conservativehome--2020-05-02--How Johnson’s editorship of The Spectator delayed his ascent, but perhaps also educated him

10,000 Not Out : The History of The Spectator 1828-2020 by David Butterfield Boris Johnson is the first Prime Minister to have edited The Spectator , but not the first to have worked for it .
That distinction belongs to a Liberal , Herbert Henry Asquith , Prime Minister 1908-16 , who in the eight years from 1876 , as a not yet successful barrister , contributed a total of 60 articles .
Earlier still , William Gladstone , in the fourth year of his first premiership , wrote a wonderful letter to The Spectator , seeking to correct its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day must begin for me with my old friend Homer ” , a remark widely taken to mean he was neglecting his official duties : One is reminded that many people , among them Max Beerbohm , found Gladstone ’ s rhetoric irresistibly funny .
This book contains something funny or striking on every page .
I was ready to be disappointed , for the history of a magazine which has appeared since 1828 could easily become an arid digest of the huge volume of material contained within the 10,000 issues referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead produced a book which reads like the magazine itself , and is printed at the same size , the text in three columns ( two for the earlier period ) , copiously illustrated with covers and with photographs of various editors looking shockingly young – across the top of page 148 we get Alexander Chancellor , Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson .
When Johnson became editor in 1999 , a reporter on The Daily Telegraph rang me in Berlin , where I was working as that paper ’ s correspondent , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment , for I had been deputy editor of The Spectator from 1984-87 , the first three years of Moore ’ s editorship , and was contributing to it from time to time from Germany .
Butterfield reminds me that I said : Why did I say this ?
Partly because I thought Johnson would be slapdash , but mainly because I placed such a high value on The Spectator .
Like his critics when he entered Downing Street , I did not foresee the care with which he would select colleagues able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not himself suited .
He was a man with the energy , determination and ability to make a success of things , which for most of his editorship he proceeded to do , even though , from 2001 , he adopted the risky course of serving also as Conservative MP for Henley , and was soon seen as the future leader the party might need .
There was no precedent in British politics for riding two horses at the same time in quite this way , and at the end of 2004 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled him out of contention for the Conservative leadership when it fell vacant the following year .
David Cameron , who became leader in December 2005 , conferred on Johnson a junior front-bench post which was incompatible with continuing to edit The Spectator , so down he stepped from that role .
Over a decade elapsed before he was once more in contention for the leadership .
Some , including myself , think he was by then older , wiser and more professional , but this is a question which falls outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps future historians will look back on Johnson ’ s editorship as a valuable preparation for his final ascent , perhaps not .
My high idea of The Spectator dated from when I started reading it as a student , in about 1978 , during Chancellor ’ s editorship .
It is often the period just before one ’ s own which exercises the greatest fascination .
Chancellor had taken over in 1975 , when the magazine was in danger of collapse , the circulation having fallen to an official figure of 11,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patience of many readers exhausted by the paper ’ s unremitting and unavailing attacks on Britain ’ s membership of the Common Market .
Butterfield quotes the leader written by William Rees-Mogg , editor of The Times , in 1978 , to mark the magazine ’ s 150th anniversary : Chancellor would not have dreamed of writing about what he was doing in such terms .
He was not very political , and had never voted Conservative .
He attracted wonderful writers , many of them refugees from The New Statesman , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dull period , and he induced them to do their best work for him , for how wide his sympathies were and how delightful it was to make him laugh .
But Rees-Mogg was right .
The tide had turned and The Spectator picked up or reflected what was happening .
It was Patrick Cosgrave , in the magazine ’ s previous , more ideological phase , who was one of the first people to perceive that the future might belong to Margaret Thatcher .
Chancellor ’ s contributors included Jeffrey Bernard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ingrams , Shiva Naipaul , Alan Watkins , Xan Smiley , Murray Sayle , Christopher Hitchens , Sam White , Patrick Marnham , Geoffrey Wheatcroft , Richard West , Peter Paterson , Peter Ackroyd , Roy Kerridge and Andrew Brown , all of them writing some of the best pieces they ever wrote .
As a reader , you could relax in their company , and felt that they knew what was going on , but were not obsessed by politics or by success , and would laugh at people who deserved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s account , we get the young Moore ’ s reaction to the magazine : And we also have what Johnson said , in an interview with The Guardian , on becoming editor in 1999 , two years into Tony Blair ’ s New Labour rule : There is , Johnson implies , an essential two-facedness about being an editor .
One wants to know and influence the thoughts of the mighty , but one also needs to debunk them .
Like a good politician , a good editor conveys , through every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an honesty of purpose , a quality of being true to himself or herself , what is now known as authenticity .
This quality was communicated by Robert Rintoul , born in obscurity in 1787 outside Perth , who learned and practised the trade of journalism in Dundee and Edinburgh , and in the mid-1820s came south to London , where in 1828 he founded The Spectator .
Very soon , Rintoul found himself covering the tumultuous agitation for Reform in the years 1830-32 , and though he was no mindless partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Butterfield calls perhaps the most famous slogan in The Spectator ‘ s history : “ The Bill , the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill.
” And yet he did not wish to preach : To read Butterfield ’ s account is to see public opinion becoming an irresistible force in public life .
It was in 1828 that Macaulay had observed of the Commons , “ The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm.
” Rintoul , in the words of one who knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shams “ .
This is an enduring thread in the magazine which he founded , and which he proceeded to edit for 30 years .
The Spectator hasn ’ t always got things right : when Mussolini came on the scene , it was unduly impressed by him .
But it has usually been able to find a readership which shared its hatred of shams .
An admirable feature of this history is that it records the contribution not only of famous figures , like the present Prime Minister , but of forgotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who worked for The Spectator for 42 years , performing a multiplicity of arduous and generally unsung duties , and died in 1995 , still working at the age of 84 .

