally .
Will he have turned opinion round today ?
We doubt it .
Those who have truly suffered during the lockdown – and there are many such people – are less likely to take a benign view of Cummings than this site .
They might say that if he himself is the victim of a culture of populist revolt , it ’ s one which he himself has helped to craft .
The charge has just enough sting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter that there are wider horizans to look for .
The best part of a million people were thrown onto the dole last month .
Nearly a quarter of employees were furloughed in single a fortnight alone .
Britain is set to borrow more than twice as much as after the crash .
The price of lockdown may have been worth paying but the cost is damagingly high – in cancelled operations , domestic abuse , lost schooling , mental health .
Abroad , China is set to swallow up Hong Kong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus .
If you think all this is more important than Cummings , you ’ re right .
But try telling that to his enemies – let alone some of the media pack who grandstood at today ’ s event ( though all that virtue-signalling will have gone down swimmingly in some quarters ) .
The bottom line is that most of his foes want him out so that Boris Johnson can be weakened , the Conservatives damaged , the Government ’ s electoral chances set back and EU transition extended .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could do .
For if those poll numbers don ’ t move , we think that Cummings may walk .
We have few illusions here about British politics .
Or human nature .

Dominic Cummings began his statement yesterday by sitting down, in a garden, and continued by reading his words out loud from behind a desk.
While he didn’t go so far as to don a suit and tie for the occasion, he at least discarded the usual scruffy T-shirt for a tidier white shirt, with its sleeves rolled up. He looked like a nervy teacher on the first day of term.
This lecturely style of presentation from Cummings, amidst the greenery and sunshine, somehow bled passion away from the event, and presented an aspect of him that many won’t have seen previously.
Indeed, many people will never have seen him before (and the majority still won’t have seen him at all). But those who had heard rumour of him may have been surprised.
For instead of War Cummings (hunched, baiting, goading and contemptuous), they got Peace Cummings: not exactly wearing his heart on his sleeve, to be sure, but at least with his head firmly screwed on.
He was in the mode that those of us who know him see a lot: analytical, polite, highly intelligent, agile but unyielding – cool rather than chilly. There will now follow a rush from his opponents to pick holes in the tapestry he wove.
Shouldn’t he have told the Prime Minister that he was leaving London? Why test drive for a journey to the capital by motoring to Barnard Castle, rather than simply driving part of the way home?
Wasn’t that trip itself in breach of the lockdown regulations? Why wasn’t the exemption in them that he used publicised by the Government? And so on. But essentially, everything boils down to two contrasting views.
Both turn on an agreed fact: that Cummings is in a comfortable position, because he has family members with an empty property, and a privileged one, because he’s Boris Johnson’s most special adviser.
One take will be that he is using legalistic loopholes to justify exploiting his social advantages, while those same wrinkles in the law weren’t made known to others, who have no bolt-holes to go to anyway.
In short, that this proclaimed anti-establishment firebrand has hypocritically married into the elites, and that it’s one law from him – literally – and another for everyone else.
The other view will be that what we saw today was a resolute and honest man, stepping out from backstage and blinking in the light, striving to describe the trade-offs between work, home, family, time and dashes to hospital.
This perspective understands the downsides that come with his turf as well as the upsides, such as the threats to his family’s safety – and the impossibility of making perfect choices while his wife, his child and Johnson were ill.
You must take your pick between the two, and those who will do so represent the full spectrum of human attitudes and dispositions, or something like it.
At one end are those who have been unable to visit their sick relatives, grieve at family funerals, comfort the dying, and haven’t departed with their sick children for other places. Many of them will have been raging at Cummings.
The rainbow then shifts through the permanently affronted or resentful to Cummings’ Remainer and Labour and Cadwalladresque opponents, who will never forgive him for trouncing them in 2016 and last December…
…And on to his Tory enemies, most of whom he has insulted or bested or both, at one time or another. As we say here at ConservativeHome, few come to Cummings will clean hands.
Our own assessement is that he is a peerless campaign winner – the great British centre-right one of our time – but not yet a deliverer in government.
Indeed, the experience of Coronavirus suggests – now that Red Wall gain triumphalism has been knocked sideways – that his preferred model of wielding centralised power via pliant Ministers doesn’t work.
We’d like to see a more traditional model of strong Cabinet Ministers exercising the freedom to run their own departments, with some policy shifts, too. But these are matters for another time.
As far as yesterday goes, any fair-minded observer would think better of Cummings’ case, both legal and moral, at the end of today’s press conference than he or she may have done at the beginning.
However, the determinants of his fate will ultimately be crudely political, and there are two crucial audiences: Tory MPs, plus party members, and everyone else.
As far as the former are concerned, we suspect that the 1922 Committee Executive, if it meets this week, is unlikely to demand that the Prime Minister dismiss his adviser.
In the absence of new developments or information, we suspect that the temperature among most Conservative MPs will drop, at least for the moment. The number openly calling for Cummings to go is still only about 20.
The public may be a tougher nut to crack. Cummings would not have spoken today, in the wake of Johnson backing him yesterday, with no official inquiry pending, and with the threat from the ’22 remote, without them in mind.
And as we wrote earlier today, Cummings will undoubtedly have been driven to take the gamble of a free-for-all press conference by polling or research which he’s seen that’s bad for him personally.
Will he have turned opinion round? We doubt it. Those who have truly suffered during the lockdown – and there are many such people – are less likely to take a benign view of Cummings than this site.
They might say that if he himself is the victim of a culture of populist revolt, it’s one which he himself has helped to craft. The charge has just enough sting in it to draw blood.
You may counter that there are wider horizans to look for. The best part of a million people were thrown onto the dole last month. Nearly a quarter of employees were furloughed in single a fortnight alone.
Britain is set to borrow more than twice as much as after the crash. The price of lockdown may have been worth paying but the cost is damagingly high – in cancelled operations, domestic abuse, lost schooling, mental health.
Abroad, China is set to swallow up Hong Kong. Here, the Government grapples with the Coronavirus. If you think all this is more important than Cummings, you’re right.
But try telling that to his enemies – let alone some of the media pack who grandstood at today’s event (though all that virtue-signalling will have gone down swimmingly in some quarters).
The bottom line is that most of his foes want him out so that Boris Johnson can be weakened, the Conservatives damaged, the Government’s electoral chances set back and EU transition extended.
They shouldn’t succeed, but they could do. For if those poll numbers don’t move, we think that Cummings may walk. We have few illusions here about British politics. Or human nature.


conservativehome--2020-05-25--Cummings 4) “I wanted to explain what I thought, what I did and why over this period.” His words: fu

Cummings 4) “I wanted to explain what I thought, what I did and why over this period.” His words: full text.

