conservativehome--2020-02-05--Samuel Williams: Bristolians are being poorly served by their current Mayor – the most deprived are

Samuel Williams: Bristolians are being poorly served by their current Mayor – the most deprived are hit the hardest

Samuel Williams is a communications specialist and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Bristol .
The December 2019 General Election secured an extraordinary result with an overwhelming mandate for a Boris Johnson government and the Conservatives to continue leading and uniting our country , delivering upon the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union , and then strengthen our economy and communities with much-needed investment and renewed vision .
As the dust settles on the new political landscape , as Conservatives we have an opportunity , and an obligation , to demonstrate our party ’ s commitment to continue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , learning , and serving all people across our country , so that no one is left behind .
It is this very ability of the Conservatives to capture the zeitgeist through listening and learning , that contrary to what social media echo chambers would have us believe , Labour has failed to do .
With a manifesto twice as long as other parties crammed with social reform pledges that many might ordinarily consider desirable , Labour still failed to capture the imagination and commitment of the electorate .
Whilst they might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many wanted , it was lost amidst the growing doubt that they could actually achieve any of it .
Furthermore , they wrongly imagined that the electorate longed for a revolutionary styled remaking of the entire nation in a single Parliamentary term ; in other words , Labour simply didn ’ t listen and didn ’ t represent the very views our representational democracy exists so to do .
The ‘ we know best ’ modus operandi of Labour isn ’ t just manifest on the national stage but runs throughout local government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am delighted to be standing as the Mayoral candidate for Bristol in the elections in May this year .
Standing in opposition to the incumbent Labour Mayor , I say it is high time that all our communities across the City and all Bristolians are listened to and served ; something that simply is not happening under the current administration .
Even a cursory glance at the State of Bristol 18-19 report highlights significant injustices , showing an increasing year on year crime rate with 33 per cent of the population in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and violence on a day to day basis .
Hate crime up .
Those “ Not in Education , Employment or Training ” is above the national average .
Air quality continues to be dangerously out of control – and life expectancy significantly worse than the national average .
Pupils in receipt of Special Educational Needs support or having an Education Health and Care Plan is above the national average and yet provision has been cut .
In some quarters of 2019 , the 20-week deadline to produce support plans failed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our cities housing crisis is met by a lack of leadership around affordable and social housing whilst rough sleeping has increased 10-fold in the last 7 years .
This list goes on , and yet despite these challenges , Bristol is a wonderfully dynamic , diverse and innovative place , and is a world leader across sectors from education to the arts , financial services , STEM and business .
The fact is , many Bristolians are being poorly served by an administration that seems to neither listen nor hear the cries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities are feeling forgotten and those most deprived and in need , hit the hardest .
Many on the Left blame Conservative austerity policy for these worrying trends and yet the simple fact is , as a city with devolved power and resource through the directly elected mayoral system addressing these issues comes down to a matter of priority and will on a local level .
As I stand alongside Bristolians , I commit to getting back to the basics of local government , that is to address the real issues that impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that education standards are improving , especially for those with SEND requirements , and making sure support is delivered when it is needed .
I pledge to support our local businesses , bringing life to our high streets and economy through pioneering start-up hubs .
I back a freeport for the City and eco-innovation enterprise zones .
We must look forward towards a sustainable and healthy city developing transport , housing , and environmental policies which strengthen communities , improve health , enable equal access to all opportunities across the city , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental than a fresh and positive policy agenda , Bristol needs leadership that is not afraid to listen , learn and serve from a place of courageous humility .
Unlike many places around the country , Bristol maintained a strong Labour vote during the General Election .
I would be naive not to expect a hard road ahead of me in the run up to May ’ s Mayoral election .
However , I am equally aware that the city at large is tired of politics being done to them by a Labour-weighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being unapproachable , unaccountable , and failing to deliver much-needed services .
So , whilst I may stand with an outside chance of winning , I do so , standing with the people of Bristol so that together , Bristol might flourish .

Samuel Williams is a communications specialist and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Bristol.
The December 2019 General Election secured an extraordinary result with an overwhelming mandate for a Boris Johnson government and the Conservatives to continue leading and uniting our country, delivering upon the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, and then strengthen our economy and communities with much-needed investment and renewed vision.
As the dust settles on the new political landscape, as Conservatives we have an opportunity, and an obligation, to demonstrate our party’s commitment to continue that which secured our victory: by listening, learning, and serving all people across our country, so that no one is left behind.
It is this very ability of the Conservatives to capture the zeitgeist through listening and learning, that contrary to what social media echo chambers would have us believe, Labour has failed to do. With a manifesto twice as long as other parties crammed with social reform pledges that many might ordinarily consider desirable, Labour still failed to capture the imagination and commitment of the electorate. Whilst they might have presented the vision of hopefulness and change many wanted, it was lost amidst the growing doubt that they could actually achieve any of it. Furthermore, they wrongly imagined that the electorate longed for a revolutionary styled remaking of the entire nation in a single Parliamentary term; in other words, Labour simply didn’t listen and didn’t represent the very views our representational democracy exists so to do.
The ‘we know best’ modus operandi of Labour isn’t just manifest on the national stage but runs throughout local government too.
For this reason, I am delighted to be standing as the Mayoral candidate for Bristol in the elections in May this year. Standing in opposition to the incumbent Labour Mayor, I say it is high time that all our communities across the City and all Bristolians are listened to and served; something that simply is not happening under the current administration. Even a cursory glance at the State of Bristol 18-19 report highlights significant injustices, showing an increasing year on year crime rate with 33 per cent of the population in the most deprived areas fearing acts of crime and violence on a day to day basis. Hate crime up. Those “Not in Education, Employment or Training” is above the national average.
Air quality continues to be dangerously out of control – and life expectancy significantly worse than the national average. Pupils in receipt of Special Educational Needs support or having an Education Health and Care Plan is above the national average and yet provision has been cut. In some quarters of 2019, the 20-week deadline to produce support plans failed to be met in 98 per cent of cases. Our cities housing crisis is met by a lack of leadership around affordable and social housing whilst rough sleeping has increased 10-fold in the last 7 years. This list goes on, and yet despite these challenges, Bristol is a wonderfully dynamic, diverse and innovative place, and is a world leader across sectors from education to the arts, financial services, STEM and business.
The fact is, many Bristolians are being poorly served by an administration that seems to neither listen nor hear the cries of frustration. In many instances, communities are feeling forgotten and those most deprived and in need, hit the hardest. Many on the Left blame Conservative austerity policy for these worrying trends and yet the simple fact is, as a city with devolved power and resource through the directly elected mayoral system addressing these issues comes down to a matter of priority and will on a local level.
As I stand alongside Bristolians, I commit to getting back to the basics of local government, that is to address the real issues that impact residents each day. That means ensuring that education standards are improving, especially for those with SEND requirements, and making sure support is delivered when it is needed. I pledge to support our local businesses, bringing life to our high streets and economy through pioneering start-up hubs. I back a freeport for the City and eco-innovation enterprise zones.
We must look forward towards a sustainable and healthy city developing transport, housing, and environmental policies which strengthen communities, improve health, enable equal access to all opportunities across the city, and work towards carbon neutrality. But more fundamental than a fresh and positive policy agenda, Bristol needs leadership that is not afraid to listen, learn and serve from a place of courageous humility.
Unlike many places around the country, Bristol maintained a strong Labour vote during the General Election. I would be naive not to expect a hard road ahead of me in the run up to May’s Mayoral election. However, I am equally aware that the city at large is tired of politics being done to them by a Labour-weighted Council Cabinet who is often accused of being unapproachable, unaccountable, and failing to deliver much-needed services. So, whilst I may stand with an outside chance of winning, I do so, standing with the people of Bristol so that together, Bristol might flourish.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: “This Government as a whole is absolutely passionate about buses.”

Parliamentary questions resemble one of those phrase books which enable one to express , in a foreign language , various thoughts for which it is hard to imagine much need in everyday conversation , useful though they are in the House of Commons .
“ Is the Prime Minister right or wrong ?
” Tony Lloyd asked from the Opposition front bench during Northern Ireland Questions , while trying to establish whether there will be customs checks in the Irish Sea .
“ The Prime Minister is always right , ” Robin Walker replied from the Treasury bench .
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they will find can be used on almost any occasion , especially if they want to raise a laugh .
“ There is no place in our society for those who peddle hate and division , ” a Tory backbencher remarked .
Again , a useful phrase , which new MPs should commit to memory .
“ Britain ’ s place in the world is at a crossroads , ” Jeremy Corbyn said .
He might have added that as far as political life is concerned , we are always at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which way to go .
“ This is beyond satire , ” Boris Johnson said .
“ We will have a wonderful summit in Glasgow , ” the Prime Minister also remarked .
“ As so often I ’ m not entirely sure what the Honourable Gentleman is talking about , ” Johnson said soon after .
“ Is he intentionally trying to impersonate Donald Trump ?
” Ian Blackford asked the Prime Minister .
“ This Government as a whole is absolutely passionate about buses , ” Johnson said a few minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by President Trump .
If Ionesco had set one of his plays in the House of Commons , he could have taken the dialogue straight from Hansard .
But since Ionesco is no longer with us , perhaps one of my younger , fitter colleagues can get going on a phrase book which will be of assistance to new MPs .