10,000 Not Out: The History of The Spectator 1828-2020 by David Butterfield
Boris Johnson is the first Prime Minister to have edited The Spectator, but not the first to have worked for it. That distinction belongs to a Liberal, Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister 1908-16, who in the eight years from 1876, as a not yet successful barrister, contributed a total of 60 articles.
Earlier still, William Gladstone, in the fourth year of his first premiership, wrote a wonderful letter to The Spectator, seeking to correct its report that he had said “every day must begin for me with my old friend Homer”, a remark widely taken to mean he was neglecting his official duties:
“I wish to say that the reporter has been led, probably by some careless or indistinct expression of mine, into an error. What I said was that every effort to examine the question raised on that day must begin for me with Homer … as to my beginning every day with Homer, as such a phrase conveys to the world a very untrue impression of the demands of my present office, I think it right to mention that, so far as my memory serves me, I have not read Homer for fifty lines or for a quarter of an hour consecutively during the last four years, and any dealings of mine with Homeric subjects have been confined to a number of days which could readily be counted on the fingers.”
One is reminded that many people, among them Max Beerbohm, found Gladstone’s rhetoric irresistibly funny.
This book contains something funny or striking on every page. I was ready to be disappointed, for the history of a magazine which has appeared since 1828 could easily become an arid digest of the huge volume of material contained within the 10,000 issues referred to in the title.
David Butterfield has instead produced a book which reads like the magazine itself, and is printed at the same size, the text in three columns (two for the earlier period), copiously illustrated with covers and with photographs of various editors looking shockingly young – across the top of page 148 we get Alexander Chancellor, Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson.
When Johnson became editor in 1999, a reporter on The Daily Telegraph rang me in Berlin, where I was working as that paper’s correspondent, and asked me what I thought of the appointment, for I had been deputy editor of The Spectator from 1984-87, the first three years of Moore’s editorship, and was contributing to it from time to time from Germany. Butterfield reminds me that I said:
“It’s like entrusting a Ming vase to an ape.”
Why did I say this? Partly because I thought Johnson would be slapdash, but mainly because I placed such a high value on The Spectator.
Like his critics when he entered Downing Street, I did not foresee the care with which he would select colleagues able to perform those duties for which he was not himself suited. He was a man with the energy, determination and ability to make a success of things, which for most of his editorship he proceeded to do, even though, from 2001, he adopted the risky course of serving also as Conservative MP for Henley, and was soon seen as the future leader the party might need.
There was no precedent in British politics for riding two horses at the same time in quite this way, and at the end of 2004 he came a spectacular cropper, which ruled him out of contention for the Conservative leadership when it fell vacant the following year.
David Cameron, who became leader in December 2005, conferred on Johnson a junior front-bench post which was incompatible with continuing to edit The Spectator, so down he stepped from that role.
Over a decade elapsed before he was once more in contention for the leadership. Some, including myself, think he was by then older, wiser and more professional, but this is a question which falls outside the scope of Butterfield’s book. Perhaps future historians will look back on Johnson’s editorship as a valuable preparation for his final ascent, perhaps not.
My high idea of The Spectator dated from when I started reading it as a student, in about 1978, during Chancellor’s editorship.
It is often the period just before one’s own which exercises the greatest fascination. Chancellor had taken over in 1975, when the magazine was in danger of collapse, the circulation having fallen to an official figure of 11,000, but probably below that, the patience of many readers exhausted by the paper’s unremitting and unavailing attacks on Britain’s membership of the Common Market.
Butterfield quotes the leader written by William Rees-Mogg, editor of The Times, in 1978, to mark the magazine’s 150th anniversary:
“The Spectator, having quite recently been a very bad magazine, is at present a very good one. For that Mr Alexander Chancellor, its still new Editor, and Mr Henry Keswick, its still new proprietor, deserve much praise… The Spectator now plays an important part in the most interesting intellectual movement of our times. Just as The New Statesman was the leading intellectual magazine of the movement to collectivism in the 1930s and 1940s, so now The Spectator is the leading intellectual magazine of the movement away from collectivism in the 1970s.”
Chancellor would not have dreamed of writing about what he was doing in such terms. He was not very political, and had never voted Conservative. He attracted wonderful writers, many of them refugees from The New Statesman, which just then was going through a wilfully dull period, and he induced them to do their best work for him, for how wide his sympathies were and how delightful it was to make him laugh.
But Rees-Mogg was right. The tide had turned and The Spectator picked up or reflected what was happening. It was Patrick Cosgrave, in the magazine’s previous, more ideological phase, who was one of the first people to perceive that the future might belong to Margaret Thatcher.
Chancellor’s contributors included Jeffrey Bernard, Ferdinand Mount, Auberon Waugh, Richard Ingrams, Shiva Naipaul, Alan Watkins, Xan Smiley, Murray Sayle, Christopher Hitchens, Nicholas von Hoffman, Timothy Garton Ash, Sam White, Patrick Marnham, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Richard West, Peter Paterson, Peter Ackroyd, Roy Kerridge, Gavin Stamp, A.N.Wilson, John McEwen, Paul Johnson, Alastair Forbes, Taki Theodoracopulos and Andrew Brown, all of them writing some of the best pieces they ever wrote.
As a reader, you could relax in their company, and felt that they knew what was going on, but were not obsessed by politics or by success, and would laugh at people who deserved to be laughed at.
In Butterfield’s account, we get the young Moore’s reaction to the magazine:
“when I first read Alexander Chancellor’s Spectator when I was at university, it was a bit like ‘On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer’: I recognised at once an exhilarating air of freedom. That is the best thing about The Spectator.”
And we also have what Johnson said, in an interview with The Guardian, on becoming editor in 1999, two years into Tony Blair’s New Labour rule:
“In the glutinous consensus of New Britain, The Spectator is a refuge for logic, fun and good writing. It challenges the orthodoxy, whatever that happens to be. It will continue to set the political agenda, and to debunk it.”
There is, Johnson implies, an essential two-facedness about being an editor. One wants to know and influence the thoughts of the mighty, but one also needs to debunk them.
Like a good politician, a good editor conveys, through every twist and turn demanded by changing circumstances, an honesty of purpose, a quality of being true to himself or herself, what is now known as authenticity.
This quality was communicated by Robert Rintoul, born in obscurity in 1787 outside Perth, who learned and practised the trade of journalism in Dundee and Edinburgh, and in the mid-1820s came south to London, where in 1828 he founded The Spectator.
Very soon, Rintoul found himself covering the tumultuous agitation for Reform in the years 1830-32, and though he was no mindless partisan, in March 1831 he coined what Butterfield calls perhaps the most famous slogan in The Spectator‘s history: “The Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill.”
And yet he did not wish to preach:
“a newspaper that should attempt to dictate must soon perish…if it dictates, it dies… Newspapers are but an instrument to express the opinion of their readers on either side of whatever may be in question; and, taken all together, where the Press is free, they constitute the public voice.”
To read Butterfield’s account is to see public opinion becoming an irresistible force in public life. It was in 1828 that Macaulay had observed of the Commons, “The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm.”
Rintoul, in the words of one who knew him, had a “hatred of shams“. This is an enduring thread in the magazine which he founded, and which he proceeded to edit for 30 years.
The Spectator hasn’t always got things right: when Mussolini came on the scene, it was unduly impressed by him. But it has usually been able to find a readership which shared its hatred of shams.
An admirable feature of this history is that it records the contribution not only of famous figures, like the present Prime Minister, but of forgotten ones, such as Charles Seaton, who worked for The Spectator for 42 years, performing a multiplicity of arduous and generally unsung duties, and died in 1995, still working at the age of 84.


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: Transport Secretary admits he is ‘actively looking’ at quarantine for all arrivals

# Marr : Are we going to quarantine people for 14 days when they travel into the UK ?
Transport @ @ @ @ @ I am actively looking at these issues ” # Covid_19 https : //t.co/ErfpnAPAQy pic.twitter.com/PsmYAwXVAt

#Marr: Are we going to quarantine people for 14 days when they travel into the UK?
Transport Secretary Grant Schapps: “I am actively looking at these issues”
#Covid_19 https://t.co/ErfpnAPAQy pic.twitter.com/PsmYAwXVAt
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: Wales was right to abandon its testing target, says First Minister

# Marr : Comparing the UK ’ s 100,000 testing target , was it a mistake for the Welsh government @ @ @ @ @ Mark Drakeford : “ The number itself was a distraction… tests without a purpose or @ @ @ @ @ good use of the limited resources ” https : //t.co/cderEo8ku3 pic.twitter.com/I77pfsjfZt

#Marr: Comparing the UK’s 100,000 testing target, was it a mistake for the Welsh government to abandon its own?
Mark Drakeford: “The number itself was a distraction… tests without a purpose or a point is not a good use of the limited resources”https://t.co/cderEo8ku3 pic.twitter.com/I77pfsjfZt
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: Altmann – ‘Many older people will risk prison if forced to stay at home’

“ I think using an aged based criteria would be fundamentally wrong.
” Former pensions minister @ rosaltmann says if @ @ @ @ @ people over 70 to remain at home they could risk “ social unrest ” .