“ Good afternoon , thank you for coming .
Yesterday I gave a full account to the Prime Minister of my actions between 27th of March and 14th of April , of what I thought and did .
He has asked me to repeat that account directly to you .
I know millions of people in this country have been suffering , thousands have died , many are angry about what they have seen in the media about my actions .
I want to clear up the confusions and misunderstandings that I can .
In retrospect I should have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many years since I have said anything on television but I will do my best to answer questions after I have explained what happened .
I also should clarify I ’ m not here to speak on behalf of the Government or the Prime Minister .
I ’ m explaining my own actions and my own thinking .
The Prime Minister is giving a press conference later and he will answer questions concerning Government policy .
Around midnight on Thursday 26th of March I spoke to the Prime Minister , he told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We discussed the national emergency arrangements for Number Ten given his isolation and what I would do in Number Ten the next day .
The next morning I went to work as usual .
I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency .
I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four-year-old child .
She told me she felt badly ill , she had vomited and felt she might pass out and there will be nobody to look after our child .
None of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were alone in the house .
After briefly telling some officials in Number Ten what had happened , I immediately left the building , ran to my car and drove home .
This was reported by the media at the time who saw me run out of Number Ten .
After a couple of hours my wife felt a little better .
There were many critical things at work and she urged me to return in the afternoon , and I did .
That evening I returned home and discussed the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she might have Covid , though she did not have a cough or a fever .
At this point most of those who I work with most closely , including the Prime Minister himself , and others who sit within fifteen feet of me every day either had had symptoms and returned to work or absent with symptoms .
I thought there was a distinct probability that I had already caught the disease .
I had a few conflicting thoughts in my mind .
First I was worried that if my wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly hospitalised , there was nobody in London we could reasonably ask to look after our child and expose themselves to Covid .
My wife had felt on the edge of not being able to look after him safely a few hours earlier .
I was thinking what if the same or worse happens to me because there is nobody here I can reasonably ask to help .
The regulations may clear I believe that risks to the health of a small child are an exceptional situation , and I had a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to others .
Second , I thought that if I did not develop symptoms that I might be able to return to work to help deal with the crisis .
There were ongoing discussions about testing government staff in order to keep people like me working rather than isolating .
At this point on the Friday advisers such as myself had not been included in a list of who were tested .
But it was possible this might change the following week .
Therefore , I thought that after testing negative I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not change and special advisers were not tested , and I have never been tested .
Third , there have been numerous false stories in the media about my actions and statements regarding Covid , in particular there were stories suggesting I had opposed lockdown and even then I do not care about many deaths .
For years I have warned about the dangers of pandemics , last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning .
The truth is I had argued for lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These stories have created a very bad atmosphere around my home .
I was subjected to threats of violence , people came to my house shouting threats , there were posts on social media encouraging attacks , many media reports on television showing pictures of my house .
I was also worried that given the severity of this emergency , this situation would get worse and I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and often into the night while I worked in Number Ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do in all the circumstances was to drive to an isolated cottage on my Father ’ s farm .
At this farm , my parents live in one house , my sister and her children live in another house and there was a separate cottage roughly fifty metres away from either of them .
My tentative conclusion on the Friday evening was this , if we are both unable to look after my child , my sister and nieces can look after him .
My nieces are 17 and 20 , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also young enough to be in the safest category and had kindly volunteered to do so if needed .
But I thought , if I do not develop symptoms and there is a testing regime in place at work , I could return to work if I tested negative .
In that situation I could leave my wife and child behind in a safe place , safe in the form support from family for shopping and emergencies , safe in the sense of being away from our home which had become a target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were completely isolated on the farm and could not infect anybody .
Contrary to some media reports , there are no neighbours in the normal sense of the word , the nearest homes are roughly half a mile away so in this scenario I thought they could stay there for a few weeks , I could go back to work , help colleagues , and everybody including the general public would be safe .
I did not ask the Prime Minister about this decision .
He was ill himself and he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day I have to exercise my judgment about things like this and decide what to discuss with him .
I thought I would speak to him when the situation clarified over the coming days , including whether I had symptoms and whether there were tests available .
Arguably this was a mistake and I understand some would say I should have spoken to the Prime Minister before deciding what to do .
So I drove the three of us up to Durham that night , arriving roughly at midnight .
I did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke the next morning , Saturday 28th of March , I was in pain and clearly had Covid symptoms including a bad headache and a serious fever .
Clearly I could not return to work any time soon .
For a day or two we were both ill , I was in bed , my wife was ill but not ill enough that she needed emergency help .
I got worse , she got better .
During the night of the Thursday 2nd of April , my child woke up , he threw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was very distressed .
We took medical advice , which was to call 999 .
An ambulance was sent , they assessed my child and said he must go to hospital .
I could barely stand up , my wife went with him in the ambulance , I stayed at home , he stayed the night in the hospital .
In the morning my wife called to say he had recovered , seemed back to normal , doctors had tested him for Covid and said they should return home .
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital , picked them up and returned home .
I did not leave the car or have any contact with anybody at any point on this short trip .
The hospital is , I don ’ t know what , roughly five miles away , two miles , three miles , four miles , something like that .
A few days later the hospital said he had tested negative .
After I started recover , one day in the second week I tried to walk outside the house .
At one point the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by my father next to the cottage I was staying in .
Some people saw us in these woods from the distance but we had no interaction with them .
We had not left the property .
We were on private land .
By Saturday 11th of April I was still feeling weak and exhausted but other than that I had no Covid symptoms .
I thought I would be able to return to work the following week , possibly part-time .
It was obvious the situation was extremely serious .
The Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with huge problems , and many were ill and isolating .
I felt like I ought to return to work if possible given that I was now recovering in order to relieve the intense strain at Number Ten .
On the Saturday , I sought expert medical advice .
I explained our family ’ s symptoms and all the timings and asked if it was safe to return to work on Monday , Tuesday , seek child care and so on .
I was told it was safe and I could return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Sunday 12th of April , 15 days after I first displayed symptoms , I decided to return to work .
My wife was very worried , particularly given my eyesight seem to have been affected by the disease .
She did not want to risk the nearly 300 mile Drive with our child given how ill I had been .
We agreed we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely .
We drove our roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the castle .
We did not walk around the town .
We parked by a river , my wife and I discussed the situation , we agreed we should turn around and go home .
I felt a bit sick .
We walked ten to 15 metres from the car to the river bank nearby , we sat there for about 15 minutes , we had no interactions with anybody .
I felt better , we returned to the car .
An elderly gentleman walking nearby appeared to recognise me .
My wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we had no other interaction .
We headed home .
On the way home our child needed the toilet , he was in the back-seat of the car .
We pulled over to the side of the road , my wife and child jumped out into the woods by the side of the road .
They were briefly outside .
I briefly joined them , they played for a little bit and then I got out of the car , went outside , we were briefly in the woods .
We saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no point did we break any social distancing rules .
We then got back in the car and went home .
We agreed that if I continue to improve , the next day we should return to London and I would go back to work .
We returned to London on the evening of Monday , April 13 , Easter Monday .
I went back to work in Number Ten the next morning .
At no point between arriving or leaving Durham did any of the three of us enter my parent ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our only exchanges were shouted conversations at a distance .
My sister shopped for us and left everything outside .
In the last few days there have been many media reports I returned to Durham after the 13th of April , all these stories are false .
There is a particular report I returned there on the 19th of April .
Photos and data on my phone prove this to be false , and local CCTV if it exists will also prove I ’ m telling the truth that I was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Durham .
During this two week period , my mother ’ s brother died with Covid .
There are media reports this had some influence on my behaviour , these reports are false .
This private matter did not affect my movements .
None of us saw him , none of us attended his funeral .
In this very complex situation , I decided to exercise my judgment the best I could .
I believe in all circumstances I behaved reasonably and legally , balancing the safety of my family and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public interest of an effective government to which I could contribute .
I was involved in decisions involving millions of people I thought I should try to help as much as I could do .
I can understand some people will argue I should have stayed at my home in London throughout .
I understand these views , I know the intense hardship and sacrifice the entire country has had to go through .
However , I respectfully disagree .
The legal rules inevitably do not cover all circumstances , including those I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think today that the rules , including those regarding small children and extreme circumstances , allowed me to exercise my judgment about the situation I found myself in , including the way my London home had become a target and all the complexity of the situation .
I accept of course there is room for reasonable disagreement about this .
I can also understand some people think I should not have driven at all anywhere , but I had taken expert medical advice .
It was 15 days after symptoms .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work and employ childcare .
I think it was reasonable and sensible to make a short journey before embarking on a five-hour drive to see if I was in a fit state to do this .
The alternative was to stay in Durham rather than going back to work and contributing to the Government ’ s efforts .
I believe I made the right judgment , though I can understand that others may disagree with that .
I explained all of the above to the Prime Minister .
At some point during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in bed , I mentioned to him what I had done and unsurprisingly , given the condition we were in , neither of us remember the conversation in any detail .
I did not make my movements public at the time because my London home was already a target , I do not believe that I was obliged to make my parents and sisters home a target for harassment as well .
I understand millions of people have seen media coverage of this issue and I know that millions have endured awful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few months , and people are suffering every day .
I know the British people hate the idea of unfairness .
I wanted to explain what I thought , what I did and why over this period because I think people like me who helped to make the rules should be accountable for their actions .
I am happy to answer questions from the media , who are here .

