conservativehome--2020-10-13--The Government is losing what control over the politics of the virus it has left

Even the top level of the Government ’ s new three tier anti-Covid measures is less restrictive than were the terms of the national lockdown earlier this year .
This reflects a sensible aim of Boris Johnson ’ s new strategy : to keep workplaces and schools open , thus protecting livelihoods as well as lives .
To date , this aspect of the plan is working .
Most schools reopened last month and most haven ’ t closed .
Non-essential retail , which was shut down during the national lockdown , will stay open even in places where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is hopeful news , too , about the virus itself .
The Office for National Statistics most recent estimate of new cases in England was about 17,200 a day , compared to about a million a week last March .
Five hundred and fifteen patients were admitted to hospital on Saturday .
On April 1 , that figure was 3099 .
These figures will rise , as will death numbers , currently coming in at about 50 a day in the UK , compared to 1166 at the peak on April 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be Raghib Ali ’ s , as set on on ConservativeHome last month .
This is that a repeat of the first wave is “ very unlikely ” , because social distancing , masks , handwashing and test-and-trace should lead to cases increasing more slowly , and that hospitalisations and deaths should be “ significantly lower ” due to the lower age profile of cases , better shielding and possibly a lower viral load .
This would explain why the Prime Minister warned yesterday that , in the event of an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be able to devote itself to “ other treatments ” : cancer , heart disease , and so on .
He did not suggest the prospect of Lombardy-style mass deaths in hospitals on trolleys in corridors , or at home without palliative care .
So far , so reassuring .
But at this point the good news ( or the less bad news ) starts to wear very thin .
There is no guarantee that the school or college system will hold up as winter deepens .
Or that non-essential retail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t intensify .
Or that this latest iteration of the Government ’ s strategy will last for very long .
This brings us to the first of three baleful problems for the Prime Minister – and the rest of us .
He announced the last tranche of measures , including the rule of six , as recently as September 9 .
One backbencher complained to this site that his local area has seen changes in restrictions since the start of the summer running into double figures .
It would be very hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alterations carried out since March – let alone that of conflicting signals sent by Ministers ( over , say , office returns , reporting rule-breakers , mask-wearing and much else ) .
Or to measure the impact of the Prime Minister himself backing off dates by which he said the crisis may be over .
Nonetheless , it seems that the longer the Government keeps overhauling restrictions , the less likely voters are likely to heed them , if only because they can ’ t follow the changes in the first place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ when responding to polls , but they may not in practice , in their everyday lives .
Furthermore , yesterday ’ s simplification of restrictions isn ’ t quite all it might seem .
On Merseyside , for example , gyms , leisure centres , betting shops , casinos and adult gaming centres will close .
This looks like the result of a back-and-forth negotiation between central Government and local leaders .
Such details are not included in the Government ’ s provisions for the highest level of restrictions , which refer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mixing in private premises and pubs and bars operating as restaurants .
This takes us to Johnson ’ s second big problem .
The to-and-fro over the details of the Merseyside restrictions is part of a bigger picture .
Local leaders are beginning to raise the standard of revolt against central diktat .
Sometimes , these are Labour mayors , such as Andy Burnham in Manchester , calling for more powers , money and consultation .
At other times , these are Conservative council leaders , such as Bolton ’ s David Greenhalgh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders have rejected “ economic lockdowns ” altogether .
Local Labour wants Tory local authorities included in area lockdowns .
Conservative MPs want them excluded , arguing that their case rates are lower .
Ominously for Downing Street , Andy Street , who by character and temperament is a team player , is kicking up about the West Midlands being placed in the second tier – one down from Liverpool ’ s .
Or at least about some of the details .
It may be that some local leaders would actually prefer their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tier , because that would open them up to more central government support .
For clarity : Street is not among them .
But his public break from the Government is a bad sign for Downing Street .
In short , the localist revolt appears to have spurred Ministers into devolving the test and trace plan more rapidly .
The Commons yesterday was awash with praise for local government – and its superior capacity to deliver tracing in particular , compared to the lumbering central state or crony capitalist contractors .
As Charlotte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , evidence suggests that local contact tracing works relatively well .
But this brings us to the Prime Minister ’ s third problem .
There is little confidence among those who know their way round test and trace that the system will reach the 80 per cent of contacts it needs to be viable .
So a likely scenario as time passes is that contact tracing will improve in some places but not in others – and not most of them .
This would be a disaster for the Government ’ s plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy , because test-and-trace is the strategic middle way between , crudely speaking , lockdowns and Sweden .
Ministers were right to try to make it work , after the initial flirtation with herd immunity .
Test and trace is the model applied with relative success by Germany – 45th on deaths per head of population compared to Sweden ’ s eleventh , and a country more comparable to ours in size and scale .
If it doesn ’ t , however , the future for the Government is shaping up as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will rise , though not to the levels of the “ first wave ” .
But , with test and trace not working as well as it needs to do , both local councils and Conservative backbenchers will become unruly .
The policy choice will also narrow down – in the absence of a vaccine , herd immunity ( if it happens ) or the virus simply burning itself out – to a repeated cycle of lockdowns and easings , with all the damage to livelihoods which these imply , or some form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now would mean fewer restrictions amidst rising death rates .
Chris Whitty and “ the scientists ” – that ’ s to say , the Government ’ s advisers – want the first .
More Tory backbenchers will move over time towards the second .
Local leaders will agitate ; Keir Starmer will scheme .
This is a picture of Johnson and his Government gradually losing what control over the politics of the virus they have .
Any fair-minded person would concede that Ministers have had successes as well as failures : Universal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nightingales .
Other European governments are wrestling with a similar rise in cases .
Conservative poll ratings remain buoyant .
That shouldn ’ t prevent one from recognising that Ministers are divided over what to do next , with the institutional instincts of the Treasury and the Health Department at odds , the Prime Minister trying to straddle the gap – and authority seeping away from Number Ten .