Parliamentary questions resemble one of those phrase books which enable one to express, in a foreign language, various thoughts for which it is hard to imagine much need in everyday conversation, useful though they are in the House of Commons.
“Is the Prime Minister right or wrong?” Tony Lloyd asked from the Opposition front bench during Northern Ireland Questions, while trying to establish whether there will be customs checks in the Irish Sea.
“The Prime Minister is always right,” Robin Walker replied from the Treasury bench. New Conservative MPs should memorise this phrase, which they will find can be used on almost any occasion, especially if they want to raise a laugh.
“There is no place in our society for those who peddle hate and division,” a Tory backbencher remarked. Again, a useful phrase, which new MPs should commit to memory.
“Britain’s place in the world is at a crossroads,” Jeremy Corbyn said. He might have added that as far as political life is concerned, we are always at a crossroads, even when we have decided which way to go.
“This is beyond satire,” Boris Johnson said.
“We will have a wonderful summit in Glasgow,” the Prime Minister also remarked.
“As so often I’m not entirely sure what the Honourable Gentleman is talking about,” Johnson said soon after.
“Is he intentionally trying to impersonate Donald Trump?” Ian Blackford asked the Prime Minister.
“This Government as a whole is absolutely passionate about buses,” Johnson said a few minutes later, a remark unlikely to be made by President Trump.
If Ionesco had set one of his plays in the House of Commons, he could have taken the dialogue straight from Hansard.
But since Ionesco is no longer with us, perhaps one of my younger, fitter colleagues can get going on a phrase book which will be of assistance to new MPs.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--WATCH: The PM “might recall saying that climate change is a primitive fear without foundation”

The PM ’ s “ vivid imagination seems to have taken over from his memory… he might recall saying that @ @ @ @ @ fear without foundation , ” says Jeremy Corbyn Boris Johnson says the Glasgow # COP26 @ @ @ @ @ fantastic ” # PMQs https : //t.co/lns2lBGEoC pic.twitter.com/c66htL9G5N

The PM’s “vivid imagination seems to have taken over from his memory… he might recall saying that climate change is a primitive fear without foundation,” says Jeremy Corbyn
Boris Johnson says the Glasgow #COP26 climate summit will be “fantastic”#PMQs https://t.co/lns2lBGEoC pic.twitter.com/c66htL9G5N
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 5, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-06--Decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee is long overdue

As BBC staff trudge into work at Broadcasting House they can see on the wall some words of their former colleague , George Orwell : “ If liberty means anything at all , it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
” But once safely ensconced in the building , this uncomfortable thought is quickly disregarded .
The safe space of group-think has been entered .
Diversity is an imperative – except for diversity of opinion .
Soap operas , current affairs , music awards , comedy shows , women ’ s programmes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the orthodoxy of the BBC “ values ” .
Supposing someone at the BBC was to speak up at editorial meetings for Brexit , or the free market , or Christianity ?
What if they had a bright idea for a story about how well Donald Trump is getting on ?
Supposing someone at CBBC thought a patriotic item on British inventions is overdue ?
Maybe one of the team on Radio 4 Woman ’ s Hour feels that an anti-feminist item might deserve a hearing ?
Such thought crimes would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught muttering anything that their superiors “ do not want to hear ” can not expect to progress very far .
There is a difficulty for the BBC : despite their best efforts , the Conservatives won the General Election .
There can never have been a time when special pleading from the Corporation will be considered with less sympathy .
But there is a more fundamental difficulty that the financing arrangement is increasingly out of date .
The number paying the licence fee has been falling sharply , by nearly a million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to evasion but to people , quote legally , choosing alternative viewing instead which they regard as better value for money .
A basic Netflix subscription costs £72 a year .
From April this year , the annual cost of the BBC licence fee goes up to £157.50 .
Just as telephone landlines are in decline so are TV sets .
A recent poll found that three-quarters of people want the licence fee abolished .
Technology has also eroded the “ public service broadcasting ” relevance .
For instance , why do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament ’ s website carries a much more extensive service ?
That allows us all to listen in to the most obscure select committee hearing according to our every whim .
The Government has just launched a public consultation on whether non-payment of the TV licence fee should remain a criminal offence .
The case for reform in this area is strong .
There is the principle that the law should be applied in an equal and consistent way .
Most debt collecting is a civil rather than a criminal matter .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay a TV licence , but not for an electricity bill or being behind with the rent ?
The usual minimum threshold before someone is forced into bankruptcy is £5,000 .
So why should the more severe punishment of imprisonment be applied for owing much less than that with the TV Licence ?
( Or indeed for Council Tax ? )
A total of 129,466 people were prosecuted for not having a licence in 2018 , although only five were imprisoned .
Often it is a single mother who is dragged through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal penalties for the non-payment of the licence fee and the way enforcement is carried out is anachronistic and out of proportion with the responses to non-payment for other services.
” It has become all the more anachronistic since then .
The BBC should also be firmly told that they must stick to the deal they agreed in 2015 to cover the cost of providing free television licences for over-75s .
In return , the Government agreed that those using iPlayer on their computers , even if they don ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the time the BBC said it was the “ right deal… in difficult economic circumstances ” .
The proposition is that 3.7 million pensioners will lose their free TV licenses to allow enough funds to pay Gary Lineker £1.75 million a year , Graham Norton £600,000 a year , Nicky Campbell £410,000 a year .
No .
No .
No .
Eventually , the BBC must surely switch to a subscription model – though I think there is a special case for continuing to fund the World Service .
The objection that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out subscriptions for it to maintain its current budget is not sustainable .
It does still have many assets – not least its huge and lucrative archive of programmes .
But decriminalisation is a politically shrewd initial start by the Government .
it is a way of holding together its coalition of supporters .
Free market radicals and outraged Brexiteers will cheer .
It fits in with the “ one nation ” theme of compassion for those struggling to cope .
It also shows acceptance of the modern world of technological change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ foolish enough to oppose the decision so much the better .

As BBC staff trudge into work at Broadcasting House they can see on the wall some words of their former colleague, George Orwell:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
But once safely ensconced in the building, this uncomfortable thought is quickly disregarded. The safe space of group-think has been entered. Diversity is an imperative – except for diversity of opinion. Soap operas, current affairs, music awards, comedy shows, women’s programmes, children’s programmes… all must conform to the orthodoxy of the BBC “values”. Supposing someone at the BBC was to speak up at editorial meetings for Brexit, or the free market, or Christianity? What if they had a bright idea for a story about how well Donald Trump is getting on? Supposing someone at CBBC thought a patriotic item on British inventions is overdue? Maybe one of the team on Radio 4 Woman’s Hour feels that an anti-feminist item might deserve a hearing? Such thought crimes would be most imprudent. Those in the BBC caught muttering anything that their superiors “do not want to hear” can not expect to progress very far.
There is a difficulty for the BBC: despite their best efforts, the Conservatives won the General Election. There can never have been a time when special pleading from the Corporation will be considered with less sympathy.
But there is a more fundamental difficulty that the financing arrangement is increasingly out of date. The number paying the licence fee has been falling sharply, by nearly a million a year. That is not only due to evasion but to people, quote legally, choosing alternative viewing instead which they regard as better value for money. A basic Netflix subscription costs £72 a year. From April this year, the annual cost of the BBC licence fee goes up to £157.50. Just as telephone landlines are in decline so are TV sets. A recent poll found that three-quarters of people want the licence fee abolished.
Technology has also eroded the “public service broadcasting” relevance. For instance, why do we need the BBC Parliament Channel when Parliament’s website carries a much more extensive service? That allows us all to listen in to the most obscure select committee hearing according to our every whim.
The Government has just launched a public consultation on whether non-payment of the TV licence fee should remain a criminal offence.
The case for reform in this area is strong. There is the principle that the law should be applied in an equal and consistent way. Most debt collecting is a civil rather than a criminal matter. Why should there be imprisonment for failing to pay a TV licence, but not for an electricity bill or being behind with the rent? The usual minimum threshold before someone is forced into bankruptcy is £5,000. So why should the more severe punishment of imprisonment be applied for owing much less than that with the TV Licence? (Or indeed for Council Tax?) A total of 129,466 people were prosecuted for not having a licence in 2018, although only five were imprisoned. Often it is a single mother who is dragged through the courts.
A committee of MPs concluded five years ago:
“Our view is that criminal penalties for the non-payment of the licence fee and the way enforcement is carried out is anachronistic and out of proportion with the responses to non-payment for other services.”
It has become all the more anachronistic since then.
The BBC should also be firmly told that they must stick to the deal they agreed in 2015 to cover the cost of providing free television licences for over-75s. In return, the Government agreed that those using iPlayer on their computers, even if they don’t have a TV set, should be liable. At the time the BBC said it was the “right deal… in difficult economic circumstances”. The proposition is that 3.7 million pensioners will lose their free TV licenses to allow enough funds to pay Gary Lineker £1.75 million a year, Graham Norton £600,000 a year, Nicky Campbell £410,000 a year. No. No. No.
Eventually, the BBC must surely switch to a subscription model – though I think there is a special case for continuing to fund the World Service. The objection that not enough people would choose to take out subscriptions for it to maintain its current budget is not sustainable. It does still have many assets – not least its huge and lucrative archive of programmes.
But decriminalisation is a politically shrewd initial start by the Government. it is a way of holding together its coalition of supporters. Free market radicals and outraged Brexiteers will cheer. It fits in with the “one nation” theme of compassion for those struggling to cope. It also shows acceptance of the modern world of technological change. If Labour and the Lib Dems are foolish enough to oppose the decision so much the better.


conservativehome--2020-02-06--Rachel Wolf: Achieving net zero will require massive changes to our lives – when is anyone going to

Rachel Wolf: Achieving net zero will require massive changes to our lives – when is anyone going to tell voters?