“Good afternoon, thank you for coming. Yesterday I gave a full account to the Prime Minister of my actions between 27th of March and 14th of April, of what I thought and did. He has asked me to repeat that account directly to you. I know millions of people in this country have been suffering, thousands have died, many are angry about what they have seen in the media about my actions. I want to clear up the confusions and misunderstandings that I can.
In retrospect I should have made the statement earlier. It’s many years since I have said anything on television but I will do my best to answer questions after I have explained what happened. I also should clarify I’m not here to speak on behalf of the Government or the Prime Minister.
I’m explaining my own actions and my own thinking. The Prime Minister is giving a press conference later and he will answer questions concerning Government policy.
Around midnight on Thursday 26th of March I spoke to the Prime Minister, he told me he had tested positive for Covid. We discussed the national emergency arrangements for Number Ten given his isolation and what I would do in Number Ten the next day.
The next morning I went to work as usual. I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency. I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four-year-old child. She told me she felt badly ill, she had vomited and felt she might pass out and there will be nobody to look after our child. None of our usual childcare options were available, they were alone in the house.
After briefly telling some officials in Number Ten what had happened, I immediately left the building, ran to my car and drove home. This was reported by the media at the time who saw me run out of Number Ten. After a couple of hours my wife felt a little better.
There were many critical things at work and she urged me to return in the afternoon, and I did.
That evening I returned home and discussed the situation with my wife. She was ill, she might have Covid, though she did not have a cough or a fever. At this point most of those who I work with most closely, including the Prime Minister himself, and others who sit within fifteen feet of me every day either had had symptoms and returned to work or absent with symptoms. I thought there was a distinct probability that I had already caught the disease. I had a few conflicting thoughts in my mind.
First I was worried that if my wife and I were both seriously ill, possibly hospitalised, there was nobody in London we could reasonably ask to look after our child and expose themselves to Covid. My wife had felt on the edge of not being able to look after him safely a few hours earlier. I was thinking what if the same or worse happens to me because there is nobody here I can reasonably ask to help. The regulations may clear I believe that risks to the health of a small child are an exceptional situation, and I had a way of dealing with this that minimised the risk to others.
Second, I thought that if I did not develop symptoms that I might be able to return to work to help deal with the crisis. There were ongoing discussions about testing government staff in order to keep people like me working rather than isolating. At this point on the Friday advisers such as myself had not been included in a list of who were tested. But it was possible this might change the following week. Therefore, I thought that after testing negative I could continue working. In fact this did not change and special advisers were not tested, and I have never been tested.
Third, there have been numerous false stories in the media about my actions and statements regarding Covid, in particular there were stories suggesting I had opposed lockdown and even then I do not care about many deaths. For years I have warned about the dangers of pandemics, last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning. The truth is I had argued for lockdown, I did not oppose it.
These stories have created a very bad atmosphere around my home. I was subjected to threats of violence, people came to my house shouting threats, there were posts on social media encouraging attacks, many media reports on television showing pictures of my house. I was also worried that given the severity of this emergency, this situation would get worse and I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and often into the night while I worked in Number Ten. I thought the best thing to do in all the circumstances was to drive to an isolated cottage on my Father’s farm.
At this farm, my parents live in one house, my sister and her children live in another house and there was a separate cottage roughly fifty metres away from either of them. My tentative conclusion on the Friday evening was this, if we are both unable to look after my child, my sister and nieces can look after him. My nieces are 17 and 20, they are old enough to look after him but also young enough to be in the safest category and had kindly volunteered to do so if needed. But I thought, if I do not develop symptoms and there is a testing regime in place at work, I could return to work if I tested negative. In that situation I could leave my wife and child behind in a safe place, safe in the form support from family for shopping and emergencies, safe in the sense of being away from our home which had become a target, and safe from everybody else because they were completely isolated on the farm and could not infect anybody.
Contrary to some media reports, there are no neighbours in the normal sense of the word, the nearest homes are roughly half a mile away so in this scenario I thought they could stay there for a few weeks, I could go back to work, help colleagues, and everybody including the general public would be safe. I did not ask the Prime Minister about this decision. He was ill himself and he had huge problems to deal with.
Every day I have to exercise my judgment about things like this and decide what to discuss with him. I thought I would speak to him when the situation clarified over the coming days, including whether I had symptoms and whether there were tests available. Arguably this was a mistake and I understand some would say I should have spoken to the Prime Minister before deciding what to do.
So I drove the three of us up to Durham that night, arriving roughly at midnight. I did not stop on the way. When I woke the next morning, Saturday 28th of March, I was in pain and clearly had Covid symptoms including a bad headache and a serious fever. Clearly I could not return to work any time soon. For a day or two we were both ill, I was in bed, my wife was ill but not ill enough that she needed emergency help. I got worse, she got better.