Even the top level of the Government’s new three tier anti-Covid measures is less restrictive than were the terms of the national lockdown earlier this year. This reflects a sensible aim of Boris Johnson’s new strategy: to keep workplaces and schools open, thus protecting livelihoods as well as lives.
To date, this aspect of the plan is working. Most schools reopened last month and most haven’t closed. Non-essential retail, which was shut down during the national lockdown, will stay open even in places where the most severe level of curtailment applies.
There is hopeful news, too, about the virus itself. The Office for National Statistics most recent estimate of new cases in England was about 17,200 a day, compared to about a million a week last March. Five hundred and fifteen patients were admitted to hospital on Saturday. On April 1, that figure was 3099.
These figures will rise, as will death numbers, currently coming in at about 50 a day in the UK, compared to 1166 at the peak on April 27. However, the cental judgement must still be Raghib Ali’s, as set on on ConservativeHome last month.
This is that a repeat of the first wave is “very unlikely”, because social distancing, masks, handwashing and test-and-trace should lead to cases increasing more slowly, and that hospitalisations and deaths should be “significantly lower” due to the lower age profile of cases, better shielding and possibly a lower viral load.
This would explain why the Prime Minister warned yesterday that, in the event of an “uncontrolled second spike”, the NHS would not be able to devote itself to “other treatments”: cancer, heart disease, and so on. He did not suggest the prospect of Lombardy-style mass deaths in hospitals on trolleys in corridors, or at home without palliative care.
So far, so reassuring. But at this point the good news (or the less bad news) starts to wear very thin. There is no guarantee that the school or college system will hold up as winter deepens. Or that non-essential retail is safe. Or that lockdowns won’t intensify. Or that this latest iteration of the Government’s strategy will last for very long.
This brings us to the first of three baleful problems for the Prime Minister – and the rest of us. He announced the last tranche of measures, including the rule of six, as recently as September 9. One backbencher complained to this site that his local area has seen changes in restrictions since the start of the summer running into double figures.
It would be very hard to calculate the total number of such alterations carried out since March – let alone that of conflicting signals sent by Ministers (over, say, office returns, reporting rule-breakers, mask-wearing and much else). Or to measure the impact of the Prime Minister himself backing off dates by which he said the crisis may be over.
Nonetheless, it seems that the longer the Government keeps overhauling restrictions, the less likely voters are likely to heed them, if only because they can’t follow the changes in the first place. They may support lockdowns in theory, when responding to polls, but they may not in practice, in their everyday lives.
Furthermore, yesterday’s simplification of restrictions isn’t quite all it might seem. On Merseyside, for example, gyms, leisure centres, betting shops, casinos and adult gaming centres will close. This looks like the result of a back-and-forth negotiation between central Government and local leaders.
Such details are not included in the Government’s provisions for the highest level of restrictions, which refer to a “baseline” of prohibited social mixing in private premises and pubs and bars operating as restaurants. This takes us to Johnson’s second big problem.
The to-and-fro over the details of the Merseyside restrictions is part of a bigger picture. Local leaders are beginning to raise the standard of revolt against central diktat. Sometimes, these are Labour mayors, such as Andy Burnham in Manchester, calling for more powers, money and consultation.
At other times, these are Conservative council leaders, such as Bolton’s David Greenhalgh. Meanwhile, four senior Labour council leaders have rejected “economic lockdowns” altogether. Local Labour wants Tory local authorities included in area lockdowns. Conservative MPs want them excluded, arguing that their case rates are lower.
Ominously for Downing Street, Andy Street, who by character and temperament is a team player, is kicking up about the West Midlands being placed in the second tier – one down from Liverpool’s. Or at least about some of the details.
It may be that some local leaders would actually prefer their area to placed in the most restrictive tier, because that would open them up to more central government support. For clarity: Street is not among them. But his public break from the Government is a bad sign for Downing Street.
In short, the localist revolt appears to have spurred Ministers into devolving the test and trace plan more rapidly. The Commons yesterday was awash with praise for local government – and its superior capacity to deliver tracing in particular, compared to the lumbering central state or crony capitalist contractors.
As Charlotte Gill has pointed out on this site, evidence suggests that local contact tracing works relatively well. But this brings us to the Prime Minister’s third problem. There is little confidence among those who know their way round test and trace that the system will reach the 80 per cent of contacts it needs to be viable.
So a likely scenario as time passes is that contact tracing will improve in some places but not in others – and not most of them. This would be a disaster for the Government’s plan for lives, livelihoods, health and the economy, because test-and-trace is the strategic middle way between, crudely speaking, lockdowns and Sweden.
Ministers were right to try to make it work, after the initial flirtation with herd immunity. Test and trace is the model applied with relative success by Germany – 45th on deaths per head of population compared to Sweden’s eleventh, and a country more comparable to ours in size and scale.
If it doesn’t, however, the future for the Government is shaping up as follows. Cases, hospitalisations and deaths will rise, though not to the levels of the “first wave”. But, with test and trace not working as well as it needs to do, both local councils and Conservative backbenchers will become unruly.
The policy choice will also narrow down – in the absence of a vaccine, herd immunity (if it happens) or the virus simply burning itself out – to a repeated cycle of lockdowns and easings, with all the damage to livelihoods which these imply, or some form of “Sweden”, which applied now would mean fewer restrictions amidst rising death rates.
Chris Whitty and “the scientists” – that’s to say, the Government’s advisers – want the first. More Tory backbenchers will move over time towards the second. Local leaders will agitate; Keir Starmer will scheme. This is a picture of Johnson and his Government gradually losing what control over the politics of the virus they have.
Any fair-minded person would concede that Ministers have had successes as well as failures: Universal Credit, building up testing rapidly, the Nightingales. Other European governments are wrestling with a similar rise in cases. Conservative poll ratings remain buoyant.
That shouldn’t prevent one from recognising that Ministers are divided over what to do next, with the institutional instincts of the Treasury and the Health Department at odds, the Prime Minister trying to straddle the gap – and authority seeping away from Number Ten.