Rachel Wolf is a partner in Public First .
She had co-charge of the 2019 Conservative Manifesto .
She was an education and innovation adviser at Number 10 during David Cameron ’ s premiership and was founding director of the New Schools Network .
At the end of the 18th Century , Thomas Malthus predicted doom for mankind .
His theory was that as populations grew , the food would run out , and only by having fewer children would we survive .
Malthus understood society pre-industrial revolution : subsistence living was common , and the supply of land was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least for 200 years , because humans changed the game .
The innovators behind the industrial revolution – begun in Britain – discovered how to harness new forms of energy ( fossil fuels ) to monumentally increase our output and our wealth .
From this has come the global rise in life expectancy , living standards , and social mobility of the last two centuries .
Now , we need to find a way of substituting those forms of energy or removing their effects from the atmosphere .
The Government has committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet .
At the same time , we do not want to return to an era where children ( and their mothers ) regularly died , and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty .
This is a staggering challenge .
Much , much bigger than Brexit .
And yet the public debate is , relatively , non-existent .
The UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law reaching “ net zero greenhouse gas emissions ” by 2050 .
In other words we don ’ t want the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to go up from 2050 , but we don ’ t mind if that ’ s because we ’ re releasing less , or if we ’ re capturing and storing what ’ s already out there .
For example , the steel industry could , in principle , change the way it makes steel .
But we can ’ t , yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( it ’ s a lot harder to solve than producing electricity for our homes ) .
An alternative is to ‘ capture ’ the emissions .
The problem is , we don ’ t know how to do that at scale yet either .
Many of the technologies are immature at best , and time is ticking .
Nuclear might be used more , but it won ’ t be the entire solution .
At the same time , the UK is not the planet – and one of the problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we increasingly import goods whose environmental impact is not accounted for .
If we shut down all the industry in the country by imposing costs not borne by international competitors , we can make it look as though our emissions have gone down , whilst continuing to import higher carbon products from elsewhere .
In this scenario , the planet is no better off .
In fact it might be worse , and in the meantime we are much poorer .
On the other hand , if the entire world is going the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increasing number of countries are committing to net zero emissions – being the first mover could give us technological expertise that leads to substantial exports in their own right , and help drive action across the globe .
This is , to climate and energy experts , a ludicrously simplified description of what the Government is trying to achieve .
It is also many steps more complicated than the current conversation with the public .
This policy area – which has pervasive , dramatic consequences – is either operating in a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests .
Nor are we fully discussing the different options .
I ’ m currently working on a commission that is exploring how carbon pricing could help the transition to net zero .
There are two major potential advantages of this approach .
First , it avoids government picking winners and lets companies decide how to reduce emissions .
Second , the money can be given back to individuals and industries .
This is why Republicans in the US , for example , are increasingly in favour of such a policy .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done a large amount of recent research into net zero .
Unsurprisingly , the public have no idea what it really means , or how it might change their life .
They frequently mix it up with other government commitments like plastics .
They care about the environment , but no one has begun to explain the changes in their lifestyle that might be required to reach net zero in the next 30 years .
They already think they pay a lot of tax , and are currently unprepared to pay lots more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this right – and develop solutions that can mitigate the cost – the situation is ripe for a new UKIP-style party to whip up hostility ( as the gilets jaunes in France show ) .
Rather than discuss this , we have spent much of the last few days talking whether Claire Perry O ’ Neill was rude to a civil servant about a taxi or not – and if the Government was sufficiently clear about why , exactly , they didn ’ t want her to chair a climate conference .
Net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond Brexit – is going to affect the voters in our new seats : their lives , and their jobs .
We all need to start talking properly to them about it .

Rachel Wolf is a partner in Public First. She had co-charge of the 2019 Conservative Manifesto. She was an education and innovation adviser at Number 10 during David Cameron’s premiership and was founding director of the New Schools Network.
At the end of the 18th Century, Thomas Malthus predicted doom for mankind. His theory was that as populations grew, the food would run out, and only by having fewer children would we survive. Malthus understood society pre-industrial revolution: subsistence living was common, and the supply of land was finite.
Malthus was wrong, or at least for 200 years, because humans changed the game. The innovators behind the industrial revolution – begun in Britain – discovered how to harness new forms of energy (fossil fuels) to monumentally increase our output and our wealth. From this has come the global rise in life expectancy, living standards, and social mobility of the last two centuries.
Now, we need to find a way of substituting those forms of energy or removing their effects from the atmosphere. The Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty.
This is a staggering challenge. Much, much bigger than Brexit. And yet the public debate is, relatively, non-existent.
The UK is the first country to enshrine in law reaching “net zero greenhouse gas emissions” by 2050. In other words we don’t want the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to go up from 2050, but we don’t mind if that’s because we’re releasing less, or if we’re capturing and storing what’s already out there.
For example, the steel industry could, in principle, change the way it makes steel. But we can’t, yet, produce steel at scale without fossil fuels (it’s a lot harder to solve than producing electricity for our homes). An alternative is to ‘capture’ the emissions. The problem is, we don’t know how to do that at scale yet either. Many of the technologies are immature at best, and time is ticking. Nuclear might be used more, but it won’t be the entire solution.
At the same time, the UK is not the planet – and one of the problems with counting ‘net’ emissions is that we increasingly import goods whose environmental impact is not accounted for. If we shut down all the industry in the country by imposing costs not borne by international competitors, we can make it look as though our emissions have gone down, whilst continuing to import higher carbon products from elsewhere. In this scenario, the planet is no better off. In fact it might be worse, and in the meantime we are much poorer.
On the other hand, if the entire world is going the same way as the UK – and an increasing number of countries are committing to net zero emissions – being the first mover could give us technological expertise that leads to substantial exports in their own right, and help drive action across the globe.
This is, to climate and energy experts, a ludicrously simplified description of what the Government is trying to achieve. It is also many steps more complicated than the current conversation with the public. This policy area – which has pervasive, dramatic consequences – is either operating in a world of acronyms among experts or simplistic student protests.
Nor are we fully discussing the different options. I’m currently working on a commission that is exploring how carbon pricing could help the transition to net zero. There are two major potential advantages of this approach. First, it avoids government picking winners and lets companies decide how to reduce emissions. Second, the money can be given back to individuals and industries. This is why Republicans in the US, for example, are increasingly in favour of such a policy.
As part of this process we’ve done a large amount of recent research into net zero. Unsurprisingly, the public have no idea what it really means, or how it might change their life. They frequently mix it up with other government commitments like plastics. They care about the environment, but no one has begun to explain the changes in their lifestyle that might be required to reach net zero in the next 30 years. They already think they pay a lot of tax, and are currently unprepared to pay lots more for the environment. Unless we get this right – and develop solutions that can mitigate the cost – the situation is ripe for a new UKIP-style party to whip up hostility (as the gilets jaunes in France show).
Rather than discuss this, we have spent much of the last few days talking whether Claire Perry O’Neill was rude to a civil servant about a taxi or not – and if the Government was sufficiently clear about why, exactly, they didn’t want her to chair a climate conference. Net zero is an issue that – far beyond Brexit – is going to affect the voters in our new seats: their lives, and their jobs. We all need to start talking properly to them about it.


conservativehome--2020-02-06--Mike Hurleston: Only the Conservatives care about Stockport’s gridlocked roads