During the night of the Thursday 2nd of April, my child woke up, he threw up and had a bad fever. He was very distressed. We took medical advice, which was to call 999. An ambulance was sent, they assessed my child and said he must go to hospital. I could barely stand up, my wife went with him in the ambulance, I stayed at home, he stayed the night in the hospital. In the morning my wife called to say he had recovered, seemed back to normal, doctors had tested him for Covid and said they should return home. There were no taxis.
I drove to the hospital, picked them up and returned home. I did not leave the car or have any contact with anybody at any point on this short trip. The hospital is, I don’t know what, roughly five miles away, two miles, three miles, four miles, something like that.
A few days later the hospital said he had tested negative. After I started recover, one day in the second week I tried to walk outside the house. At one point the three of us walked into woods owned by my father next to the cottage I was staying in. Some people saw us in these woods from the distance but we had no interaction with them. We had not left the property. We were on private land.
By Saturday 11th of April I was still feeling weak and exhausted but other than that I had no Covid symptoms. I thought I would be able to return to work the following week, possibly part-time. It was obvious the situation was extremely serious.
The Prime Minister was gravely ill, colleagues were dealing with huge problems, and many were ill and isolating. I felt like I ought to return to work if possible given that I was now recovering in order to relieve the intense strain at Number Ten.
On the Saturday, I sought expert medical advice. I explained our family’s symptoms and all the timings and asked if it was safe to return to work on Monday, Tuesday, seek child care and so on. I was told it was safe and I could return to work and seek child care.
On Sunday 12th of April, 15 days after I first displayed symptoms, I decided to return to work. My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seem to have been affected by the disease. She did not want to risk the nearly 300 mile Drive with our child given how ill I had been. We agreed we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely. We drove our roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town.
We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river, my wife and I discussed the situation, we agreed we should turn around and go home. I felt a bit sick. We walked ten to 15 metres from the car to the river bank nearby, we sat there for about 15 minutes, we had no interactions with anybody. I felt better, we returned to the car. An elderly gentleman walking nearby appeared to recognise me. My wife wished him happy Easter from a distance but we had no other interaction. We headed home.
On the way home our child needed the toilet, he was in the back-seat of the car. We pulled over to the side of the road, my wife and child jumped out into the woods by the side of the road. They were briefly outside. I briefly joined them, they played for a little bit and then I got out of the car, went outside, we were briefly in the woods. We saw some people at a distance but at no point did we break any social distancing rules.
We then got back in the car and went home. We agreed that if I continue to improve, the next day we should return to London and I would go back to work. We returned to London on the evening of Monday, April 13, Easter Monday. I went back to work in Number Ten the next morning. At no point between arriving or leaving Durham did any of the three of us enter my parent’ house or my sister’s house.
Our only exchanges were shouted conversations at a distance. My sister shopped for us and left everything outside. In the last few days there have been many media reports I returned to Durham after the 13th of April, all these stories are false. There is a particular report I returned there on the 19th of April. Photos and data on my phone prove this to be false, and local CCTV if it exists will also prove I’m telling the truth that I was in London that day, I was not in Durham. During this two week period, my mother’s brother died with Covid.
There are media reports this had some influence on my behaviour, these reports are false. This private matter did not affect my movements. None of us saw him, none of us attended his funeral. In this very complex situation, I decided to exercise my judgment the best I could. I believe in all circumstances I behaved reasonably and legally, balancing the safety of my family and the extreme situation at Number Ten and the public interest of an effective government to which I could contribute. I was involved in decisions involving millions of people I thought I should try to help as much as I could do. I can understand some people will argue I should have stayed at my home in London throughout. I understand these views, I know the intense hardship and sacrifice the entire country has had to go through.
However, I respectfully disagree. The legal rules inevitably do not cover all circumstances, including those I found myself in. I thought and I think today that the rules, including those regarding small children and extreme circumstances, allowed me to exercise my judgment about the situation I found myself in, including the way my London home had become a target and all the complexity of the situation.
I accept of course there is room for reasonable disagreement about this. I can also understand some people think I should not have driven at all anywhere, but I had taken expert medical advice. It was 15 days after symptoms. I had been told I could return to work and employ childcare. I think it was reasonable and sensible to make a short journey before embarking on a five-hour drive to see if I was in a fit state to do this.
The alternative was to stay in Durham rather than going back to work and contributing to the Government’s efforts. I believe I made the right judgment, though I can understand that others may disagree with that. I explained all of the above to the Prime Minister.
At some point during the first week when we were both sick and in bed, I mentioned to him what I had done and unsurprisingly, given the condition we were in, neither of us remember the conversation in any detail. I did not make my movements public at the time because my London home was already a target, I do not believe that I was obliged to make my parents and sisters home a target for harassment as well.
I understand millions of people have seen media coverage of this issue and I know that millions have endured awful hardship, including personal tragedies over the last few months, and people are suffering every day.
I know the British people hate the idea of unfairness. I wanted to explain what I thought, what I did and why over this period because I think people like me who helped to make the rules should be accountable for their actions. I am happy to answer questions from the media, who are here.