conservativehome--2020-10-13--Chris McGovern: Black History Month must be rescued from patronising tokenism

Chris McGovern is the Chairman of the Campaign for Real Education .
He is a retired head teacher and a former advisor to the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street .
Do we need to call time on Black History Month ?
Should this October ’ s be the last ?
This is not a popular question to pose .
We are , after all , in the midst of its celebration .
Schools are submerged by it , the media is awash with it , and our political leaders are publicly embracing it .
“ Iconic figures like Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse during the Crimean war inspires us today in the fight against COVID-19.
” Seacole has been voted the Greatest Black Briton .
Sanctifying her must seem like a sure-fire political winner for politicians .
Undoubtedly she displayed some heroic qualities .
In 2016 , indeed , these were commemorated by an impressive statue of her that was erected in the grounds of St. Thomas ’ Hospital , opposite the Houses of Parliament .
Her un-woke views , though , hardly chime with the spirit of our age .
Seacole ( 1805-1881 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put her life on the line in defence of a British Empire that is now much maligned .
In her autobiography she classified Turks as ‘ degenerate Arabs ’ and opined that , ‘ the fleas are the only industrious creatures in all Turkey.
’ She , also , dismissed ‘ the cunning-eyed Greeks and ‘ the lazy Maltese ‘ .
Her guide in Constantinople she addressed as ‘ Jew Johnny ’ .
Add to this , her deployment of the n-word and her reference to the ‘ dirty skin ’ of foreigners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on race were not much different from Churchill ’ s and of most other people at that time .
Too much Black History is tokenism , and this will not suffice .
Black History should be taught , where relevant , across twelve months , not one .
Norwegian-born anti-racist and Guardian columnist , Afua Hirsch argues my case with persuasive logic : “ Why should the focus on black figures of historical significance be confined to one month of the year ?
If they are important , they should be entered into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curriculum and , outside school , into cultural events .
If they aren ’ t significant , then there is no greater justification for focusing on them in October than there is at any other time of the year.
” She is right .
The danger is that we end up distorting history by filtering it through a lens of political correctness .
Abundant filters have been applied to the past , of course – Tudor , Whig , Tory , Marxist , Liberal and so on .
PC history provides a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrated into history teaching across the year , where it is relevant .
It does not merit special or privileged status .
Nor should its subject matter be filtered .
An important lesson from the past that children need to learn is that people have similar characteristics and behaviour patterns , regardless of their racial background .
Slavery , for example , was widespread in Africa and in central America , including the Caribbean area , before the Europeans turned up .
Nor was human sacrifice unusual in those parts of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practised it on a large scale .
In the historical kingdom of Benin , too , part of modern-day Nigeria , human sacrifice was a component of the state religion until stamped out by the British in the late 19th century , just as the Sati or suttee – widow burnings – was suppressed by the British in India .
The presence of Africans in the Roman army that was stationed in Britain is becoming a must-teach topic of Black History , and so it should be .
Children are unlikely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legionaries were here in Britain as part of an army of occupation and enslavement .
In addition , the African Emperor Septimius Severus , decreed genocide against those living north of Hadrian ’ s Wall but died in York ( Eboracum ) before his command could be implemented .
This is a nasty but necessary truth of Black History that needs to be taught .
Anther necessary truth is that the African-Caribbean dimension has little part to play on these islands during the thousand or so years of what historians describe as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for British history in modern times with the growth of empire and so , of course , needs to be taught .
The history of other racial groups and other parts of the world , though , has an equal claim on curriculum time .
If children are allowed to scratch the surface of Black History , they will find that what racial groups have in common , outweighs their differences .
In October 2018 , the Royal Historical Society published a report entitled : ‘ Race , Ethnicity & Equality in UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for greater diversity in the curriculum .
It noted , however , that what amounts to a non-stop force-feeding of slavery and deprivation was putting black children off history .
The “ seemingly relentless focus ” on the exploitation and abolition of slavery can be “ intellectually limiting and , at times , alienating ” for black pupils , it concluded .
Black History month needs to concern itself with more than the trans-Atlantic slave trade and its abolition .
Here are a few other Black History topics that children need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The defeat of Hitler ’ s German/Aryan master-race theory by Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin .
• The reasons why , in addition to the fact that , so many Blacks volunteered to fight in two World Wars for the British Empire .
• Nelson Mandela ’ s donning of the South African Springbok rugby shirt – the symbol of white supremacy and apartheid – at the 1995 Rugby World Cup Final in Johannesburg .
• Why almost every former territory of the British Empire has chosen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• The image of Patrick Hutchinson , a black man , carrying a white man to safety during the first Black Lives Matter protest in London in June 2020 .
My choice of topics is there to be argued over .
That is , after all , what history should be about .
Black History Month , sadly , can too easily descends into patronising tokenism built solely on the concept of an exclusive victimhood .
This is dishonest .
The ghosts of a million or so UK citizens who died of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , might feel they are missing out .
The lesson of history is that there is no colour-bar on human wickedness and suffering , just as there is no colour-bar on human achievement .
Black History and non-Black history should be taught across every month of the year – warts and all , good and bad , wicked and wonderful !
Most certainly it should not be regarded as yet another opportunity for virtue signalling by manipulative politicians of whatever political persuasion .