“I think using an aged based criteria would be fundamentally wrong.”
Former pensions minister @rosaltmann says if the government continues to advise people over 70 to remain at home they could risk “social unrest”.
More on #Ridge: https://t.co/HhpKU0HuuA pic.twitter.com/MTdtEEJdth
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) May 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: ‘It’s not Labour’s job to produce rival road map out of lockdown’ – Thomas-Symonds

“ The UK government shouldn ’ t be pulling some kind of rabbit out of a hat.
” @ NickTorfaen @ @ @ @ @ wants the “ roadmap ” to be on schools returning if lockdown is eased – @ @ @ @ @ the government ’ s job to put forward the ideas.
# Ridge : https : @ @

“The UK government shouldn’t be pulling some kind of rabbit out of a hat.”@NickTorfaen is pushed on what Labour wants the “roadmap” to be on schools returning if lockdown is eased – but insists it’s the government’s job to put forward the ideas.#Ridge: https://t.co/HhpKU0HuuA pic.twitter.com/mSiNinzRkp
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) May 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: Shapps says 50-60% need to use tracing app for it to work

“ We need for this to work 50-60 % of people using this app.
” @ grantshapps confirms that the @ @ @ @ @ tracking app will go into testing this week on the Isle of Wight – and @ @ @ @ @ will be rolled out if successful.
# Ridge : https : //t.co/HhpKU0HuuA pic.twitter.com/TIZsbwmeXF

“We need for this to work 50-60% of people using this app.”@grantshapps confirms that the government’s #coronavirus tracking app will go into testing this week on the Isle of Wight – and says later this month it will be rolled out if successful.#Ridge: https://t.co/HhpKU0HuuA pic.twitter.com/TIZsbwmeXF
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) May 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-05-03--Our survey. Half the respondents back the Government’s South-Korean type plan. Just under a third wa

Our survey. Half the respondents back the Government’s South-Korean type plan. Just under a third want a Sweden-style approach.

Seldom have a survey ’ s results shown more vividly that the answer to a question depends on how it is put .
Ask what proportion of the panel believe that Boris Johnson is dealing with the Coronavirus well , and one finds that the answer is 87 per cent .
Last month , it was 92 per cent .
Ask what percentage think that the Government as a whole is dealing with it well , and one gets 83 per cent .
Last month , that figure was 92 per cent .
And ask what proportion support the Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that 91 per cent of respondents do so – just as last month .
These are stupendously high ratings , with only a very slight slippage in the first two answers .
We also posed a new question on the same theme , asking panel members whether or not they back what they understand of the Goverment ’ s future plans with regard to the lockdown .
Seventy-one per cent do , 14 per cent don ’ t and 15 per cent , a relatively high figure , don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those plans to be spelt out this week .
That seventy-one per cent figure is a bit short of the 80 and 90 per cent returns about , but it still shows emphatic support for the Prime Minister and the Government .
Put the question another way , however , with more specifics , and a different picture begins to emerge .
There are essentially three broad strategic routes that Johnson and his Ministers can follow in plotting the future of the lockdown .
First , they could plan to leave it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on very strict terms – rather like Israel ’ s original clampdown ( which is now being relaxed ) .
Second , they could seek to operate a looser shutdown – a less intense suppression strategy that stresses voluntary social distancing , and treats herd immunity as a strategic aim , along the lines of Sweden .
Third , they could do what it appears that they now intend to do – namely , to get Coronavirus cases and deaths down to a lower level , and then operate a South Korean-style track-and-trace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and only 13 per cent , fewer than one in seven , back the present dispensation continuing .
Just over half back what is now understood to be the Government ’ s approach .
That ’ s a very respectable total .
But nothing like the landslide majorities we report earlier .
And almost a third support a Swedish-style option – nothing like a majority , but a very considerable minority of respondents .
The most plausible explanation of the differences is that the crisis is provoking a Union Jack effect : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our politicians at this exceptional time .
A recent YouGov poll noted this effect , and it has also been taking place abroad .
It will be especially marked among the Government ’ s supporters , and Conservative Party members are among the most dedicated of these .
We ’ d expect Tory voters as a whole to respond along similar lines .
Scratch beneath the surface , however , and there is very little support indeed for continuing the present approach indefinitely , and differences of view about future strategy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do in consolidating and developing their position when they set it out in more detail later this week .

Seldom have a survey’s results shown more vividly that the answer to a question depends on how it is put.
Ask what proportion of the panel believe that Boris Johnson is dealing with the Coronavirus well, and one finds that the answer is 87 per cent. Last month, it was 92 per cent.
Ask what percentage think that the Government as a whole is dealing with it well, and one gets 83 per cent. Last month, that figure was 92 per cent.
And ask what proportion support the Chancellor’s response, and the answer is that 91 per cent of respondents do so – just as last month.
These are stupendously high ratings, with only a very slight slippage in the first two answers.
We also posed a new question on the same theme, asking panel members whether or not they back what they understand of the Goverment’s future plans with regard to the lockdown.
Seventy-one per cent do, 14 per cent don’t and 15 per cent, a relatively high figure, don’t know – presumably because they’re waiting for those plans to be spelt out this week.
That seventy-one per cent figure is a bit short of the 80 and 90 per cent returns about, but it still shows emphatic support for the Prime Minister and the Government.
Put the question another way, however, with more specifics, and a different picture begins to emerge.
There are essentially three broad strategic routes that Johnson and his Ministers can follow in plotting the future of the lockdown.
First, they could plan to leave it roughly as it is indefinitely, operating on very strict terms – rather like Israel’s original clampdown (which is now being relaxed).
Second, they could seek to operate a looser shutdown – a less intense suppression strategy that stresses voluntary social distancing, and treats herd immunity as a strategic aim, along the lines of Sweden.
Third, they could do what it appears that they now intend to do – namely, to get Coronavirus cases and deaths down to a lower level, and then operate a South Korean-style track-and-trace scheme.
Put it all that way, and only 13 per cent, fewer than one in seven, back the present dispensation continuing.
Just over half back what is now understood to be the Government’s approach. That’s a very respectable total. But nothing like the landslide majorities we report earlier.
And almost a third support a Swedish-style option – nothing like a majority, but a very considerable minority of respondents.
The most plausible explanation of the differences is that the crisis is provoking a Union Jack effect: in other words, a rallying round our politicians at this exceptional time.
A recent YouGov poll noted this effect, and it has also been taking place abroad.
It will be especially marked among the Government’s supporters, and Conservative Party members are among the most dedicated of these. We’d expect Tory voters as a whole to respond along similar lines.
Scratch beneath the surface, however, and there is very little support indeed for continuing the present approach indefinitely, and differences of view about future strategy.
The Prime Minister and his team have work to do in consolidating and developing their position when they set it out in more detail later this week.


Coronavirus Count

UK cumulative total of lab-confirmed cases : 182,260 ( Up from 177,454 ) .
UK cumulative total of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 28,131 ( Up from 27,510 ) .
Latest daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 4,806 ( Down from 6,201 ) .
Latest daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 621 ( Down from 739 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk in the UK .
Wednesday April 29th note : Dominic Raab told today ’ s Government press conference that “ we are moving to an improved daily reporting system for deaths , so that deaths in all settings are included , wherever the individual has tested positive for COVID-19 , rather than just those in hospitals ” “ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE CORONAVIRUS ( SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE CORONAVIRUS BILL WILL DO See here .
Published on Wednesday March 18 HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7.00 on Sunday May 3rd . )

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


conservativehome--2020-05-03--WATCH: Gove says that Johnson will set out “a comprehensive plan” to get Britain back to work this w

WATCH: Gove says that Johnson will set out “a comprehensive plan” to get Britain back to work this week

WATCH : Gove says that Johnson will set out “ a comprehensive plan ” to get Britain back to work @ @

WATCH LIVE: coronavirus press conference (3 May 2020) Speakers:
🔵 @MichaelGove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
🔵 Prof Stephen Powis, @NHSEngland https://t.co/x7bRqUW2wf — UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) May 3, 2020
The broacast begins after approximately 23 minutes and 10 seconds.