conservativehome--2020-05-25--Cummings 2) He will hold a press conference at four o’clock. This is a calculated throw of the dice.

“ If people really conclude that “ it ’ s one law for them , and another us ” – with enemy-of-the-establishment Cummings ironically transformed into an icon of the establishment – the Prime Minister may be irreparably damaged .
This sense will feed through into polls and event in such a way that Johnson will have no peace until his adviser departs , and maybe not even then .
We are a long way from knowing whether this possibility is real , and the heat of this row , deliberately fanned by the enemies of Brexit , of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best place to make a judgement.
” So ConservativeHome wrote this morning .
But there ’ s evidently one person at the centre of events who disagrees : Dominic Cummings himself .
For with Boris Johnson having come out fullsquare to fight for him ; with no internal inquiry , and with the 1922 Committee ’ s Executive unlikely to demand his head , Cummings can have only one reason for calling a snap press conference this afternoon – namely , what his own fabled polling , nous and research will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the saga of his and his family ’ s Coronavirus visit to Durham could cause the Conservatives lasting damage .
Hence his reaching for that instrument of the last resort – the “ full and frank ” press conference .
Not an signed article ( which one can control ) , a newspaper interview ( for which one can set conditions ) , nor even Andrew Marr or Sophie Ridge : instead , a descent into the jackals ’ den .
On the basis of the known facts , we believe that Cummings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , and arguably a moral one , too .
None the less , we wonder whether such a leap in the dark will land Cummings safely on the other side .
If he ’ s going to make his case in public , some will ask , why didn ’ t he do so yesterday – before Johnson ’ s press conference ?
Or right at the start of this affair ?
Should SpAds be giving press conferences at all ?
Then there is the character-is-destiny factor .
Cummings ’ leitmotif is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he leapfrog it to pitch appealingly to an enraged public ?
( For so his own research must be telling him it is . )
Perhaps he can and we hope he can , but we can ’ t help wondering if what we ’ re in for is Coriolanus Act Three , Scene Three , on acid .

“If people really conclude that “it’s one law for them, and another us” – with enemy-of-the-establishment Cummings ironically transformed into an icon of the establishment – the Prime Minister may be irreparably damaged. This sense will feed through into polls and event in such a way that Johnson will have no peace until his adviser departs, and maybe not even then. We are a long way from knowing whether this possibility is real, and the heat of this row, deliberately fanned by the enemies of Brexit, of the Conservatives and of Cummings himself is not the best place to make a judgement.”
So ConservativeHome wrote this morning. But there’s evidently one person at the centre of events who disagrees: Dominic Cummings himself.
For with Boris Johnson having come out fullsquare to fight for him; with no internal inquiry, and with the 1922 Committee’s Executive unlikely to demand his head, Cummings can have only one reason for calling a snap press conference this afternoon – namely, what his own fabled polling, nous and research will be telling him.
Which will be that the saga of his and his family’s Coronavirus visit to Durham could cause the Conservatives lasting damage. Hence his reaching for that instrument of the last resort – the “full and frank” press conference.
Not an signed article (which one can control), a newspaper interview (for which one can set conditions), nor even Andrew Marr or Sophie Ridge: instead, a descent into the jackals’ den. On the basis of the known facts, we believe that Cummings has a legal case for what he did, and arguably a moral one, too.
None the less, we wonder whether such a leap in the dark will land Cummings safely on the other side. If he’s going to make his case in public, some will ask, why didn’t he do so yesterday – before Johnson’s press conference?
Or right at the start of this affair? Should SpAds be giving press conferences at all? Then there is the character-is-destiny factor. Cummings’ leitmotif is his contempt for the media. Can he leapfrog it to pitch appealingly to an enraged public? (For so his own research must be telling him it is.)
Perhaps he can and we hope he can, but we can’t help wondering if what we’re in for is Coriolanus Act Three, Scene Three, on acid.