Cllr Mike Hurleston is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Stockport Borough Council .
“ Stockport .
Change Here.
” This is the slogan for the town ’ s ambitious regeneration strategy .
But also a question many are asking in the run-up to the May local elections .
Stockport is a hung Council , currently run by a minority Labour administration , and with the two largest political groups – Labour and Liberal Democrats – on a dead heat of 26 seats each .
In the red corner , the Labour administration has a new Leader still finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lib Dem Leader is a former MP and previous Council Leader who , along with his Group , appear to be chomping at the bit to get their hands back on the tiller .
Although a comparatively small group , at eight members , the Conservatives hold the balance of power .
We expect the Council to remain in no overall control this May and we will have a part to play in deciding the future ; which we view as a positive .
Like many Conservative Groups around the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , losing some hard-working local councillors .
In the vexed political atmosphere nationally , some of our core vote stayed at home .
Since then , things have moved on and for many , the General Election will have felt like a cathartic purge of the recent past .
We retained our two local Conservatives MPs in Cheadle and Hazel Grove and were of course , delighted to see them joined by five new Conservative MPs in Greater Manchester as part of the collapse of the red wall .
It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we hope to build on the results and maintain the impetus going into May .
As Conservatives , we offer an alternative to the high tax , pedestrian management of a Labour-run Council , which has seen a steady decline since they took control three years ago .
On Labour ’ s watch , a joint CQC/Ofsted inspection of SEND found “ serious weaknesses ” and the wheels of the much promoted transformation vehicle for health and social care appear to have come off , with the demise of the original vision for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a commuter town , located at the heart of the region ’ s transport nexus , Labour appears unmoved by the problems local people experience every day on our gridlocked roads .
They appear to have abandoned all attempts to complete the last link in the relief road and we still await the findings of their much-delayed parking review following a ruling against the Council by the Local Government Ombudsman .
Labour ’ s budget proposals for the coming year include plans which would see a planned drop off in the responsiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintenance .
After suffering through summer floods which have seen some residents still unable to return to their homes six months on – and an autumn winter season characterised by the slippery sludge of unswept leaves from one end of the Borough to the other just waiting to pack the drains , this is the last thing people want to hear .
Despite the warm words of the Council ’ s “ values statement ” that it wants to put people at the heart of what they do , Labour proposes removing staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though they are missing their own targets on answering the phone with 20 per cent of residents calls into the Council going completely unanswered .
The saga of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework rumbles on – a plan for housing which has proved so controversial that the second draft has been pushed back certainly until after this year ’ s Mayoral and local elections and more probably , indefinitely .
For Stockport , the plan would mean giving up swathes of greenbelt – and new settlements located right next to new housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a sprawl of miles , all without any guarantees on the infrastructure needed to support such transformation .
The Liberal Democrats on the Council have little to offer beyond a seemingly endless stream of virtue-signalling motions which often have scant connection to Stockport , but provide ample content for their spring deluge of leaflets .
Sadly , their campaigning is often characterised by personal attacks , highly dubious bar charts , and the type of negative campaigns that colleagues in the other parts of the country will recognise .
In Stockport , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parliamentary ambitions of certain parachuted in members , at the expense of offering residents a genuine alternative on the Council .
Stockport Conservatives are working for our local residents ; we ’ ve been campaigning hard with a “ brownfield first ” policy for new build to be delivered on previously developed land , to protect our valued greenbelt and fight hard for the essential infrastructure – roads , public transport , schools and health facilities – to be delivered alongside housing development .
We want to see value for money and solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fixed .
As Conservatives we don ’ t want to see more marketing brochures , we want to see actual delivery of solutions to turn our town centre around .
As Group Leader , I am on the Board of the Mayoral Development Corporation and intend to push for the best results for a transformed town centre .
With a Conservative majority in Government and positive signs that it intends to invest in the north and our towns – a Town Deal for Cheadle being pushed forward by Mary Robinson MP and devolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would ( finally ! )
see the Metrolink extended to Stockport – there is a good deal to be enthused by .
As ever though , much of our prospects in May will depend on the national picture in the post-Brexit environment .

Cllr Mike Hurleston is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Stockport Borough Council.
“Stockport. Change Here.” This is the slogan for the town’s ambitious regeneration strategy. But also a question many are asking in the run-up to the May local elections.
Stockport is a hung Council, currently run by a minority Labour administration, and with the two largest political groups – Labour and Liberal Democrats – on a dead heat of 26 seats each. In the red corner, the Labour administration has a new Leader still finding her feet in the role, while the Lib Dem Leader is a former MP and previous Council Leader who, along with his Group, appear to be chomping at the bit to get their hands back on the tiller.
Although a comparatively small group, at eight members, the Conservatives hold the balance of power. We expect the Council to remain in no overall control this May and we will have a part to play in deciding the future; which we view as a positive.
Like many Conservative Groups around the country, we suffered at the ballot box last May, losing some hard-working local councillors. In the vexed political atmosphere nationally, some of our core vote stayed at home.
Since then, things have moved on and for many, the General Election will have felt like a cathartic purge of the recent past. We retained our two local Conservatives MPs in Cheadle and Hazel Grove and were of course, delighted to see them joined by five new Conservative MPs in Greater Manchester as part of the collapse of the red wall. It was a positive campaign and as local campaigners, we hope to build on the results and maintain the impetus going into May.
As Conservatives, we offer an alternative to the high tax, pedestrian management of a Labour-run Council, which has seen a steady decline since they took control three years ago. On Labour’s watch, a joint CQC/Ofsted inspection of SEND found “serious weaknesses” and the wheels of the much promoted transformation vehicle for health and social care appear to have come off, with the demise of the original vision for “Stockport Together”.
Despite Stockport being a commuter town, located at the heart of the region’s transport nexus, Labour appears unmoved by the problems local people experience every day on our gridlocked roads. They appear to have abandoned all attempts to complete the last link in the relief road and we still await the findings of their much-delayed parking review following a ruling against the Council by the Local Government Ombudsman.
Labour’s budget proposals for the coming year include plans which would see a planned drop off in the responsiveness and quality of street cleaning and winter maintenance. After suffering through summer floods which have seen some residents still unable to return to their homes six months on – and an autumn winter season characterised by the slippery sludge of unswept leaves from one end of the Borough to the other just waiting to pack the drains, this is the last thing people want to hear.
Despite the warm words of the Council’s “values statement” that it wants to put people at the heart of what they do, Labour proposes removing staff from the contact centre. This is even though they are missing their own targets on answering the phone with 20 per cent of residents calls into the Council going completely unanswered.
The saga of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework rumbles on – a plan for housing which has proved so controversial that the second draft has been pushed back certainly until after this year’s Mayoral and local elections and more probably, indefinitely. For Stockport, the plan would mean giving up swathes of greenbelt – and new settlements located right next to new housing development by our neighbouring authority – leading to a sprawl of miles, all without any guarantees on the infrastructure needed to support such transformation.
The Liberal Democrats on the Council have little to offer beyond a seemingly endless stream of virtue-signalling motions which often have scant connection to Stockport, but provide ample content for their spring deluge of leaflets. Sadly, their campaigning is often characterised by personal attacks, highly dubious bar charts, and the type of negative campaigns that colleagues in the other parts of the country will recognise. In Stockport, the Lib Dem Group has prioritised the parliamentary ambitions of certain parachuted in members, at the expense of offering residents a genuine alternative on the Council.
Stockport Conservatives are working for our local residents; we’ve been campaigning hard with a “brownfield first” policy for new build to be delivered on previously developed land, to protect our valued greenbelt and fight hard for the essential infrastructure – roads, public transport, schools and health facilities – to be delivered alongside housing development. We want to see value for money and solid local services – bins emptied and roads fixed. As Conservatives we don’t want to see more marketing brochures, we want to see actual delivery of solutions to turn our town centre around. As Group Leader, I am on the Board of the Mayoral Development Corporation and intend to push for the best results for a transformed town centre.
With a Conservative majority in Government and positive signs that it intends to invest in the north and our towns – a Town Deal for Cheadle being pushed forward by Mary Robinson MP and devolved public transport funding with an expectation that this would (finally!) see the Metrolink extended to Stockport – there is a good deal to be enthused by. As ever though, much of our prospects in May will depend on the national picture in the post-Brexit environment.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--WATCH: The Prime Minister “might recall saying that climate change is a primitive fear without found

WATCH: The Prime Minister “might recall saying that climate change is a primitive fear without foundation”


conservativehome--2020-02-07--Edward Faulks: The Supreme Court’s prorogation judgement unbalanced our constitution. MPs should mak

Edward Faulks: The Supreme Court’s prorogation judgement unbalanced our constitution. MPs should make a correction.