Chris McGovern is the Chairman of the Campaign for Real Education. He is a retired head teacher and a former advisor to the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street.
Do we need to call time on Black History Month? Should this October’s be the last? This is not a popular question to pose. We are, after all, in the midst of its celebration. Schools are submerged by it, the media is awash with it, and our political leaders are publicly embracing it.
Labour party leader, Keir Starmer, is particularly enthusiastic:
“Iconic figures like Mary Seacole, whose heroic service as a nurse during the Crimean war inspires us today in the fight against COVID-19.”
Seacole has been voted the Greatest Black Briton. Sanctifying her must seem like a sure-fire political winner for politicians. Undoubtedly she displayed some heroic qualities. In 2016, indeed, these were commemorated by an impressive statue of her that was erected in the grounds of St. Thomas’ Hospital, opposite the Houses of Parliament. Her un-woke views, though, hardly chime with the spirit of our age. Seacole (1805-1881) was, after all, prepared to put her life on the line in defence of a British Empire that is now much maligned. In her autobiography she classified Turks as ‘degenerate Arabs’ and opined that, ‘the fleas are the only industrious creatures in all Turkey.’ She, also, dismissed ‘the cunning-eyed Greeks and ‘the lazy Maltese‘.
Her guide in Constantinople she addressed as ‘Jew Johnny’. Add to this, her deployment of the n-word and her reference to the ‘dirty skin’ of foreigners and we can see that her views on race were not much different from Churchill’s and of most other people at that time.
Too much Black History is tokenism, and this will not suffice. Black History should be taught, where relevant, across twelve months, not one. Norwegian-born anti-racist and Guardian columnist, Afua Hirsch argues my case with persuasive logic:
“Why should the focus on black figures of historical significance be confined to one month of the year? If they are important, they should be entered into the mainstream of the rest of the curriculum and, outside school, into cultural events. If they aren’t significant, then there is no greater justification for focusing on them in October than there is at any other time of the year.”
She is right. The danger is that we end up distorting history by filtering it through a lens of political correctness. Abundant filters have been applied to the past, of course – Tudor, Whig, Tory, Marxist, Liberal and so on. PC history provides a new distorting mirror. Black History should be integrated into history teaching across the year, where it is relevant. It does not merit special or privileged status. Nor should its subject matter be filtered.
An important lesson from the past that children need to learn is that people have similar characteristics and behaviour patterns, regardless of their racial background.
Slavery, for example, was widespread in Africa and in central America, including the Caribbean area, before the Europeans turned up. Nor was human sacrifice unusual in those parts of the world. The Aztecs, for example, practised it on a large scale.
In the historical kingdom of Benin, too, part of modern-day Nigeria, human sacrifice was a component of the state religion until stamped out by the British in the late 19th century, just as the Sati or suttee – widow burnings – was suppressed by the British in India.
The presence of Africans in the Roman army that was stationed in Britain is becoming a must-teach topic of Black History, and so it should be. Children are unlikely to be taught, however, that the African legionaries were here in Britain as part of an army of occupation and enslavement. In addition, the African Emperor Septimius Severus, decreed genocide against those living north of Hadrian’s Wall but died in York (Eboracum) before his command could be implemented. This is a nasty but necessary truth of Black History that needs to be taught.
Anther necessary truth is that the African-Caribbean dimension has little part to play on these islands during the thousand or so years of what historians describe as the Middle Ages. It becomes increasingly significant for British history in modern times with the growth of empire and so, of course, needs to be taught. The history of other racial groups and other parts of the world, though, has an equal claim on curriculum time.
If children are allowed to scratch the surface of Black History, they will find that what racial groups have in common, outweighs their differences.
In October 2018, the Royal Historical Society published a report entitled: ‘Race, Ethnicity & Equality in UK History’. It was supportive of calls for greater diversity in the curriculum. It noted, however, that what amounts to a non-stop force-feeding of slavery and deprivation was putting black children off history. The “seemingly relentless focus” on the exploitation and abolition of slavery can be “intellectually limiting and, at times, alienating” for black pupils, it concluded.
Black History month needs to concern itself with more than the trans-Atlantic slave trade and its abolition. Here are a few other Black History topics that children need to learn about; some already do:
The defeat of Hitler’s German/Aryan master-race theory by Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. The reasons why, in addition to the fact that, so many Blacks volunteered to fight in two World Wars for the British Empire. Nelson Mandela’s donning of the South African Springbok rugby shirt – the symbol of white supremacy and apartheid – at the 1995 Rugby World Cup Final in Johannesburg. Why almost every former territory of the British Empire has chosen to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Rwanda genocide. The image of Patrick Hutchinson, a black man, carrying a white man to safety during the first Black Lives Matter protest in London in June 2020.
My choice of topics is there to be argued over. That is, after all, what history should be about.
Black History Month, sadly, can too easily descends into patronising tokenism built solely on the concept of an exclusive victimhood. This is dishonest. The ghosts of a million or so UK citizens who died of starvation across a few years in 1840s, for example, might feel they are missing out.
The lesson of history is that there is no colour-bar on human wickedness and suffering, just as there is no colour-bar on human achievement. Black History and non-Black history should be taught across every month of the year – warts and all, good and bad, wicked and wonderful! Most certainly it should not be regarded as yet another opportunity for virtue signalling by manipulative politicians of whatever political persuasion.


conservativehome--2020-10-13--The forty-two Conservative MPs who voted against the Government on the 10pm curfew

Ahmad Khan, Imran
Amess, David
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Crispin
Bone, Peter
Brady, Graham
Chope, Christopher
Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey
Daly, James
Davies, Philip
Davis, David
Davison, Dehenna
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Ghani, Nusrat
Green, Chris (pictured)
Hunt, Tom
Latham, Mrs Pauline
Loder, Chris
Loughton, Tim
Mangnall, Anthony
McCartney, Karl
McVey, Esther
Merriman, Huw
Morris, Anne Marie
Redwood, rh John
Rosindell, Andrew
Sambrook, Gary
Seely, Bob
Smith, Henry
Swayne, rh Sir Desmond
Syms, Sir Robert
Thomas, Derek
Tracey, Craig
Vickers, Matt
Wakeford, Christian
Walker, Sir Charles
Watling, Giles
Wragg, William
Plus two tellers – Philip Hollobone and Craig Mackinlay.
– – –


conservativehome--2020-10-13--After my night out on Saturday, I’m even more convinced that the 10pm curfew won’t work