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Ross resigns over Cummings

Ross resigns over Cummings

Whatever you think of the Cummings Saga ( we believe his statement yesterday was persuasive , and that the whole @ @ @ @ @ , this is a dignified and coherent letter .
There may be some twist of @ @ @ @ @ .
But as far as we can see , the matter is simple enough .
@ @ @ @ @ an honourable decision by Ross who , unlike Cummings ’ other public Conservative MP critics @ @ @ @ @ that has cost him his job .
And unlike some of them , too , @ @ @ @ @ Cummings : “ I have never [ him ] , ” he writes .
The @ @ @ @ @ yesterday was to shut up the dam of public criticism of him from the Conservative @ @ @ @ @ flung open the flood gates .
More water may now wash through .
We are @ @ @ @ @ the Cummings saga , and the odds of him quitting have just shortened .

Whatever you think of the Cummings Saga (we believe his statement yesterday was persuasive, and that the whole matter should be dropped), this is a dignified and coherent letter.
There may be some twist of which we’re unaware. But as far as we can see, the matter is simple enough.
Namely, that this is an honourable decision by Ross who, unlike Cummings’ other public Conservative MP critics, has made a decision that has cost him his job.
And unlike some of them, too, he bears no animus against Cummings: “I have never [him],” he writes.
The effect of Cummings’ statement yesterday was to shut up the dam of public criticism of him from the Conservative backbenches. Ross has just flung open the flood gates. More water may now wash through.
We are now on Day Four of the Cummings saga, and the odds of him quitting have just shortened.


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons –


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Cummings made a reasonable case yesterday, and his critics should accept it – and move on

Dominic Cummings began his statement yesterday by sitting down , in a garden , and continued by reading his words out loud from behind a desk .
While he didn ’ t go so far as to don a suit and tie for the occasion , he at least discarded the usual scruffy T-shirt for a tidier white shirt , with its sleeves rolled up .
He looked like a nervy teacher on the first day of term .
This lecturely style of presentation from Cummings , amidst the greenery and sunshine , somehow bled passion away from the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many won ’ t have seen previously .
Indeed , many people will never have seen him before ( and the majority still won ’ t have seen him at all ) .
But those who had heard rumour of him may have been surprised .
For instead of War Cummings ( hunched , baiting , goading and contemptuous ) , they got Peace Cummings : not exactly wearing his heart on his sleeve , to be sure , but at least with his head firmly screwed on .
He was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know him see a lot : analytical , polite , highly intelligent , agile but unyielding – cool rather than chilly .
There will now follow a rush from his opponents to pick holes in the tapestry he wove .
Shouldn ’ t he have told the Prime Minister that he was leaving London ?
Why test drive for a journey to the capital by motoring to Barnard Castle , rather than simply driving part of the way home ?
Wasn ’ t that trip itself in breach of the lockdown regulations ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them that he used publicised by the Government ?
And so on .
But essentially , everything boils down to two contrasting views .
Both turn on an agreed fact : that Cummings is in a comfortable position , because he has family members with an empty property , and a privileged one , because he ’ s Boris Johnson ’ s most special adviser .
One take will be that he is using legalistic loopholes to justify exploiting his social advantages , while those same wrinkles in the law weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no bolt-holes to go to anyway .
In short , that this proclaimed anti-establishment firebrand has hypocritically married into the elites , and that it ’ s one law from him – literally – and another for everyone else .
The other view will be that what we saw today was a resolute and honest man , stepping out from backstage and blinking in the light , striving to describe the trade-offs between work , home , family , time and dashes to hospital .
This perspective understands the downsides that come with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as the threats to his family ’ s safety – and the impossibility of making perfect choices while his wife , his child and Johnson were ill. You must take your pick between the two , and those who will do so represent the full spectrum of human attitudes and dispositions , or something like it .
At one end are those who have been unable to visit their sick relatives , grieve at family funerals , comfort the dying , and haven ’ t departed with their sick children for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been raging at Cummings .
The rainbow then shifts through the permanently affronted or resentful to Cummings ’ Remainer and Labour and Cadwalladresque opponents , who will never forgive him for trouncing them in 2016 and last December… …And on to his Tory enemies , most of whom he has insulted or bested or both , at one time or another .
As we say here at ConservativeHome , few come to Cummings will clean hands .
Our own assessement is that he is a peerless campaign winner – the great British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet a deliverer in government .
Indeed , the experience of Coronavirus suggests – now that Red Wall gain triumphalism has been knocked sideways – that his preferred model of wielding centralised power via pliant Ministers doesn ’ t work .
We ’ d like to see a more traditional model of strong Cabinet Ministers exercising the freedom to run their own departments , with some policy shifts , too .
But these are matters for another time .
As far as yesterday goes , any fair-minded observer would think better of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral , at the end of today ’ s press conference than he or she may have done at the beginning .
However , the determinants of his fate will ultimately be crudely political , and there are two crucial audiences : Tory MPs , plus party members , and everyone else .
As far as the former are concerned , we suspect that the 1922 Committee Executive , if it meets this week , is unlikely to demand that the Prime Minister dismiss his adviser .
In the absence of new developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature among most Conservative MPs will drop , at least for the moment .
The number openly calling for Cummings to go is still only about 20 .
The public may be a tougher nut to crack .
Cummings would not have spoken today , in the wake of Johnson backing him yesterday , with no official inquiry pending , and with the threat from the ’ 22 remote , without them in mind .
And as we wrote earlier today , Cummings will undoubtedly have been driven to take the gamble of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research which he ’ s seen that ’ s bad for him personally .
Will he have turned opinion round ?
We doubt it .
Those who have truly suffered during the lockdown – and there are many such people – are less likely to take a benign view of Cummings than this site .
They might say that if he himself is the victim of a culture of populist revolt , it ’ s one which he himself has helped to craft .
The charge has just enough sting in it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are wider horizans to look for .
The best part of a million people were thrown onto the dole last month .
Nearly a quarter of employees were furloughed in single a fortnight alone .
Britain is set to borrow more than twice as much as after the crash .
The price of lockdown may have been worth paying but the cost is damagingly high – in cancelled operations , domestic abuse , lost schooling , mental health .
Abroad , China is set to swallow up Hong Kong .
Here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you think all this is more important than Cummings , you ’ re right .
But try telling that to his enemies – let alone some of the media pack who grandstood at today ’ s event ( though all that virtue-signalling will have gone down swimmingly in some quarters ) .
The bottom line is that most of his foes want him out so that Boris Johnson can be weakened , the Conservatives damaged , the Government ’ s electoral chances set back and EU transition extended .
They shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For if those poll numbers don ’ t move , we think that Cummings may walk .
We have few illusions here about British politics .
Or human nature .