conservativehome--2020-05-04--Emma Revell: Lockdown’s threat to liberty

Emma Revell is Head of Communications at the Institute for Economic Affairs .
Looking back through history at draconian legislation , it is tempting to think it could never happen now , or to marvel that previous generations had allowed a particular law to pass .
There are recent instances where clear violations of liberty have been met with resistance across the political divide .
Conservatives and liberals have bristled at invasive polices that require individuals to hand over more than the minimum amount of personal information or that curtail our individual mobility .
Principled opposition to ID cards or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bold examples .
But the limits on personal freedoms which come step by step , or under the guise of public protection , can be harder to resist .
In late March , the Government introduced wide-ranging restrictions designed to reduce the spread of coronavirus .
Gone were family gatherings , leisure activities , non-essential shopping and , for many people , work .
It ’ s not to say some restrictions weren ’ t necessary .
If Coronavirus cases overwhelmed the health service ’ s capacity to cope , scientists warned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and non-Covid-19 fatalities .
At the time as the lockdown was introduced , Ministers feared that , by failing to take extreme action , they would be signing the death warrant of thousands .
But it is important to acknowledge that these restrictions would be unbelievably authoritarian in normal times , it is possible some sit on the wrong side of the line now , and all of them need to repealed as soon as is reasonable .
My colleague Christopher Snowdon has set out in detail the reasons why in a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Liberty after the lockdown .
The purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve and reduce pressure on the NHS to a level at which it was able to cope .
The number of people in hospital decreased by 13 per cent in the week to Saturday , and we are now “ past the peak ” .
It could be argued that the strategy has been a success .
But noises from Whitehall should give people cause for concern : there is a risk the goalposts are being moved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ second wave , something most epidemiologists – and historical precedent ( see recent IEA report Going Viral ) – suggest is inevitable .
A lockdown that could prevent a second wave would need to remain in place until a vaccine could be rolled out on large scale – something that could be years away .
Living under the current conditions for a sustained period of time should be viewed as inconceivable by public and politicians alike .
Restrictions on gatherings of more than two people outside the home seem sensible when faced with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with someone who could be infectious but show no symptoms .
But once we can manage the virus and the health system has capacity to cope , those restrictions are something else .
They are a ban on the right to protest ; an integral part of our democracy and something we can not lose .
Extinction Rebellion demonstrations may have been an inconvenience for commuters , but we can not deny the right to peaceful protest .
The idea we may lose that for at least two years should alarm any democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to community cohesion .
Yes , we have seen heart-warming examples of streets pulling together to care for and support their neighbours – collecting prescriptions , delivering shopping , and checking in on those living alone – but most people would prefer to see their loved ones .
A part-time photographer living on my road is documenting the inhabitants of the estate to show how usually distant central Londoners lived during this uncertain time , but this is inferior to seeing family or friends , regardless .
The fabric of society relies on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing children , parents , grandparents or partners for months on end risks a fragmentation , isolation and loneliness that should worry us all .
It can be difficult to defend freedom , especially when people are pointing to the apparent upsides of restriction .
The first weeks of lockdown showed a 28 per cent fall in crime and a drop in pollution .
But that should not come as a surprise : burglaries are somewhat trickier when people are in their homes all day , emissions are naturally lower when economic activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None of this should be used to justify a permanent restriction of liberty .
After all , limiting people ’ s ability to make bad choices also limits their ability to make good ones .
Furthermore , the reported upsides of lockdown are more than outweighed by the downsides – not only the lack of freedom , but the impact on mental health , the increase in domestic abuse , and the almost incalculable economic damage that will come the longer the lockdown restrictions continue .
This situation has shown us how fragile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to protect it .
Even as late as mid-February , the idea that we would willingly relinquish our civil liberties to save others and protect the NHS – the closest thing we have to a national religion – would have been difficult to comprehend .
How quickly times change .
Many commentators suspected the British public would be resistant to lockdown measures , and yet the issue now is perhaps we have been too compliant ; too willing to stay inside and give up our freedom , and that we may struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , politicians , and even those on social media don ’ t come together and push back against encroaching regulation , there is a very real risk that coercive policies can – and will – overstay their welcome .

Emma Revell is Head of Communications at the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Looking back through history at draconian legislation, it is tempting to think it could never happen now, or to marvel that previous generations had allowed a particular law to pass.
There are recent instances where clear violations of liberty have been met with resistance across the political divide. Conservatives and liberals have bristled at invasive polices that require individuals to hand over more than the minimum amount of personal information or that curtail our individual mobility. Principled opposition to ID cards or 90-day detention without charge stand out as bold examples.
But the limits on personal freedoms which come step by step, or under the guise of public protection, can be harder to resist.
In late March, the Government introduced wide-ranging restrictions designed to reduce the spread of coronavirus. Gone were family gatherings, leisure activities, non-essential shopping and, for many people, work.
It’s not to say some restrictions weren’t necessary. If Coronavirus cases overwhelmed the health service’s capacity to cope, scientists warned, it would lead to countless additional Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 fatalities. At the time as the lockdown was introduced, Ministers feared that, by failing to take extreme action, they would be signing the death warrant of thousands.
But it is important to acknowledge that these restrictions would be unbelievably authoritarian in normal times, it is possible some sit on the wrong side of the line now, and all of them need to repealed as soon as is reasonable. My colleague Christopher Snowdon has set out in detail the reasons why in a new paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs, Liberty after the lockdown.
The purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve and reduce pressure on the NHS to a level at which it was able to cope. The number of people in hospital decreased by 13 per cent in the week to Saturday, and we are now “past the peak”. It could be argued that the strategy has been a success.
But noises from Whitehall should give people cause for concern: there is a risk the goalposts are being moved. Lockdown was never supposed to prevent a second wave, something most epidemiologists – and historical precedent (see recent IEA report Going Viral) – suggest is inevitable.
A lockdown that could prevent a second wave would need to remain in place until a vaccine could be rolled out on large scale – something that could be years away. Living under the current conditions for a sustained period of time should be viewed as inconceivable by public and politicians alike.
Restrictions on gatherings of more than two people outside the home seem sensible when faced with a virus, spread by close contact with someone who could be infectious but show no symptoms. But once we can manage the virus and the health system has capacity to cope, those restrictions are something else. They are a ban on the right to protest; an integral part of our democracy and something we cannot lose. Extinction Rebellion demonstrations may have been an inconvenience for commuters, but we cannot deny the right to peaceful protest.
The idea we may lose that for at least two years should alarm any democrat.
Moreover, they are a barrier to community cohesion. Yes, we have seen heart-warming examples of streets pulling together to care for and support their neighbours – collecting prescriptions, delivering shopping, and checking in on those living alone – but most people would prefer to see their loved ones.
A part-time photographer living on my road is documenting the inhabitants of the estate to show how usually distant central Londoners lived during this uncertain time, but this is inferior to seeing family or friends, regardless. The fabric of society relies on strong bonds and prohibiting the public from seeing children, parents, grandparents or partners for months on end risks a fragmentation, isolation and loneliness that should worry us all.
It can be difficult to defend freedom, especially when people are pointing to the apparent upsides of restriction. The first weeks of lockdown showed a 28 per cent fall in crime and a drop in pollution. But that should not come as a surprise: burglaries are somewhat trickier when people are in their homes all day, emissions are naturally lower when economic activity has come to a juddering halt. None of this should be used to justify a permanent restriction of liberty. After all, limiting people’s ability to make bad choices also limits their ability to make good ones.
Furthermore, the reported upsides of lockdown are more than outweighed by the downsides – not only the lack of freedom, but the impact on mental health, the increase in domestic abuse, and the almost incalculable economic damage that will come the longer the lockdown restrictions continue.
This situation has shown us how fragile freedom is and how hard we must fight to protect it. Even as late as mid-February, the idea that we would willingly relinquish our civil liberties to save others and protect the NHS – the closest thing we have to a national religion – would have been difficult to comprehend. How quickly times change.
Many commentators suspected the British public would be resistant to lockdown measures, and yet the issue now is perhaps we have been too compliant; too willing to stay inside and give up our freedom, and that we may struggle to reclaim it.
If civil society, politicians, and even those on social media don’t come together and push back against encroaching regulation, there is a very real risk that coercive policies can – and will – overstay their welcome.