Lord Faulks is a former Minister of State at the Justice Department .
The Brexit conversation may have moved onto the next stage .
But the fallout from the Supreme Court ’ s judgment on prorogation in 2019 has left our constitution in a state of disarray .
The Conservative Party Manifesto and the Queen ’ s Speech make clear that the Government is serious about examining the changing constitution and restoring its balance if need be .
The Supreme Court ’ s judgment and its wider implications are likely to be relevant to this exercise .
Distinguished legal commentators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to quash the September 2019 prorogation .
Some have hailed the judgment as an historic vindication of parliamentary democracy against a rapacious , unbound executive , whereas others have decried it as an improper extension of judicial power into the heart of politics .
And some have split the difference , or at least changed their minds .
Jonathan Sumption , remarkably , argued before the Supreme Court judgment that intervention would be legally improper and yet welcomed the “ revolutionary ” judgment that followed , apparently on the grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fanatics ( or had been acting like fanatics ) and deserved a good kicking .
Policy Exchange ’ s Judicial Power Project has been in the vanguard of the debate , publishing a series of incisive short comments for and against the judgment , convening a high-level discussion ( with Lord Sumption amongst others , which John Bald wrote about on this site ) about the judgment and its implications , and contributing to the inquiry by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee , an inquiry cut short by the general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under the leadership of its new Chair , William Wragg , will choose to revive and complete the inquiry . )
Policy Exchange also published two substantial papers taking the Supreme Court ’ s reasoning to task , one by Martin Loughlin of the LSE and the other by John Finnis of Oxford University .
And in a new paper published by Policy Exchange today , Professor Finnis has produced what to my mind is the final word on the subject .
Why does it all matter ?
After all , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prorogation was unlawful , Parliament returned for a short period during which not very much , if anything , was achieved .
And then we had a general election .
But the result of the ruling is that principled limits on the justiciability of the prerogative power to prorogue , including limits firmly imposed by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 , have been set aside .
In other words , judges can now decide whether they are satisfied with the reasons ( if any ) the Government provides for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers and commentators , this is an assertion of judicial power that can not be justified by constitutional law or principle .
That was also the view of the distinguished judges of the Divisional Court whose judgement was reversed by the Supreme Court without engagement with their reasoning .
The decision to prorogue Parliament , however questionable it might have been , was the exercise of a clear prerogative power , the merits of which are the stuff of politics not law .
So the novelty of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masterful new paper , which complements and completes his earlier critique , Professor Finnis explains with care just how far the Supreme Court ’ s judgment distorts the law of our constitution .
One implication of his analysis is that the Attorney General had good reason to maintain , in the face of heated criticism in the Commons and elsewhere , that his advice that prorogation was lawful had been correct .
In the common law , how a judgment is received by lawyers often determines its relevance to the future of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relation to a judgment that has provoked such strikingly different reactions on the part of legal commentators .
Professor Finnis makes clear just how badly the Supreme Court mishandled the law of our constitution which it was duty-bound to apply and thus the damage it has done to the integrity of the UK ’ s political constitution .
Unless his analysis can be answered , which I very much doubt , lawyers and judges should look back on the Supreme Court ’ s ruling as an historic mistake , a needless constitutional panic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversed by the Supreme Court or Parliament , it exposes decisions about prorogation – and by analogy decisions to seek a dissolution of Parliament or to form a government – to challenge in the courts .
This may be good news for lawyers , and for those who want a second bite at the political cherry , but it constitutes a significant , unjustified constitutional shift .
What can the Government do ?
It can hope that the decision will simply be a one-off , and that later courts will decline to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be wishful thinking .
Or it can invite Parliament to legislate to settle authoritatively the non-justiciability of the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament and perhaps also to impose further limits on the scope of that power .
While they are at it , Parliament might want to legislate to protect other , related prerogative powers .
Legislation of this kind may be the only way to limit the courts ’ incursion into political territory .
It will almost certainly be misrepresented as some kind of “ revenge ” attack on the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in anticipation of possible reform .
Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to consider restoring the long-settled law of our constitution , including Article Nine of the Bill of Rights 1689 , and if or when it chooses to act it will not be exacting revenge on the Supreme Court .
Indeed , it is more than a little odd to denounce legislation that would vindicate the powerful judgment of the Divisional Court – made up of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales , the Master of the Rolls and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Division – as a populist attack on the rule of law .
Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 ( a manifesto commitment ) may provide an opportunity to act .
( In another recent Policy Exchange paper , Stephen Laws explores further the opportunity repeal and replacement of the 2011 Act provides in this regard . )
Alternatively , the Government may choose to wait until it has the views of the Commission on the Constitution , Rights & Democracy , the remit of which appears certain to include an examination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive and the courts .
For members of the commission , as for Parliamentarians in both Houses , Professor Finnis ’ s analysis of the Supreme Court ’ s missteps should be required reading .

Lord Faulks is a former Minister of State at the Justice Department.
The Brexit conversation may have moved onto the next stage. But the fallout from the Supreme Court’s judgment on prorogation in 2019 has left our constitution in a state of disarray.
The Conservative Party Manifesto and the Queen’s Speech make clear that the Government is serious about examining the changing constitution and restoring its balance if need be. The Supreme Court’s judgment and its wider implications are likely to be relevant to this exercise.
Distinguished legal commentators have taken different views about the Court’s decision to quash the September 2019 prorogation. Some have hailed the judgment as an historic vindication of parliamentary democracy against a rapacious, unbound executive, whereas others have decried it as an improper extension of judicial power into the heart of politics.
And some have split the difference, or at least changed their minds. Jonathan Sumption, remarkably, argued before the Supreme Court judgment that intervention would be legally improper and yet welcomed the “revolutionary” judgment that followed, apparently on the grounds that the Government was made up of fanatics (or had been acting like fanatics) and deserved a good kicking.
Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project has been in the vanguard of the debate, publishing a series of incisive short comments for and against the judgment, convening a high-level discussion (with Lord Sumption amongst others, which John Bald wrote about on this site) about the judgment and its implications, and contributing to the inquiry by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, an inquiry cut short by the general election. (One hopes that the Committee, under the leadership of its new Chair, William Wragg, will choose to revive and complete the inquiry.)
Policy Exchange also published two substantial papers taking the Supreme Court’s reasoning to task, one by Martin Loughlin of the LSE and the other by John Finnis of Oxford University. And in a new paper published by Policy Exchange today, Professor Finnis has produced what to my mind is the final word on the subject.
Why does it all matter? After all, when the Supreme Court ruled that the purported prorogation was unlawful, Parliament returned for a short period during which not very much, if anything, was achieved. And then we had a general election.
But the result of the ruling is that principled limits on the justiciability of the prerogative power to prorogue, including limits firmly imposed by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, have been set aside.
In other words, judges can now decide whether they are satisfied with the reasons (if any) the Government provides for its decision to prorogue Parliament. For many lawyers and commentators, this is an assertion of judicial power that cannot be justified by constitutional law or principle. That was also the view of the distinguished judges of the Divisional Court whose judgement was reversed by the Supreme Court without engagement with their reasoning. The decision to prorogue Parliament, however questionable it might have been, was the exercise of a clear prerogative power, the merits of which are the stuff of politics not law.
So the novelty of the Supreme Court’s judgment should not be overlooked. In his masterful new paper, which complements and completes his earlier critique, Professor Finnis explains with care just how far the Supreme Court’s judgment distorts the law of our constitution. One implication of his analysis is that the Attorney General had good reason to maintain, in the face of heated criticism in the Commons and elsewhere, that his advice that prorogation was lawful had been correct.
In the common law, how a judgment is received by lawyers often determines its relevance to the future of the law. This is doubly so in relation to a judgment that has provoked such strikingly different reactions on the part of legal commentators. Professor Finnis makes clear just how badly the Supreme Court mishandled the law of our constitution which it was duty-bound to apply and thus the damage it has done to the integrity of the UK’s political constitution. Unless his analysis can be answered, which I very much doubt, lawyers and judges should look back on the Supreme Court’s ruling as an historic mistake, a needless constitutional panic.
Unless and until the judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court or Parliament, it exposes decisions about prorogation – and by analogy decisions to seek a dissolution of Parliament or to form a government – to challenge in the courts. This may be good news for lawyers, and for those who want a second bite at the political cherry, but it constitutes a significant, unjustified constitutional shift.
What can the Government do? It can hope that the decision will simply be a one-off, and that later courts will decline to follow the judgment further. That might prove to be wishful thinking. Or it can invite Parliament to legislate to settle authoritatively the non-justiciability of the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament and perhaps also to impose further limits on the scope of that power. While they are at it, Parliament might want to legislate to protect other, related prerogative powers.
Legislation of this kind may be the only way to limit the courts’ incursion into political territory. It will almost certainly be misrepresented as some kind of “revenge” attack on the courts. Indeed, this charge has been made in anticipation of possible reform. Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to consider restoring the long-settled law of our constitution, including Article Nine of the Bill of Rights 1689, and if or when it chooses to act it will not be exacting revenge on the Supreme Court.
Indeed, it is more than a little odd to denounce legislation that would vindicate the powerful judgment of the Divisional Court – made up of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division – as a populist attack on the rule of law.
Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (a manifesto commitment) may provide an opportunity to act. (In another recent Policy Exchange paper, Stephen Laws explores further the opportunity repeal and replacement of the 2011 Act provides in this regard.)
Alternatively, the Government may choose to wait until it has the views of the Commission on the Constitution, Rights & Democracy, the remit of which appears certain to include an examination of the relationship between the legislature, the executive and the courts. For members of the commission, as for Parliamentarians in both Houses, Professor Finnis’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s missteps should be required reading.