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 261,184 ( Up from 259,559 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 36,914 ( Up from 36,793 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 1,625 ( Down from 2,409 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 121 ( Down from 118 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday March 20 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 18.30 on Monday May 25th . )

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


conservativehome--2020-05-26--Radical: A guide to trans-speak

Radical: A guide to trans-speak

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER , and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome .
Together they found Radical , a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate .
Last week saw the alarming news of homework set for 13-year-olds at the Archbishop Sentamu Academy in Hull , in which they were asked to define terms like ‘ hardcore pornography ’ .
We at Radical were inspired , and set ourselves some homework over the Bank Holiday .
Technical-sounding language – in need of defining and explaining to nervous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments – has been a key tool in the toolkit of transgender activists .
So , we ’ ve set out below our definitions of commonly-used terms in the gender debate .
Some are quite specific or bespoke neologisms ; others are standard words whose meanings have become contested .
Woman is a noun with a vast heritage ; it ’ s hard to conceive of any verbal human civilisation that wouldn ’ t have had such a term .
Woman relates both to biological realities , and to non-biological norms and assumptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us have a pretty clear idea of what it is that makes someone a woman .
It ’ s easier , however , to think of sufficient conditions for this – e.g .
all human beings who have ever had a period are women ; all human beings who give birth are women – than its full set of necessary conditions .
Not all women have had , or will have , periods ; not all women are petite ; not all women like pink .
Debate rages as to whether all sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are biological in nature .
At Radical , we strongly believe they are : that sex is determined biologically , and that gender is a theoretical construct .
Alongside woman , man is a member of the two-member set best described as ‘ sexes of human beings ’ .
Terms like ‘ man ’ and ‘ woman ’ aren ’ t value judgements , and don ’ t determine individual behaviour .
Rather , they relate to certain biological truths of sex dimorphism – i.e .
the binary division , grounded in reproductive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As biologist Emma Hilton has emphasised , ‘ humans , like almost every other thing that isn ’ t a mushroom or bug , are sexually dimorphic ’ .
That some living things aren ’ t sexually dimorphic doesn ’ t mean that human beings aren ’ t .
And that some particular human beings don ’ t fit perfectly into either of the two sex categories doesn ’ t mean that human beings aren ’ t sexually dimorphic .
There is no other human sex category aside from male and female .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a human being , and is , therefore , either a man or a woman .
To some , that may sound offensive , but it is both true and important .
One reason it ’ s important is that human beings all share certain rights .
There are disagreements about the grounding of these human rights – whether they don ’ t exist unless they ’ re set out in law , for instance , or whether they ’ re simply a natural fact about the world , that ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
However , what ’ s crucial is that they ’ re rights that all human beings hold , equally .
Now , transwomen are often contrasted with ‘ natal ’ women ( ditto transmen and natal men ) , in that transwomen are human beings who don ’ t naturally meet sufficient biological conditions of womanness , but who believe themselves to be women .
Sometimes they ‘ transition ’ ( see below ) , but transgender activists consider anyone whose gender ( see above ) does not ‘ sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born as , to be trans .
Moreover , as some people don ’ t accept there are biological conditions of being a woman or man , it can be hard to agree upon a definition of ‘ trans ’ .
This not least because , if being trans is simply to believe you are trans , then surely , a natal woman could be a transwoman .
To be gender critical ( or GC ) is , broadly , to be concerned by the increasingly popular idea that adherence to social norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determines whether one is , in fact and law , a member of that sex – or that these matters depend entirely on internal feelings of one ’ s personal ‘ gender identity ’ .
Some GCs are philosophically conservative , some deeply value scientific truth , but the position is most commonly associated with feminists who object to the idea that being a woman is determined by stereotypes .
To transition means to change from presenting oneself as a member of one ’ s birth sex to presenting in accordance with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the sex with which one identifies .
People who are not GC would describe this as transitioning from the gender one is ‘ assigned at birth ’ , in order to reflect one ’ s ‘ true gender identity ’ .
Transitioning can include undergoing medical treatment to change one ’ s physical appearance to resemble the opposite sex , but more frequently involves changing one ’ s name , pronouns , and ways of dressing – known as ‘ socially transitioning ’ .
In law , under the Equality Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurring when a person is ‘ proposing to undergo , is undergoing or has undergone a process ( or part of a process ) for the purpose of reassigning the person ’ s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex ’ .
This gives the person concerned legal protection from discrimination , ‘ on the grounds of gender reassignment ’ ; no formal or legal process is required to gain this protection .
Gender reassignment is not to be confused with legally changing one ’ s sex by obtaining a gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – for which a formal process and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required .
De-transitioning is the process of reversing a transition , thereby returning to accepting and identifying as the sex that one was born as .
In cases involving no medical treatment , detransitioning is straightforward although no doubt emotionally painful , but where the de-transitioner has had medical treatment , such as surgery or puberty blockers , complete reversal is often impossible , causing great distress .
A woman who had thought she was a transgender man , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently taking legal action against the NHS clinic that carried out her treatment .
TERF is an acronym , that , like radar , has become a word in its own right .
Originally , it stood for ‘ trans-exclusionary radical feminist ’ – meaning someone with radical feminist politics , who doesn ’ t accept that transwomen are women , and therefore believes they don ’ t fall within feminism ’ s sphere of concern .
Now , TERF is mainly just a term of abuse , used against GCs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even ( the horror ) allied with conservatives .
Transphobia is an ill-defined term , which is often used to criticise anyone with GC views .
For example , LGBT activist organisation Stonewall defines transphobia as ‘ [ t ] he fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans , including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it ’ .
On that understanding , anyone with reservations about the concept of gender identity , and all its implications , can be described as transphobic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgression , associated with discriminating against and distressing trans people , allegations of transphobia can cause people to refrain from expressing views on matters of sex and gender .
Hopefully this definitional exercise has been more educational than the homework set by Archbishop Sentamu Academy , which incited children to research pornography .