conservativehome--2020-05-04--Howard Flight: There’s reason to believe that the recovery will proceed better and and accelerate fa

Howard Flight: There’s reason to believe that the recovery will proceed better and and accelerate faster than many anticipate

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund , and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
It looks as though we have just about passed the worst in terms of new cases and daily deaths , which will lead , inevitably , to assessing and assisting the country ’ s economic outlook .
My expectation is that we will start to ease the lockdown gently in early May .
The ability to get back to the favourable economic conditions of six months ago is not yet possible , because a significant number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not afford to turn on the spending tap .
Notwithstanding , the Government should urge people to increase their consumption to help get the economy going .
Time will tell , but it looks as if we are fortunate in having a particularly able and bold Chancellor of the Exchequer who has devised and put in place key new financial institutions to help sustain economic recovery .
The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme ( CBILS ) is there as the corporate lender of last resort .
So far , the banks have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly by smaller companies , by requiring personal guarantees and wholly profitable track records , and also by being unwilling to lend where companies have obtained Enterprise Investment Scheme funding .
I expect the Government to have some success in getting the banks to be more cooperative here , but that CBILS will mostly be used by more established businesses .
The CoronaVirus Job Retention Scheme has been dramatically more successful in making available furlough finance equal to 80 per cent of earnings up to £2500 per month .
More directly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package for the self-employed , again equal to 80 per cent of earnings up to £2500 per month .
The Chancellor ’ s latest initiative is the establishment of a Future Fund , together with an expansion of the role of Innovate UK , to provide a total £1 billion stimulus package for SMEs/Start Ups .
This is a key territory , where the UK has been markedly successful recently .
£10.1 billion was invested last year into UK tech unicorns alone – with the UK being the third largest tech investor after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Future Fund will operate on an investment matching basis , whereby the Government will commit initially up to £250 million in total funding for investments of between £125,000 and £5 million , alongside Venture Investors/Funds which agree to match the Government ’ s funding with their own private capital .
It is not entirely clear who will be ultimately responsible for the investment decisions .
The Government ’ s portion of the funding will be provided in exchange for the issue in convertible loan notes .
It looks as if and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investment decisions will be made by the managers of the Future Fund , and not by government .
There are several practical points yet to be resolved whereby the Government intends the window for applications to run until the end of September .
The very positive Keynesian stance of the Chancellor gives me greater optimism that , once recovery starts in the summer , it may proceed and accelerate better than many currently anticipate .
In releasing functions and activities from lockdown , clearly the initial wave will focus on areas where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the relevant activities .
The Government might also learn its lesson from and copy Germany in this area .
Furthermore , if it looks as if inoculation could be developing speedily available on a major scale by the end of the year .
This will surely be positive for economic confidence .
But , like Asia , we would be wise to be organised to contain aggressively any new virus outbreaks which might occur .
The initial freeing-up is likely to apply to no more than 25 per cent of lockdown activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being able to have nationwide testing and tracking of new cases which may arise .
At best , it is likely to take 12 months to get back to conditions to be seen as reasonably normally , which in many areas and particularly retail will operate very differently compared to two years ago .
Here , the Government needs to use capitalism to hasten the adaption to changes .
The first phase of lockdown easing is likely to concentrate on areas not subject to mass participation , e.g .
small shops ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks ; private car usage and family visits .
There will be pressure to open schools sooner rather than later , where relatively few cases will give justification here .
The sort of areas likely to be the last to be freed up are large department stores , cinema ’ s , concerts and church services including weddings .
The pundits have put the UK ’ s lost output at 15 per cent to 30 per cent of GDP : personally , I anticipate it to be less and closer to 10 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first economic objective will be to restore consumption , wherever possible and to make sure there is the necessary funding to finance large and small transactions .
Ongoing economic policy will need us to live with the debt that has been created , and to rely on future economic growth to effect the relative reduction needed in the country ’ s real level of debt .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund, and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
It looks as though we have just about passed the worst in terms of new cases and daily deaths, which will lead, inevitably, to assessing and assisting the country’s economic outlook. My expectation is that we will start to ease the lockdown gently in early May.
The ability to get back to the favourable economic conditions of six months ago is not yet possible, because a significant number of people will have lost their jobs/income and simply cannot afford to turn on the spending tap.
Notwithstanding, the Government should urge people to increase their consumption to help get the economy going.
Time will tell, but it looks as if we are fortunate in having a particularly able and bold Chancellor of the Exchequer who has devised and put in place key new financial institutions to help sustain economic recovery.
The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) is there as the corporate lender of last resort. So far, the banks have frustrated the use of CBILS funds, particularly by smaller companies, by requiring personal guarantees and wholly profitable track records, and also by being unwilling to lend where companies have obtained Enterprise Investment Scheme funding. I expect the Government to have some success in getting the banks to be more cooperative here, but that CBILS will mostly be used by more established businesses.
The CoronaVirus Job Retention Scheme has been dramatically more successful in making available furlough finance equal to 80 per cent of earnings up to £2500 per month. More directly, the Chancellor has provided a £9 billion rescue package for the self-employed, again equal to 80 per cent of earnings up to £2500 per month.
The Chancellor’s latest initiative is the establishment of a Future Fund, together with an expansion of the role of Innovate UK, to provide a total £1 billion stimulus package for SMEs/Start Ups. This is a key territory, where the UK has been markedly successful recently. £10.1 billion was invested last year into UK tech unicorns alone – with the UK being the third largest tech investor after China and America.
It is intended that the Future Fund will operate on an investment matching basis, whereby the Government will commit initially up to £250 million in total funding for investments of between £125,000 and £5 million, alongside Venture Investors/Funds which agree to match the Government’s funding with their own private capital.
It is not entirely clear who will be ultimately responsible for the investment decisions. The Government’s portion of the funding will be provided in exchange for the issue in convertible loan notes. It looks as if and it needs to be the case that the investment decisions will be made by the managers of the Future Fund ,and not by government. There are several practical points yet to be resolved whereby the Government intends the window for applications to run until the end of September.
The very positive Keynesian stance of the Chancellor gives me greater optimism that, once recovery starts in the summer, it may proceed and accelerate better than many currently anticipate. In releasing functions and activities from lockdown, clearly the initial wave will focus on areas where there is no density of individuals involved in the relevant activities.
The Government might also learn its lesson from and copy Germany in this area. Furthermore, if it looks as if inoculation could be developing speedily available on a major scale by the end of the year. This will surely be positive for economic confidence. But, like Asia, we would be wise to be organised to contain aggressively any new virus outbreaks which might occur.
The initial freeing-up is likely to apply to no more than 25 per cent of lockdown activities, and this will need the prerequisite of being able to have nationwide testing and tracking of new cases which may arise. At best, it is likely to take 12 months to get back to conditions to be seen as reasonably normally, which in many areas and particularly retail will operate very differently compared to two years ago. Here, the Government needs to use capitalism to hasten the adaption to changes.
The first phase of lockdown easing is likely to concentrate on areas not subject to mass participation, e.g. small shops; hairdressers; garden centres; walking in parks; private car usage and family visits. There will be pressure to open schools sooner rather than later, where relatively few cases will give justification here. The sort of areas likely to be the last to be freed up are large department stores, cinema’s, concerts and church services including weddings.
The pundits have put the UK’s lost output at 15 per cent to 30 per cent of GDP: personally, I anticipate it to be less and closer to 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
The first economic objective will be to restore consumption, wherever possible and to make sure there is the necessary funding to finance large and small transactions. Ongoing economic policy will need us to live with the debt that has been created, and to rely on future economic growth to effect the relative reduction needed in the country’s real level of debt.


conservativehome--2020-05-04--Our survey and the virus. The proportion believing that younger people are making a disproportionate

Our survey and the virus. The proportion believing that younger people are making a disproportionate sacrifice doubles to a third.