conservativehome--2020-02-07--Strife between Johnson and the media is a good thing

“ I ’ m a journalist , I love journalism , ” Boris Johnson told the Commons on Wednesday , after Jeremy Corbyn had accused him of “ shutting newspapers out of Number Ten ” .
Corbyn was referring to a cack-handed attempt on Monday by Downing Street to bar some media organisations from a Brexit briefing .
The reporters who were going to be admitted quite rightly refused to attend the briefing , and instead showed solidarity with their excluded colleagues .
This and other skirmishes indicate that some in Number Ten , far from loving journalism , hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see what they can get away with .
They reckon they do not need the parliamentary lobby , or the traditional broadcasters , and can communicate direct with the public via social media .
In some ways , their hostility is to be welcomed .
The iconoclasts in Number Ten who take their cue from Dominic Cummings , and admire their own boldness in defying the established media , are actually expressing the traditional hostility of those in power towards those who seek to hold them to account .
It is normal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves misrepresented and persecuted by the press : a story told by Lance Price in his account of the battles between Downing Street and the media since Lloyd George came to power in 1916 .
Stanley Baldwin loathed the press barons , Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere , of whom he said in an interview in 1924 , in words he did not intend to see quoted : “ They are both men I would not have in my house.
” Baldwin gave no more interviews after that indiscretion , and refused to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group either on or off the record , though he did have certain favoured individuals through whom he got his story out .
And he became a master of a new medium , radio , by which he could talk in a reasonable and affable tone directly to millions of people .
So too Johnson , with his mastery of social media , by which he speaks directly to millions of people without the press getting in the way .
Just now , Johnson is in the ascendant .
He has confounded his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At Prime Minister ’ s Questions , one sees him relaxing into his role and proclaiming his love of every good cause , even journalism .
This could all become too cosy .
The public interest requires a press prepared to speak out in ways which infuriate those in authority .
No Prime Minister should take what the press says too much to heart , but all should treat it is a valuable early warning system , directing attention to grievances which if ignored and allowed to fester will do mortal damage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the body politic is like pain in the human body .
It is not pleasant , but where would the body be without it ?
” Parliamentary journalists are right to protest when jacks in office try to block or restrict useful channels of communication .
But some of the best journalists make scant use of those channels anyhow .
One thinks of the late Tony Bevins , first political editor of The Independent , who turned his back on the lobby system .
Johnson benefited , during his rise to power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the press .
This struck many voters as unfair , concealed from his opponents the threat he posed , and encouraged low expectations which he was able to exceed .
But now that he is ensconced in Number Ten , he deserves as fierce ( though also , in its way , admiring ) a scrutiny as he himself directed 30 years ago at Jacques Delors while working as a correspondent in Brussels .

“I’m a journalist, I love journalism,” Boris Johnson told the Commons on Wednesday, after Jeremy Corbyn had accused him of “shutting newspapers out of Number Ten”.
Corbyn was referring to a cack-handed attempt on Monday by Downing Street to bar some media organisations from a Brexit briefing.
The reporters who were going to be admitted quite rightly refused to attend the briefing, and instead showed solidarity with their excluded colleagues.
This and other skirmishes indicate that some in Number Ten, far from loving journalism, hold it in contempt, and wish to see what they can get away with.
They reckon they do not need the parliamentary lobby, or the traditional broadcasters, and can communicate direct with the public via social media.
In some ways, their hostility is to be welcomed. The iconoclasts in Number Ten who take their cue from Dominic Cummings, and admire their own boldness in defying the established media, are actually expressing the traditional hostility of those in power towards those who seek to hold them to account.
It is normal for Prime Ministers and their staff to consider themselves misrepresented and persecuted by the press: a story told by Lance Price in his account of the battles between Downing Street and the media since Lloyd George came to power in 1916.
Stanley Baldwin loathed the press barons, Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, of whom he said in an interview in 1924, in words he did not intend to see quoted: “They are both men I would not have in my house.”
Baldwin gave no more interviews after that indiscretion, and refused to speak to the parliamentary lobby journalists as a group either on or off the record, though he did have certain favoured individuals through whom he got his story out.
And he became a master of a new medium, radio, by which he could talk in a reasonable and affable tone directly to millions of people.
So too Johnson, with his mastery of social media, by which he speaks directly to millions of people without the press getting in the way.
Just now, Johnson is in the ascendant. He has confounded his critics and won a solid majority. At Prime Minister’s Questions, one sees him relaxing into his role and proclaiming his love of every good cause, even journalism.
This could all become too cosy. The public interest requires a press prepared to speak out in ways which infuriate those in authority.
No Prime Minister should take what the press says too much to heart, but all should treat it is a valuable early warning system, directing attention to grievances which if ignored and allowed to fester will do mortal damage.
As Churchill remarked: “Criticism in the body politic is like pain in the human body. It is not pleasant, but where would the body be without it?”
Parliamentary journalists are right to protest when jacks in office try to block or restrict useful channels of communication.
But some of the best journalists make scant use of those channels anyhow. One thinks of the late Tony Bevins, first political editor of The Independent, who turned his back on the lobby system.
Johnson benefited, during his rise to power, from the exaggerated criticism he received from parts of the press. This struck many voters as unfair, concealed from his opponents the threat he posed, and encouraged low expectations which he was able to exceed.
But now that he is ensconced in Number Ten, he deserves as fierce (though also, in its way, admiring) a scrutiny as he himself directed 30 years ago at Jacques Delors while working as a correspondent in Brussels.


conservativehome--2020-02-07--Iain Dale: My reshuffle predictions. The Prime Minister believes he has delivered for his supporters