As readers of ConservativeHome may know , I am hardly the biggest fan of the Government ’ s 10pm curfew policy .
I believe it will cause huge economic harm ; has been based on a flawed model from Belgium , and is dispiriting for national morale .
Last Saturday night , I added a new reason to my list of objections ; it seems to me that the curfew is counterproductive – and could , inadvertently , harm public health .
That evening my friend and I had been in Soho at a smart , socially distanced bar before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , waiters frantically hurried about , conscious of the time .
I don ’ t think I have ever seen someone sprint towards me with a glass of wine before , but there are firsts for everything in this crisis .
Coming up to 10pm , we were told that we had had to leave .
We were in a lively part of town , and so this instruction suddenly meant tens of people getting up at the same time to go home .
But that was nothing as I headed towards Oxford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with people – similar to the photographs many of us have seen in newspapers of revellers convening in other parts of the country .
What troubled me wasn ’ t so much the crowds gathering outside ( the virus spreads mostly indoors ) , but watching hundreds – maybe even thousands – of these souls then pour onto the tube , where they would inevitably be packed together in carriages .
Although I am quite relaxed about my own personal risk with Coronavirus , I decided to wait an hour before boarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( one of which you ’ ll see above ) .
It merely convinced me that the Government has indeed got this policy wrong .
The Coronavirus crisis is , of course , forcing MPs to make impossible decisions , for which – dare I say – I feel very sorry for them ; it is a thankless task .
Their scientific advisors have clearly told them about the dangers of bars ; that one person can spark a big wave of infections , and that alcohol makes people more relaxed about social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways a concession made to those who say it ’ s wrong to have pubs open at all , and maybe it ’ s the case that they work well in small towns , where one can walk back and forth to the local .
As a Londoner I can only speak for how it works here .
It simply looked like the quickest way to accelerate the spread of the virus .
It is an example when a theory sounds good – “ close earlier and the virus can ’ t circulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far messier .
I have seen other problems with the curfew , albeit simply walking around London .
One is that people are starting their “ evenings ” much earlier .
There are now groups of dressed up people in pubs and bars at midday .
Revellers will find other ways around the curfew , too , standing outside pubs with plastic cups of wine long after closing time .
The parties haven ’ t stopped , they ’ re simply moving elsewhere .
Some of this is no doubt because people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wane .
For young people particularly , many of whom live in small homes , getting out for the evening is a strange type of stretching one ’ s legs .
For people of all ages , bars and restaurants are a salvation at a time when life has become quite bleak .
My own , somewhat controversial theory – and not simply because I like nightlife , which I do – is that extending closing times would , paradoxically , provide a much better outcome than curfews .
It would increase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and go from bars .
It makes people feel less pressured to head in at the same time .
Perhaps venues could even allow people to book slots .
Unfortunately this idea would never get any traction .
Part of the reason is that so much of our policies are based on replicating Europe ; we decided the curfew was a good idea because Belgium had taken it on , and now Germany has done the same so the case for it will grow .
I wonder if this is the right approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not just ours .
What I saw on Saturday night was not good .