Last month , the percentage of the panel which believes that younger and healthier people are making disproportionate sacrifices was 13 per cent .
It has more than doubled this month to 29 per cent .
And the percentage thinking that the sacrifices are not disproportionate has fallen from 82 per cent to 63 per cent .
That 29 per cent is a similar slice of the poll to the 31 per cent that we reported yesterday want “ the Government to follow an approach similar to Sweden , with a less restrictive lockdown that stresses voluntary social distancing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not of growing opposition to the present lockdown from a significant slice of Conservative Party members , then certainly of opposition that has grown since last month .
Contributory factors will be : concern about the condition of the economy ; worries about other healthcare outcomes ; unhappiness about wider shutdown effects ; less fear of the Coronavirus than a month ago , with spare NHS capacity being widely noted ; opposition to the lockdown in media they consume , such as the Daily Telegraph , together with claims that countries with looser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims about the lethality of the virus ; boredom with the lockdown .
None the less , neither 28 per cent nor 31 per cent is anything like a majority , and it follows that the remaining proportions either support the present shutdown , or want one that is even stricter .
What perhaps matters most , however , is the shift within the same panel in roughly four weeks .
We will put the question again next month and see what reply we get .

Last month, the percentage of the panel which believes that younger and healthier people are making disproportionate sacrifices was 13 per cent.
It has more than doubled this month to 29 per cent.
And the percentage thinking that the sacrifices are not disproportionate has fallen from 82 per cent to 63 per cent.
That 29 per cent is a similar slice of the poll to the 31 per cent that we reported yesterday want “the Government to follow an approach similar to Sweden, with a less restrictive lockdown that stresses voluntary social distancing”.
It reinforces a picture, if not of growing opposition to the present lockdown from a significant slice of Conservative Party members, then certainly of opposition that has grown since last month.
Contributory factors will be: concern about the condition of the economy; worries about other healthcare outcomes; unhappiness about wider shutdown effects; less fear of the Coronavirus than a month ago, with spare NHS capacity being widely noted; opposition to the lockdown in media they consume, such as the Daily Telegraph, together with claims that countries with looser shutdowns are “doing better”; claims about the lethality of the virus; boredom with the lockdown.
None the less, neither 28 per cent nor 31 per cent is anything like a majority, and it follows that the remaining proportions either support the present shutdown, or want one that is even stricter.
What perhaps matters most, however, is the shift within the same panel in roughly four weeks. We will put the question again next month and see what reply we get.


Coronavirus Count

UK cumulative total of lab-confirmed cases : 186,599 ( Up from 182,260 ) .
UK cumulative total of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 28,446 ( Up from 28,131 ) .
Latest daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 4,339 ( Down from 4,806 ) .
Latest daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 315 ( Down from 621 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk in the UK .
Wednesday April 29th note : Dominic Raab told today ’ s Government press conference that “ we are moving to an improved daily reporting system for deaths , so that deaths in all settings are included , wherever the individual has tested positive for COVID-19 , rather than just those in hospitals ” “ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE CORONAVIRUS ( SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE CORONAVIRUS BILL WILL DO See here .
Published on Wednesday March 18 HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7am on Monday May 4th . )


conservativehome--2020-05-04--Neil O’Brien: Why Conservative MPs have set up the China Research Group

China ’ s secretive , authoritarian government has created huge problems for the rest of the world .
Start with the doctor in Wuhan who warned colleagues about the new disease , and was charged with “ making false comments ” that “ disturbed the social order ” .
Or journalists who reported significant numbers dying in Wuhan who were arrested ( two still missing ) .
The cover-up continues : more were arrested just last week .
China is refusing repeated requests by the World Health Organisation to take part in investigations into the origins of COVID-19 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry .
People who watched Chernobyl on TV will see the parallels : a system focussed on supressing anything that might embarrass the Communist Party means problems are covered up until it ’ s much too late .
It ’ s a long term problem : Beijing clamped down on the wild animal trade after SARS in 2002 but , without transparency , it ’ s been allowed to come back .
Beijing bullies democratic governments for daring to ask reasonable questions .
The Australian government ( and opposition ) called for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Chinese government ambassador threatened that China would no longer import goods from Oz .
Chinese state media described Australia as “ gum on China ’ s shoe ” which needed “ scraping off.
” Aussies aren ’ t alone .
China ’ s ambassador to Sweden warned Swedes they were a lightweight facing a heavyweight , and that “ for our enemies , we have a shotgun ” .
Hardly diplomatic .
The Coronavirus crisis has brought forward a debate we needed anyway .
That ’ s why I and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Group .
We urgently need fresh thinking about how to protect ourselves from the Chinese government ’ s aggressive economic policies .
How to counter the Chinese Communist Party ’ s effort to reshape the world in a way that suits autocracy .
In this column , I ’ ll focus on the economy , and come back to the rest .
China ’ s either the biggest or second biggest economy in the world .
The world ’ s biggest exporter for over a decade now .
The biggest online marketplace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields .
It ’ s economic blastoff leaves commentators constantly behind the curve .
In 2004 , the US accounted for 24 per cent of world manufacturing , the UK four per cent and China nine per cent .
By 2018 , the US had 18 per cent , the UK two per cent and China 28 per cent .
The problem isn ’ t that China is developing .
It ’ s good China is no longer impoverished in the way it was after the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions to the world .
The problem is that the Chinese Communist Party doesn ’ t really believe in free or fair markets and has an economic strategy based on domination , not fair competition .
Here ’ s how Chinese President Xi Jinping sees things working out in the longer term : We ’ ve been warned : the Communist Party will use markets to develop , but the longer term goal remains to win a dominant position , not convert to our system .
That ’ s the Chinese government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the competition and gain monopoly power .
The EU , Japan and US have jointly listed concerns .
As the US and EU have set out , the Chinese state uses a vast array of unfair tools to rig the market .
The EU notes that the “ protectionist trend is rising ” in China .
That trend includes vast industrial subsidies , soft loans from state banks , discriminatory standard setting and procurement to build up national champions , the promotion of huge state-owned enterprises , and industrial espionage in even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant market allows it to lure firms into forced technology transfers – you can ’ t sell into China unless you agree to a joint venture : through which your technology is later extracted .
Some in business , like Jürgen Hambrecht , BASF ’ s Chairman , complain publicly about China ’ s “ forced disclosure of know-how.
” But more stay schtum , because they don ’ t want to be locked out of the world ’ s fastest-growing market , or are in too deep , or think the cheese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buys up strategically useful tech firms across the west , but prohibits such investments at home .
It is currently clamping down on foreign telecoms providers as part of a drive for cyber security .
“ Industrial penetration has become a weapon , ” says George Robertson , the former NATO Secretary-General .
For that reason , it was great to see Oliver Dowden step in regarding changes at British chipmaker Imagination Technologies this month .
As Joe Kaeser , CEO of Siemens , put it : “ The Chinese go into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then everything is calm for a while… At some point , they set up a separate company that swallows the old one , and take away the research and development.
” Increasing trade between true market economies increases competition and specialisation .
While there are winners and losers , the net effect is to spur growth .
In contrast , the Chinese government ’ s ruthless mercantilist policies slow growth for all western countries .
In lower tech fields , the Communist Party subsidises overcapacity , floods the market , and so pushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominance .
Whether it ’ s steel or solar panels , the Chinese state can create a glut , crash prices , and then absorb losses for long enough to be the last player standing .
There ’ s far less incentive for western firms to invest in risky R & D if state-run Chinese firms will just rip off and use anything they discover to compete against them .
Even when they do invest and succeed , the profits are lower , leaving less to invest in the next round of competition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ accelerating import competition from China during the 2000s can explain about 40 % of the slowdown in patenting in 1999–2007 relative to 1991–1999.
” Belatedly , the west is waking up .
The US is moving to ban the export of more types of technology .
In the EU there is a debate how to deter Chinese state stripping of technology .
Japan has announced reshoring subsidies to bring production back from China .
The UK is starting to defend against Chinese commercial espionage .
But a bigger shift is needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful progamme to dominate all the industries of the future : “ Made in China 2025 ” .
China has something like 70 % of the global drone market , dominates in 5G , is ploughing vast state resources into dominating AI and so on .
In contrast , for decades , Britain has taken too little concern over its industrial commons .
We are finally trying to address our pitiful levels of investment in R & D , and the PM ’ s chief advisor has a welcome focus on research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The illusions of the 1990s have gone up in smoke : that China would inevitably democratise as it developed… on an inevitable path of opening up… that cheap goods from China would benefit the west , but we ’ d be able to hold on to higher tech jobs… Wrong , wrong , wrong .
We need a new plan , and fast .
You can sign up for a daily news summary from the China Research Group on the CRG website :