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. Together they found Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate.
Last week saw the alarming news of homework set for 13-year-olds at the Archbishop Sentamu Academy in Hull, in which they were asked to define terms like ‘hardcore pornography’.
We at Radical were inspired, and set ourselves some homework over the Bank Holiday.
Technical-sounding language – in need of defining and explaining to nervous teachers, public officials, and HR departments – has been a key tool in the toolkit of transgender activists.
So, we’ve set out below our definitions of commonly-used terms in the gender debate.
Some are quite specific or bespoke neologisms; others are standard words whose meanings have become contested.
Woman
Woman is a noun with a vast heritage; it’s hard to conceive of any verbal human civilisation that wouldn’t have had such a term.
Woman relates both to biological realities, and to non-biological norms and assumptions related to those realities.
Most of us have a pretty clear idea of what it is that makes someone a woman.
It’s easier, however, to think of sufficient conditions for this – e.g. all human beings who have ever had a period are women; all human beings who give birth are women – than its full set of necessary conditions.
Not all women have had, or will have, periods; not all women are petite; not all women like pink.
Debate rages as to whether all sufficient and necessary conditions of being a woman are biological in nature.
At Radical, we strongly believe they are: that sex is determined biologically, and that gender is a theoretical construct.
Man
Alongside woman, man is a member of the two-member set best described as ‘sexes of human beings’.
Terms like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ aren’t value judgements, and don’t determine individual behaviour.
Rather, they relate to certain biological truths of sex dimorphism – i.e. the binary division, grounded in reproductive anatomy, observed in human beings.
As biologist Emma Hilton has emphasised, ‘humans, like almost every other thing that isn’t a mushroom or bug, are sexually dimorphic’.
That some living things aren’t sexually dimorphic doesn’t mean that human beings aren’t.
And that some particular human beings don’t fit perfectly into either of the two sex categories doesn’t mean that human beings aren’t sexually dimorphic.
There is no other human sex category aside from male and female.
Trans
A trans- (or transgender-) person is a human being, and is, therefore, either a man or a woman.
To some, that may sound offensive, but it is both true and important.
One reason it’s important is that human beings all share certain rights.
There are disagreements about the grounding of these human rights – whether they don’t exist unless they’re set out in law, for instance, or whether they’re simply a natural fact about the world, that’d remain true even if nobody ever knew about it.
However, what’s crucial is that they’re rights that all human beings hold, equally.
Now, transwomen are often contrasted with ‘natal’ women (ditto transmen and natal men), in that transwomen are human beings who don’t naturally meet sufficient biological conditions of womanness, but who believe themselves to be women.
Sometimes they ‘transition’ (see below), but transgender activists consider anyone whose gender (see above) does not ‘sit comfortably’ with the sex they were born as, to be trans.
Moreover, as some people don’t accept there are biological conditions of being a woman or man, it can be hard to agree upon a definition of ‘trans’.
This not least because, if being trans is simply to believe you are trans, then surely, a natal woman could be a transwoman.
Gender critical
To be gender critical (or GC) is, broadly, to be concerned by the increasingly popular idea that adherence to social norms commonly associated with one of the sexes determines whether one is, in fact and law, a member of that sex – or that these matters depend entirely on internal feelings of one’s personal ‘gender identity’.
Some GCs are philosophically conservative, some deeply value scientific truth, but the position is most commonly associated with feminists who object to the idea that being a woman is determined by stereotypes.
Transitioning
To transition means to change from presenting oneself as a member of one’s birth sex to presenting in accordance with the physical characteristics and gender norms commonly associated with the sex with which one identifies.
People who are not GC would describe this as transitioning from the gender one is ‘assigned at birth’, in order to reflect one’s ‘true gender identity’.
Transitioning can include undergoing medical treatment to change one’s physical appearance to resemble the opposite sex, but more frequently involves changing one’s name, pronouns, and ways of dressing – known as ‘socially transitioning’.
In law, under the Equality Act, ‘gender reassignment’ is defined as occurring when a person is ‘proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex’.
This gives the person concerned legal protection from discrimination, ‘on the grounds of gender reassignment’; no formal or legal process is required to gain this protection.
Gender reassignment is not to be confused with legally changing one’s sex by obtaining a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act – for which a formal process and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required.
De-transitioning
De-transitioning is the process of reversing a transition, thereby returning to accepting and identifying as the sex that one was born as.
In cases involving no medical treatment, detransitioning is straightforward although no doubt emotionally painful, but where the de-transitioner has had medical treatment, such as surgery or puberty blockers, complete reversal is often impossible, causing great distress.
A woman who had thought she was a transgender man, and medically transitioned at a young age, is currently taking legal action against the NHS clinic that carried out her treatment.
TERF
TERF is an acronym, that, like radar, has become a word in its own right.
Originally, it stood for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’ – meaning someone with radical feminist politics, who doesn’t accept that transwomen are women, and therefore believes they don’t fall within feminism’s sphere of concern.
Now, TERF is mainly just a term of abuse, used against GCs, to imply they are bigoted, transphobic, and even (the horror) allied with conservatives.
Transphobia
Transphobia is an ill-defined term, which is often used to criticise anyone with GC views.
For example, LGBT activist organisation Stonewall defines transphobia as ‘[t]he fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it’.
On that understanding, anyone with reservations about the concept of gender identity, and all its implications, can be described as transphobic.
Because being transphobic is considered a serious transgression, associated with discriminating against and distressing trans people, allegations of transphobia can cause people to refrain from expressing views on matters of sex and gender.
Hopefully this definitional exercise has been more educational than the homework set by Archbishop Sentamu Academy, which incited children to research pornography.