Iain Dale: My reshuffle predictions. The Prime Minister believes he has delivered for his supporters – and now owes them nothing.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
A question that will be asked of many of us over the next few years is this : where were you and what were you doing at the exact moment we left the European Union at 11pm on Friday 31 January ?
I wish I could now give you some riveting account of where I was and what I was doing .
The simple truth is I was sitting on my sofa at home with Bubba , my miniature schnauzer , squashed against my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jack Russell , pinned against my left .
Both were fast asleep .
Oh , and I was eating a Garibaldi .
How very British .
All that was missing was a cup of tea .
Mainly because I don ’ t drink tea .
By the time I write next week ’ s column , I imagine that the long-awaited reshuffle will have taken place .
It was originally slotted in for Monday .
Number Ten been quite successful so far in not feeding any speculation about who ’ s in and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information I have gleaned is that the Prime Minister thinks that he delivered for all his supporters in July , and he now owes them nothing .
They ’ ve been given their chance , and if they haven ’ t performed , they will be out .
While we might not see a dramatic refashioning of government , in terms of departments being merged or abolished , I do hope we will see a reduction in the number of Ministers entitled to attend Cabinet .
It ’ s ridiculous having 33 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stop this fashion of having ministers “ attending ” .
You ’ re either a full member of it or you ’ re not I ’ d cut it back to the traditional number of 22 .
But that would create 11 very unhappy people .
And by definition there will be more .
I suppose I ’ d better put my neck on the block .
Here are the cabinet ministers I expect to remain in post , or at least remain in the cabinet – That ’ s 11 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ marks over the future of all the rest to one degree or another – some fairly , some very unfairly .
I can see no reason to get rid of Therese Coffey , given she was only appointed in late August , and has done nothing wrong .
Indeed , you could argue that by keeping the DWP out of the headlines since then , it ’ s job done – yet she appears on virtually every list of people being tipped for the chop .
Liz Truss is also mentioned in similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her four times in his speech on Monday .
Andrea Leadsom is also being tipped for the chop , yet she tests well with the public and is a great survivor .
To my mind , she ’ s become one of the best media performers in the Cabinet – but that ’ s not necessarily how she ’ s seen in Number Ten .
What may save some of the women in the cabinet is the lack of women ready to step up from the junior ranks .
I ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full cabinet job now ?
I ’ d say she needs to take on a tough Minister of State role first , to test her .
Maybe at the DWP .
Both Jacob Rees-Mogg and Ben Wallace have been tipped for the axe and , if that comes to pass , it would be seen as proof that Johnson is a brutal butcher .
Time may have been a bit of a healer .
Number Ten were furious with Jacob for his Grenfell comments on LBC during the election and he was consigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Somerset ) for the rest of the campaign – never to emerge in front of a camera again .
There are currently seven Ministers who attend cabinet but are not full members .
Two of them – Rishi Sunak and Brandon Lewis are certainties for promotion , given the profile both of them have been given as media performers .
Mark Spencer will presumably also retain his post as chief whip .
When you look at the ranks of Ministers of State , Jesse Norman , Kit Malthouse , Lucy Frazer , Caroline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered for full Cabinet roles .
It ’ s also possible that one or two former cabinet ministers from the Cameron and May eras may well be rehabilitated .
One big question is whether Penny Mordaunt may return to the cabinet .
Everyone tells me no - , but if it were me , she ’ d be the first new name in the jigsaw .
She should never have been removed from Defence , and maybe it ’ s far-fetched to imagine her returning there , but perhaps the DCMS might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanks come and go , and those that are here for the long term go through phases when they are hugely influential before they become less so .
Policy Exchange was always seen as David Cameron ’ s favourite think tank , not least because it was set up by Nick Boles and Michael Gove .
I was one of its trustees in its initial few years .
I was the token David Davis supporter on its board !
It has survived the transition from Cameron to May and now to Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that it is now the pre-eminent think tank in the Westminster village .
It ’ s also become much more attractive to people on the Left , who often turn up to its events and write papers for it .
At an event last week with Dominic Raab and Mike Pompeo I spotted Labour MP Khalid Mahmood in the audience .
He also co-wrote a paper last year with Tom Tugendhat on restoring the law of treason .
Trevor Phillips has also written for and is playing a leading role in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could attract power players like Mark Carney and Alan Greenspan , or Dominic Raab and Mike Pompeo to appear on its platforms .
Dean Godson , who has been the Director of Policy Exchange since 2013 , has skilfully led Policy Exchange through three different Conservative administrations in a way that other think tanks can only marvel at .
The softly-spoken Godson is often thought of as an ideological right winger , yet his pragmatism has enabled Policy Exchange to reach new heights of influence , with dozens of its alumni now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If anyone was to draw up a list of the top twenty most influential think tanks in Westminster , can anyone seriously doubt that Policy Exchange would be at number one ?
And that ’ s in large part due to Godson ’ s outstanding leadership of it .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
A question that will be asked of many of us over the next few years is this: where were you and what were you doing at the exact moment we left the European Union at 11pm on Friday 31 January?
I wish I could now give you some riveting account of where I was and what I was doing. The simple truth is I was sitting on my sofa at home with Bubba, my miniature schnauzer, squashed against my right leg, and Dude, my Jack Russell, pinned against my left. Both were fast asleep.
Oh, and I was eating a Garibaldi. How very British. All that was missing was a cup of tea. Mainly because I don’t drink tea.
– – – – – – – – – –
By the time I write next week’s column, I imagine that the long-awaited reshuffle will have taken place.
It was originally slotted in for Monday. Number Ten been quite successful so far in not feeding any speculation about who’s in and who’s out. The only information I have gleaned is that the Prime Minister thinks that he delivered for all his supporters in July, and he now owes them nothing. They’ve been given their chance, and if they haven’t performed, they will be out.
While we might not see a dramatic refashioning of government, in terms of departments being merged or abolished, I do hope we will see a reduction in the number of Ministers entitled to attend Cabinet.
It’s ridiculous having 33 people round the cabinet table. Let’s stop this fashion of having ministers “attending”. You’re either a full member of it or you’re not
I’d cut it back to the traditional number of 22. But that would create 11 very unhappy people. And by definition there will be more. I suppose I’d better put my neck on the block. Here are the cabinet ministers I expect to remain in post, or at least remain in the cabinet –
Sajid Javid, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Grant Shapps, Brandon Lewis, Rishi Sunak, Robert Jenrick, Michael Gove, Robert Buckland, Simon Hart, Mark Spencer.
That’s 11. I’d say there are question marks over the future of all the rest to one degree or another – some fairly, some very unfairly.
I can see no reason to get rid of Therese Coffey, given she was only appointed in late August, and has done nothing wrong. Indeed, you could argue that by keeping the DWP out of the headlines since then, it’s job done – yet she appears on virtually every list of people being tipped for the chop.
Liz Truss is also mentioned in similar terms, yet the Prime Minister namechecked her four times in his speech on Monday.
Andrea Leadsom is also being tipped for the chop, yet she tests well with the public and is a great survivor. To my mind, she’s become one of the best media performers in the Cabinet – but that’s not necessarily how she’s seen in Number Ten.
What may save some of the women in the cabinet is the lack of women ready to step up from the junior ranks. I’ve been impressed by Helen Whately, but a full cabinet job now? I’d say she needs to take on a tough Minister of State role first, to test her. Maybe at the DWP.
Both Jacob Rees-Mogg and Ben Wallace have been tipped for the axe and, if that comes to pass, it would be seen as proof that Johnson is a brutal butcher.
Time may have been a bit of a healer. Number Ten were furious with Jacob for his Grenfell comments on LBC during the election and he was consigned to outer Siberia (known as North Somerset) for the rest of the campaign – never to emerge in front of a camera again.
There are currently seven Ministers who attend cabinet but are not full members. Two of them – Rishi Sunak and Brandon Lewis are certainties for promotion, given the profile both of them have been given as media performers. Mark Spencer will presumably also retain his post as chief whip.
When you look at the ranks of Ministers of State, Jesse Norman, Kit Malthouse, Lucy Frazer, Caroline Dinenage are the names that might well be considered for full Cabinet roles. It’s also possible that one or two former cabinet ministers from the Cameron and May eras may well be rehabilitated.
One big question is whether Penny Mordaunt may return to the cabinet. Everyone tells me no -, but if it were me, she’d be the first new name in the jigsaw. She should never have been removed from Defence, and maybe it’s far-fetched to imagine her returning there, but perhaps the DCMS might have her name on it.
We’ll know soon.
– – – – – – – – – –
Think tanks come and go, and those that are here for the long term go through phases when they are hugely influential before they become less so.
Policy Exchange was always seen as David Cameron’s favourite think tank, not least because it was set up by Nick Boles and Michael Gove. I was one of its trustees in its initial few years. I was the token David Davis supporter on its board!
It has survived the transition from Cameron to May and now to Boris Johnson. In fact, I’d say that it is now the pre-eminent think tank in the Westminster village.
It’s also become much more attractive to people on the Left, who often turn up to its events and write papers for it. At an event last week with Dominic Raab and Mike Pompeo I spotted Labour MP Khalid Mahmood in the audience. He also co-wrote a paper last year with Tom Tugendhat on restoring the law of treason.
Trevor Phillips has also written for and is playing a leading role in the think tank. There are few organisations that could attract power players like Mark Carney and Alan Greenspan, or Dominic Raab and Mike Pompeo to appear on its platforms.
Dean Godson, who has been the Director of Policy Exchange since 2013, has skilfully led Policy Exchange through three different Conservative administrations in a way that other think tanks can only marvel at.
The softly-spoken Godson is often thought of as an ideological right winger, yet his pragmatism has enabled Policy Exchange to reach new heights of influence, with dozens of its alumni now sitting on the Conservative benches in Parliament.
If anyone was to draw up a list of the top twenty most influential think tanks in Westminster, can anyone seriously doubt that Policy Exchange would be at number one? And that’s in large part due to Godson’s outstanding leadership of it.


conservativehome--2020-02-07--Judy Terry: Councils must be rigorous in ensuring Children’s Centres provide an effective service

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk .
In recent years , libraries and children ’ s centres have been two of the most emotive services threatened by ‘ austerity ’ .
Six years ago , Suffolk County Council retained all its 47 libraries , following an extensive review , involving a detailed analysis of each property : freehold or leasehold , their condition , accessibility and running costs , as well as how each library was managed and used .
In some areas , they were well supported , with enthusiastic staff and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from coffee mornings and book clubs , to homework sessions for children of all ages – a safe place with light refreshments and help with learning , until their parents finished work .
In others , staff did virtually nothing to encourage or promote activities , left to their own devices without a local strategy to attract visitors .
Public meetings across the county provided a detailed assessment of what communities actually wanted , how passionate they were about the value of their libraries , and how they should adapt .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple to higher profile shared sites , or to use them to promote Tourism .
The extensive consultation led to the transferring all 47 libraries into a social enterprise , run by and for those communities ; it also meant £3 million annual savings on the Council ’ s funding grant , when it was evident that libraries carried central management costs which bore no relation to the services provided .
An important lesson learnt was the potential for joining things up – something the public sector isn ’ t very good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its attention to Children ’ s Centres with a public consultation to update the service to meet changing need , with a focus on sharing buildings and working with other organisations to maximise benefits .
“ It is vitally important that we continue to make a real and positive difference for children , young people and families throughout Suffolk and ensure we make the best use of the public money we are given to provide public services .
“ Given the range of social and cultural changes we all continue to experience through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way our communities continue to develop and the way in which we choose to access services for our families , now is the right time to review the services we provide for young people aged 0 to 19 years old.
” The challenges include ensuring that there are sufficient nursery places for all eligible two and three year olds , when many areas do not have enough places , making it difficult for working parents .
The council recognises that “ good early education has a positive impact on preparing children for school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 72 per cent of two-year-olds and 94 per cent of three to four-year-olds take up their funded places ; • 60,000 new homes to be built in Suffolk over the next 20 years will create an extra 10,300 ‘ 15 hour ’ places .
Over five months , the review analysed current provision , and their accessibility ( especially in rural areas ) covering 12 libraries , schools , churches , and health/community centres across 38 sites .
It emerged that some sites were used more frequently , and that there was duplication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same services .
A user survey identified changing need , areas of deprivation , and the cost of making Children ’ s Services more flexible and sustainable – with the aim of reinvesting any savings to strengthen family focus , with parenting advice .
Parents want more information out of hours , available on their mobile phones .
As a result , the Council is now consulting on its plans to create one family hub in each area , offering a range of services for all children up to 19 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , employment for young people , as well as communication and language support .
• Close two buildings which can not be repurposed due to unsuitability ; Cllr .
Mary Evans , SCC Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children ’ s Services , Education and Skills , said : “ To prepare for this consultation , we have taken a rigorous approach to review current services through surveys at each Children ’ s Centre and research into what is happening across the county .
“ The feedback kindly provided by families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of outreach services we already provide in community buildings , has informed the development of this proposal and we hope you can share your views and ideas with us now as we look to develop these services to meet future demands.
” With elections in 2021 , the review is timely , inviting further input from across Suffolk , ensuring future delivery matches demand .
The consultation closes on 1st March 2020 .