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
China’s secretive, authoritarian government has created huge problems for the rest of the world.
Start with the doctor in Wuhan who warned colleagues about the new disease, and was charged with “making false comments” that “disturbed the social order”. Or journalists who reported significant numbers dying in Wuhan who were arrested (two still missing).
The cover-up continues: more were arrested just last week. China is refusing repeated requests by the World Health Organisation to take part in investigations into the origins of COVID-19, and refuses to take part in any international inquiry.
People who watched Chernobyl on TV will see the parallels: a system focussed on supressing anything that might embarrass the Communist Party means problems are covered up until it’s much too late.
It’s a long term problem: Beijing clamped down on the wild animal trade after SARS in 2002 but, without transparency, it’s been allowed to come back.
Beijing bullies democratic governments for daring to ask reasonable questions. The Australian government (and opposition) called for an inquiry into the origins of the virus. The Chinese government ambassador threatened that China would no longer import goods from Oz. Chinese state media described Australia as “gum on China’s shoe” which needed “scraping off.”
Aussies aren’t alone. China’s ambassador to Sweden warned Swedes they were a lightweight facing a heavyweight, and that “for our enemies, we have a shotgun”. Hardly diplomatic.
The Coronavirus crisis has brought forward a debate we needed anyway.
That’s why I and other Conservative MPs have set up the China Research Group.
We urgently need fresh thinking about how to protect ourselves from the Chinese government’s aggressive economic policies. How to counter the Chinese Communist Party’s effort to reshape the world in a way that suits autocracy.
In this column, I’ll focus on the economy, and come back to the rest.
China’s either the biggest or second biggest economy in the world. The world’s biggest exporter for over a decade now. The biggest online marketplace, and emerging leader in most high-tech fields.
It’s economic blastoff leaves commentators constantly behind the curve. In 2004, the US accounted for 24 per cent of world manufacturing, the UK four per cent and China nine per cent. By 2018, the US had 18 per cent, the UK two per cent and China 28 per cent.
The problem isn’t that China is developing. It’s good China is no longer impoverished in the way it was after the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution; great that Chinese people can make huge contributions to the world.
The problem is that the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t really believe in free or fair markets and has an economic strategy based on domination, not fair competition.
Here’s how Chinese President Xi Jinping sees things working out in the longer term:
“For a fairly long time yet, socialism in its primary stage will exist alongside a more productive and developed capitalist system. In this long period of cooperation and conflict, socialism must learn from the boons that capitalism has brought to civilization…. Here we must have a great strategic determination, resolutely rejecting all false arguments that we should abandon socialism… Most importantly, we must concentrate our efforts on bettering our own affairs, continually broadening our comprehensive national power, improving the lives of our people, building a socialism that is superior to capitalism, and laying the foundation for a future where we will win the initiative and have the dominant position.”
We’ve been warned: the Communist Party will use markets to develop, but the longer term goal remains to win a dominant position, not convert to our system.
That’s the Chinese government’s economic policy too: to destroy the competition and gain monopoly power. The EU, Japan and US have jointly listed concerns.
As the US and EU have set out, the Chinese state uses a vast array of unfair tools to rig the market.
The EU notes that the “protectionist trend is rising” in China.
That trend includes vast industrial subsidies, soft loans from state banks, discriminatory standard setting and procurement to build up national champions, the promotion of huge state-owned enterprises, and industrial espionage in even the most sensitive fields.
China’s giant market allows it to lure firms into forced technology transfers – you can’t sell into China unless you agree to a joint venture: through which your technology is later extracted.
Some in business, like Jürgen Hambrecht, BASF’s Chairman, complain publicly about China’s “forced disclosure of know-how.” But more stay schtum, because they don’t want to be locked out of the world’s fastest-growing market, or are in too deep, or think the cheese on the mousetrap looks good.
Beijing buys up strategically useful tech firms across the west, but prohibits such investments at home. It is currently clamping down on foreign telecoms providers as part of a drive for cyber security.
“Industrial penetration has become a weapon,” says George Robertson, the former NATO Secretary-General. For that reason, it was great to see Oliver Dowden step in regarding changes at British chipmaker Imagination Technologies this month.
As Joe Kaeser, CEO of Siemens, put it: “The Chinese go into a company, give guarantees about employment and then everything is calm for a while… At some point, they set up a separate company that swallows the old one, and take away the research and development.”
Increasing trade between true market economies increases competition and specialisation. While there are winners and losers, the net effect is to spur growth.
In contrast, the Chinese government’s ruthless mercantilist policies slow growth for all western countries.
In lower tech fields, the Communist Party subsidises overcapacity, floods the market, and so pushes western rivals out of business to gain dominance.
Whether it’s steel or solar panels, the Chinese state can create a glut, crash prices, and then absorb losses for long enough to be the last player standing.
In higher tech fields, the Chinese government’s mercantilist policies create “innovation drag.”
There’s far less incentive for western firms to invest in risky R&D if state-run Chinese firms will just rip off and use anything they discover to compete against them. Even when they do invest and succeed, the profits are lower, leaving less to invest in the next round of competition.
One study of the US finds that “accelerating import competition from China during the 2000s can explain about 40% of the slowdown in patenting in 1999–2007 relative to 1991–1999.”
Belatedly, the west is waking up.
The US is moving to ban the export of more types of technology. In the EU there is a debate how to deter Chinese state stripping of technology. Japan has announced reshoring subsidies to bring production back from China. The UK is starting to defend against Chinese commercial espionage.
But a bigger shift is needed. China’s has a highly successful progamme to dominate all the industries of the future: “Made in China 2025”. China has something like 70% of the global drone market, dominates in 5G, is ploughing vast state resources into dominating AI and so on.
In contrast, for decades, Britain has taken too little concern over its industrial commons. We are finally trying to address our pitiful levels of investment in R&D, and the PM’s chief advisor has a welcome focus on research.
But there is much more to do.
The illusions of the 1990s have gone up in smoke: that China would inevitably democratise as it developed… on an inevitable path of opening up… that cheap goods from China would benefit the west, but we’d be able to hold on to higher tech jobs… Wrong, wrong, wrong.
We need a new plan, and fast.
You can sign up for a daily news summary from the China Research Group on the CRG website:


conservativehome--2020-05-04--Jonathon Seed: The police force in Wiltshire has been exemplary during this crisis