As readers of ConservativeHome may know, I am hardly the biggest fan of the Government’s 10pm curfew policy. I believe it will cause huge economic harm; has been based on a flawed model from Belgium, and is dispiriting for national morale. Last Saturday night, I added a new reason to my list of objections; it seems to me that the curfew is counterproductive – and could, inadvertently, harm public health.
That evening my friend and I had been in Soho at a smart, socially distanced bar before grabbing dinner nearby. At the restaurant, waiters frantically hurried about, conscious of the time. I don’t think I have ever seen someone sprint towards me with a glass of wine before, but there are firsts for everything in this crisis.
Coming up to 10pm, we were told that we had had to leave. We were in a lively part of town, and so this instruction suddenly meant tens of people getting up at the same time to go home. But that was nothing as I headed towards Oxford Street tube. The streets were heaving with people – similar to the photographs many of us have seen in newspapers of revellers convening in other parts of the country.
What troubled me wasn’t so much the crowds gathering outside (the virus spreads mostly indoors), but watching hundreds – maybe even thousands – of these souls then pour onto the tube, where they would inevitably be packed together in carriages.
Although I am quite relaxed about my own personal risk with Coronavirus, I decided to wait an hour before boarding the underground, taking photographs of the scene (one of which you’ll see above). It merely convinced me that the Government has indeed got this policy wrong.
The Coronavirus crisis is, of course, forcing MPs to make impossible decisions, for which – dare I say – I feel very sorry for them; it is a thankless task. Their scientific advisors have clearly told them about the dangers of bars; that one person can spark a big wave of infections, and that alcohol makes people more relaxed about social contact.
The curfews are in many ways a concession made to those who say it’s wrong to have pubs open at all, and maybe it’s the case that they work well in small towns, where one can walk back and forth to the local.
As a Londoner I can only speak for how it works here. It simply looked like the quickest way to accelerate the spread of the virus. It is an example when a theory sounds good – “close earlier and the virus can’t circulate” – but the practical reality is far messier.
I have seen other problems with the curfew, albeit simply walking around London. One is that people are starting their “evenings” much earlier. There are now groups of dressed up people in pubs and bars at midday. Revellers will find other ways around the curfew, too, standing outside pubs with plastic cups of wine long after closing time. The parties haven’t stopped, they’re simply moving elsewhere.
Some of this is no doubt because people’s tolerance for lockdown is starting to wane. For young people particularly, many of whom live in small homes, getting out for the evening is a strange type of stretching one’s legs. For people of all ages, bars and restaurants are a salvation at a time when life has become quite bleak.
My own, somewhat controversial theory – and not simply because I like nightlife, which I do – is that extending closing times would, paradoxically, provide a much better outcome than curfews. It would increase the range of times at which people come and go from bars. It makes people feel less pressured to head in at the same time. Perhaps venues could even allow people to book slots.
Unfortunately this idea would never get any traction. Part of the reason is that so much of our policies are based on replicating Europe; we decided the curfew was a good idea because Belgium had taken it on, and now Germany has done the same so the case for it will grow. I wonder if this is the right approach for any country with densely populated cities, not just ours. What I saw on Saturday night was not good.


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Director of Labour Market Enforcement – an

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Director of Labour Market Enforcement – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) , and the precious resources within it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers .
Given this period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry , delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new direct line , providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , as well as reducing journey times , congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and the environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and outlook ; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , civil society , charities and other non-government organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.
” “ This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport .
We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK ’ s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country .
We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move .
We work across all modes of transport – roads , rail , aviation , maritime – to improve journeys , boost economic growth , work towards a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nation Britain .