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk.
In recent years, libraries and children’s centres have been two of the most emotive services threatened by ‘austerity’.
Six years ago, Suffolk County Council retained all its 47 libraries, following an extensive review, involving a detailed analysis of each property: freehold or leasehold, their condition, accessibility and running costs, as well as how each library was managed and used. In some areas, they were well supported, with enthusiastic staff and volunteers organising a range of activities, from coffee mornings and book clubs, to homework sessions for children of all ages – a safe place with light refreshments and help with learning, until their parents finished work.
In others, staff did virtually nothing to encourage or promote activities, left to their own devices without a local strategy to attract visitors. Public meetings across the county provided a detailed assessment of what communities actually wanted, how passionate they were about the value of their libraries, and how they should adapt. Unfortunately, there was resistance to proposals to relocate a couple to higher profile shared sites, or to use them to promote Tourism.
The extensive consultation led to the transferring all 47 libraries into a social enterprise, run by and for those communities; it also meant £3 million annual savings on the Council’s funding grant, when it was evident that libraries carried central management costs which bore no relation to the services provided.
An important lesson learnt was the potential for joining things up – something the public sector isn’t very good at.
Now the County is turning its attention to Children’s Centres with a public consultation to update the service to meet changing need, with a focus on sharing buildings and working with other organisations to maximise benefits.
Announcing the review, the Council stated:
“It is vitally important that we continue to make a real and positive difference for children, young people and families throughout Suffolk and ensure we make the best use of the public money we are given to provide public services.
“Given the range of social and cultural changes we all continue to experience through the greater use of technology, the way our communities continue to develop and the way in which we choose to access services for our families, now is the right time to review the services we provide for young people aged 0 to 19 years old.”
The challenges include ensuring that there are sufficient nursery places for all eligible two and three year olds, when many areas do not have enough places, making it difficult for working parents. The council recognises that “good early education has a positive impact on preparing children for school and their long term future.”
The review identified:
776 providers offer 20,095 Ofsted registered places;
72 per cent of two-year-olds and 94 per cent of three to four-year-olds take up their funded places;
A deficit of 3,332 ’15 hour’ places currently;
60,000 new homes to be built in Suffolk over the next 20 years will create an extra 10,300 ‘15 hour’ places.
Over five months, the review analysed current provision, and their accessibility (especially in rural areas) covering 12 libraries, schools, churches, and health/community centres across 38 sites. It emerged that some sites were used more frequently, and that there was duplication of provision, with other organisations offering the same services.
A user survey identified changing need, areas of deprivation, and the cost of making Children’s Services more flexible and sustainable – with the aim of reinvesting any savings to strengthen family focus, with parenting advice. Parents want more information out of hours, available on their mobile phones.
As a result, the Council is now consulting on its plans to create one family hub in each area, offering a range of services for all children up to 19, and carers working with other organisations including mental health, employment for young people, as well as communication and language support.
Key changes:
Develop 16 full time and 11 part-time family hubs;
Repurpose nine sites for nursery provision;
Increase outreach services;
Close two buildings which cannot be repurposed due to unsuitability;
Retain and improve services through libraries.
Cllr. Mary Evans, SCC Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Education and Skills, said:
“To prepare for this consultation, we have taken a rigorous approach to review current services through surveys at each Children’s Centre and research into what is happening across the county.
“The feedback kindly provided by families who currently use the Centres and the range of outreach services we already provide in community buildings, has informed the development of this proposal and we hope you can share your views and ideas with us now as we look to develop these services to meet future demands.”
With elections in 2021, the review is timely, inviting further input from across Suffolk, ensuring future delivery matches demand. The consultation closes on 1st March 2020.


conservativehome--2020-02-07--Council by-election results from yesterday and forthcoming contests

Labour 753 ( 58.9 per cent , -3.1 ) Conservatives 469 ( 36.7 per cent , +13.9 ) Independent 56 @ @ @ @ @ +4.4 )

Warrington – Burtonwood & Winwick
Labour 753 (58.9 per cent, -3.1) Conservatives 469 (36.7 per cent, +13.9) Independent 56 (4.4 per cent, +4.4)
Labour hold.
Forthcoming contests
February 13th
Hertsmere – Borehamwood Kenilworth (Labour held)
East Staffordshire – Yoxall (Conservative held)
Derbyshire – Whaley Bridge (Conservative held)
Huntingdonshire – St Ives East (Conservative held)
Thanet – Cliffsend and Pegswell (Conservative held)
Waverley – Milford (Independent held)
February 20th
Middlesbrough – Coulby Newham (Independent held)
February 27th
Blaby – Millfield (Labour held)
Cambridgeshire – Duxford (Conservative held)
Cheshire East – Crewe South (Labour held)
Hillingdon – Hillingdon East (Conservative held)
Manchester – Clayton and Openshaw (Labour held)
South Cambridgeshire – Whittlesford (Conservative held)
Wrexham – Gwersyllt North (Independent held)
March 10th
Wiltshire – Till and Wylye Valley (Conservative held)
March 12th
Highland – Eilean a’ Cheò (Independent held)
Stratford-on-Avon – Welford-on-Avon (Lib Dem held)
March 19th


conservativehome--2020-02-09--WATCH: The deportation of criminals to Jamaica is necessary, Buckland says

Should the government be deporting people to Jamaica , including those who came to the UK as children , because @ @ @ @ @ offences ?
# Marr asks the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland about the planned charter flight @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/1cvOMdnUpY pic.twitter.com/atTpUUfmVv

Should the government be deporting people to Jamaica, including those who came to the UK as children, because they’ve committed criminal offences?#Marr asks the Justice Secretary Robert Buckland about the planned charter flight this Tuesday#Windrush https://t.co/1cvOMdnUpY pic.twitter.com/atTpUUfmVv
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 9, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-09--WATCH: Burnham insists that the North needs better rail lines

“ The north of England needs new rail lines that go East , West and North , South.
” Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ AndyBurnhamGM explains that he could get behind an East to West rail service in @ @ @ @ @ HS2.
# Ridge Follow live : https : //t.co/BE3hGR36Ua pic.twitter.com/ztAUKqTtB6

“The north of England needs new rail lines that go East, West and North, South.”
Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, @AndyBurnhamGM explains that he could get behind an East to West rail service in the North, even over HS2.#Ridge
Follow live: https://t.co/BE3hGR36Ua pic.twitter.com/ztAUKqTtB6
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 9, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-09--WATCH: Hunt condemns US for not extraditing Sacoolas

Jeremy Hunt tells me the US is not behaving like an ally by refusing to extradite Sacoolas # Ridge https @ @

Jeremy Hunt tells me the US is not behaving like an ally by refusing to extradite Sacoolas #Ridge https://t.co/wQtBhHEjYM
— Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) February 9, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-09--WATCH: “Parliament is a better place without John Bercow” – Jenrick

“ Parliament is a better place without John Bercow ” .
Housing Secretary @ RobertJenrick responds to comments by @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House of Commons .
He adds he wouldn ’ t offer Mr Bercow @ @ @

“Parliament is a better place without John Bercow”.
Housing Secretary @RobertJenrick responds to comments by @DawnButlerBrent on the former Speaker of the House of Commons. He adds he wouldn’t offer Mr Bercow a peerage.
Follow live: https://t.co/BE3hGR36Ua#Ridge pic.twitter.com/mccfUKDBi6
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 9, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-09--WATCH: “I think that’s a form of bullying too.”

Labour MP @ DawnButlerBrent claims the fact that controversial former Commons Speaker , John Bercow has yet to receive a @ @ @ @ @ form of bullying ’ .
# Ridge Follow live : https : //t.co/BE3hGR36Ua pic.twitter.com/tEjdcWFgCs

“I think that’s a form of bullying too.”
Labour MP @DawnButlerBrent claims the fact that controversial former Commons Speaker, John Bercow has yet to receive a peerage ‘is also a form of bullying’.#Ridge
Follow live: https://t.co/BE3hGR36Ua pic.twitter.com/tEjdcWFgCs
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 9, 2020