Cllr Jonathon Seed is the Conservative candidate for Police & Crime Commissioner Candidate for Wiltshire & Swindon and a councillor in Wiltshire .
Our national electoral closedown in mid-March came after two days of intense speculation at the heart of Government and was unwelcome news in political circles .
I am the local Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner Candidate and had entered the “ final straight ” of the race to be elected as PCC for Wiltshire and Swindon .
I suspect that many of us had been in denial of the inevitable .
When the Prime Minister made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all elections were to be postponed for a year we had our first dose of reality .
The effects were hard – but in all of this we need to recognise that many were dealing with much more severe emerging consequences of the virus .
However , I still had to dismantle a political team and put them on hold for a year including making paid staff redundant .
Major printing orders were cancelled at the very last moment , an office had to be closed , and we had to put my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this had to be explained to thousands of supporters in very short order .
I was fortunate in being able to ( just ) stop my major leaflet and poster orders .
I was less fortunate in that I had given up my local political roles and will simply have to find something else to occupy my time for the next year .
Campaigning is suspended whilst we do our bit to help the local effort to tackle COVID-19 , but we will be back and we will be ready to fight the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigour .
Ten days later , although lockdown was expected it came as suddenly in Wiltshire as the rest of the Country .
We knew that we needed it , but like all “ medicine ” many did not want to take it when the time came .
The effects were as difficult here in Wiltshire as the rest of the country .
There have been mercifully few local cases and a relatively small number of deaths in the County but each one comes with personal tragedy and grief .
Local businesses ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been devastated and many of us are facing life in reduced circumstances .
However we are all in this together and it has been heart-warming to be a part of an inspirational community response to the national crisis .
In Wiltshire there have been very few difficulties that the local and rural communities have not risen to .
Our Council swung into action with an immediate transfer of activity lead from politicians to officers .
Wiltshire Council officers have done a grand job in reorganising to deliver essential services needed by residents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short order .
However , it has been at the most local levels that the real British community spirit has emerged .
Every one of the villages that I represent rapidly established individual community support groups and as their local Councillor I am active in support , ranging from arranging liaison with County Hall to delivering support leaflets in my local community .
This is a time for those of us trained to deal with crises and difficulties ( in my case through twenty odd years of military service ) to use our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Area Board and which was very quick off the mark with the establishment of a formal support network for the 25,000 residents in our area with an advisory website and more volunteers to coordinate than we can use .
Our local unitary councillors attend a weekly Skype meeting and work together to share experiences and deal with issues .
Part of the joy of this effort has been to see our local politicians immediately dropping their political differences and rolling up their sleeves to work together for our residents .
Amongst national difficulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and changing how they operate .
Many pubs have moved to provide takeaway services , farm shops are booming , and local village stores are delivering .
No one needs to feel alone or isolated and we all help somewhere in this .
Our Wiltshire police force has also dealt admirably with the challenge of changing circumstances .
The Wiltshire response to policing the COVID-19 restrictions has been exemplary with the measured and sensitive enforcement needed being applied with a light but firm touch .
The Chief Constable has been leading this deployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers trying to deliver a new message in policing .
There also has been an upside to the severely reduced road traffic in that it has allowed officers to target criminal activity much more easily and this has directly resulted in the severance of at least one significant county drug line .
Also spare a thought for the volunteer police special constables who continue to risk themselves for NO remuneration .
Our thanks and admiration are doubly given to them in these difficult times .
Life is also difficult for our PCC who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has immediately announced his willingness to stay for the extra year .
It is widely known that he is not in the best of health and is not as actively mobile as he once was but he soldiers on .
The national message is of a Government leading the response as best it can in the most difficult of circumstances ( in spite of appalling journalists pursuing their own “ attack ” agenda and badly misjudging the national mood ) .
The local message from Wiltshire is one of stoic perseverance , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coping with a crisis as they do best and a superb local police force getting its policing response to COVID-19 just right .
When we emerge from this crisis , as we surely will , Moonrakers will be able to look back on what they did in these difficult times with quietly reflective pride .

Cllr Jonathon Seed is the Conservative candidate for Police & Crime Commissioner Candidate for Wiltshire & Swindon and a councillor in Wiltshire.
Our national electoral closedown in mid-March came after two days of intense speculation at the heart of Government and was unwelcome news in political circles. I am the local Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner Candidate and had entered the “final straight” of the race to be elected as PCC for Wiltshire and Swindon. I suspect that many of us had been in denial of the inevitable. When the Prime Minister made the announcement on that stark Friday afternoon that all elections were to be postponed for a year we had our first dose of reality.
The effects were hard – but in all of this we need to recognise that many were dealing with much more severe emerging consequences of the virus. However, I still had to dismantle a political team and put them on hold for a year including making paid staff redundant. Major printing orders were cancelled at the very last moment, an office had to be closed, and we had to put my campaign account into mothballs. All of this had to be explained to thousands of supporters in very short order. I was fortunate in being able to (just) stop my major leaflet and poster orders.
I was less fortunate in that I had given up my local political roles and will simply have to find something else to occupy my time for the next year. Campaigning is suspended whilst we do our bit to help the local effort to tackle COVID-19, but we will be back and we will be ready to fight the election next year with restored and renewed vigour.
Ten days later, although lockdown was expected it came as suddenly in Wiltshire as the rest of the Country. We knew that we needed it, but like all “medicine” many did not want to take it when the time came. The effects were as difficult here in Wiltshire as the rest of the country. There have been mercifully few local cases and a relatively small number of deaths in the County but each one comes with personal tragedy and grief. Local businesses (including my own holiday business) have been devastated and many of us are facing life in reduced circumstances. However we are all in this together and it has been heart-warming to be a part of an inspirational community response to the national crisis.
In Wiltshire there have been very few difficulties that the local and rural communities have not risen to. Our Council swung into action with an immediate transfer of activity lead from politicians to officers. Wiltshire Council officers have done a grand job in reorganising to deliver essential services needed by residents and to distribute help to businesses in very short order. However, it has been at the most local levels that the real British community spirit has emerged. Every one of the villages that I represent rapidly established individual community support groups and as their local Councillor I am active in support, ranging from arranging liaison with County Hall to delivering support leaflets in my local community.
This is a time for those of us trained to deal with crises and difficulties (in my case through twenty odd years of military service) to use our skills. I chair our Melksham Community Area Board and which was very quick off the mark with the establishment of a formal support network for the 25,000 residents in our area with an advisory website and more volunteers to coordinate than we can use. Our local unitary councillors attend a weekly Skype meeting and work together to share experiences and deal with issues. Part of the joy of this effort has been to see our local politicians immediately dropping their political differences and rolling up their sleeves to work together for our residents. Amongst national difficulty, our local businesses are gaining support and changing how they operate. Many pubs have moved to provide takeaway services, farm shops are booming, and local village stores are delivering. No one needs to feel alone or isolated and we all help somewhere in this.
Our Wiltshire police force has also dealt admirably with the challenge of changing circumstances. The Wiltshire response to policing the COVID-19 restrictions has been exemplary with the measured and sensitive enforcement needed being applied with a light but firm touch. The Chief Constable has been leading this deployment from the front with clear direction to officers trying to deliver a new message in policing. There also has been an upside to the severely reduced road traffic in that it has allowed officers to target criminal activity much more easily and this has directly resulted in the severance of at least one significant county drug line. Also spare a thought for the volunteer police special constables who continue to risk themselves for NO remuneration. Our thanks and admiration are doubly given to them in these difficult times. Life is also difficult for our PCC who is unable to retire as planned but has immediately announced his willingness to stay for the extra year. It is widely known that he is not in the best of health and is not as actively mobile as he once was but he soldiers on.
The national message is of a Government leading the response as best it can in the most difficult of circumstances (in spite of appalling journalists pursuing their own “attack” agenda and badly misjudging the national mood). The local message from Wiltshire is one of stoic perseverance, a wonderful rural community spirit, the British coping with a crisis as they do best and a superb local police force getting its policing response to COVID-19 just right. When we emerge from this crisis, as we surely will, Moonrakers will be able to look back on what they did in these difficult times with quietly reflective pride.