We are seeking a Non-Executive Director to join the Department ’ s Board .
The successful candidate , through their membership of the Board , will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board ( including its various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
The Board is specifically responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ” Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members .
@

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Transport – Non-Executive Director
“This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport. We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK’s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country. We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move. We work across all modes of transport – roads, rail, aviation, maritime – to improve journeys, boost economic growth, work towards a low carbon future and build a One Nation Britain. We are seeking a Non-Executive Director to join the Department’s Board. The successful candidate, through their membership of the Board, will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.”
Time: 15 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 01 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £100,000 – £130,000 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 08 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Starmer knows that a circuit breaker wouldn’t stop the virus – but doesn’t care

If the Government ’ s test and trace scheme worked seamlessly , a Covid-19 circuit-breaker would make a lot of sense .
A national lockdown would be imposed for a fortnight or so .
After which the hospitality sector could be re-opened ; the rule of six dropped , and curbs on weddings , funerals , sporting and cultural events abandoned .
Voluntary action would take the strain of reducing the disease : hand-washing , masks , social distancing .
All this could happen because testing , tracking and incarceration would operate to the required standard , with the 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit .
There would still be shutdowns , but they would take place on a much smaller scale – usually on a neighbourhood or even a street basis , because the state ’ s tracing capacity would be precise enough to enable such targeted action to take place .
But as ConservativeHome pointed out yesterday , the test and trace scheme is nowhere near having that kind of capacity .
If a small website can work this out , then so can the Government ’ s scientific advisers .
They know that for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to be switched on for the duration , or at least lifted very slowly .
In other words , Keir Starmer has essentially come out for a full national lockdown of uncertain length .
Experience abroad suggests that this would not only bury the economy alive but fail to kill the virus , because the latter would still be lurking when the shutdown was lifted .
This would be the ultimate double whammy .
So a national circuit-breaker is a really bad idea .
In a policy sense , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a political one , it looks shaky , too .
This is both because the elecorate is a lot smarter than some people think , and will see through the Labour ’ s leader ’ s game , and because of opposition to the idea within his own party .
Four senior Labour local council leaders – from Liverpool , Manchester , Leeds and Newcastle – have declared themselves against more “ economic lockdowns ” .
Some local Labour MPs are bound to follow suit .
The Conservative Party is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle the virus .
Furthermore , striking out in his own direction , rather than swimming in the Government ’ s slip-stream , exposes Starmer to the risk of getting out of his depth .
The Conservatives will counter-attack , making some of the points that we do above , and adding a few more of their own .
Tory MPs are already busy on Twitter excoriating the Labour leader for backing a circuit-breaker , but not backing an element of one yesterday in the Commons – the ten o ’ clock rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote while also instructing his party to abstain .
So given these downsides , why back a circuit-breaker ?
Because Starmer takes a point that this site also made yesterday : that the Government is losing what control of the virus it has left .
He clearly believes that it is worth exposing himself to fire in order to move in for the kill , with polling support for shutdowns as cover .
For either Boris Johnson bows to the pressure for a circuit-breaker , in which case the Labour leader will claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , and Starmer can pull the Prime Minister one way while Conservative rebels push him another – towards fewer lockdowns , not more , and a different strategy .
Forty-two of them voted against the Government yesterday evening on the ten o ’ clock rule – the biggest backbench revolt to date on a matter directly related to control of the virus .
There will be more where that came from as autumn turns into winter .
The Labour leader is settling down for a war of attrition in Parliament and elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dice since he became Opposition leader , which makes him a more interesting figure – if also a grossly irresponsible one .

If the Government’s test and trace scheme worked seamlessly, a Covid-19 circuit-breaker would make a lot of sense. A national lockdown would be imposed for a fortnight or so. After which the hospitality sector could be re-opened; the rule of six dropped, and curbs on weddings, funerals, sporting and cultural events abandoned.
Voluntary action would take the strain of reducing the disease: hand-washing, masks, social distancing. All this could happen because testing, tracking and incarceration would operate to the required standard, with the 80 per cent target for those contacted being hit.
There would still be shutdowns, but they would take place on a much smaller scale – usually on a neighbourhood or even a street basis, because the state’s tracing capacity would be precise enough to enable such targeted action to take place.
But as ConservativeHome pointed out yesterday, the test and trace scheme is nowhere near having that kind of capacity. If a small website can work this out, then so can the Government’s scientific advisers. They know that for it to be effective, the circuit-breaker would have to be switched on for the duration, or at least lifted very slowly.
In other words, Keir Starmer has essentially come out for a full national lockdown of uncertain length. Experience abroad suggests that this would not only bury the economy alive but fail to kill the virus, because the latter would still be lurking when the shutdown was lifted. This would be the ultimate double whammy.
So a national circuit-breaker is a really bad idea. In a policy sense, that’s all that needs to be said. In a political one, it looks shaky, too. This is both because the elecorate is a lot smarter than some people think, and will see through the Labour’s leader’s game, and because of opposition to the idea within his own party.
Four senior Labour local council leaders – from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle – have declared themselves against more “economic lockdowns”. Some local Labour MPs are bound to follow suit. The Conservative Party is not alone in being divided on how to handle the virus.
Furthermore, striking out in his own direction, rather than swimming in the Government’s slip-stream, exposes Starmer to the risk of getting out of his depth. The Conservatives will counter-attack, making some of the points that we do above, and adding a few more of their own.
Tory MPs are already busy on Twitter excoriating the Labour leader for backing a circuit-breaker, but not backing an element of one yesterday in the Commons – the ten o’clock rule; for giving his MPs a free vote while also instructing his party to abstain.
So given these downsides, why back a circuit-breaker? Because Starmer takes a point that this site also made yesterday: that the Government is losing what control of the virus it has left. He clearly believes that it is worth exposing himself to fire in order to move in for the kill, with polling support for shutdowns as cover.
For either Boris Johnson bows to the pressure for a circuit-breaker, in which case the Labour leader will claim the credit; or he won’t, and Starmer can pull the Prime Minister one way while Conservative rebels push him another – towards fewer lockdowns, not more, and a different strategy.
Forty-two of them voted against the Government yesterday evening on the ten o’clock rule – the biggest backbench revolt to date on a matter directly related to control of the virus. There will be more where that came from as autumn turns into winter.
The Labour leader is settling down for a war of attrition in Parliament and elsewhere. It is his boldest throw of the dice since he became Opposition leader, which makes him a more interesting figure – if also a grossly irresponsible one.


conservativehome--2020-10-14--The forty-two Conservative MPs who voted against the Government on the 10pm curfew


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Daniel Hannan: Overstretched – that’s how our police see themselves. So how have they found time to

Daniel Hannan: Overstretched – that’s how our police see themselves. So how have they found time to hound a young Geordie journalist?

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
Which of the following do you reckon constitutes a public order offence ?
Holding a demonstration in defiance of lockdown rules ; vandalising a statue ; recording an interview with a well-known Cambridge historian in which he makes a racist remark .
If you picked the third option , you could have a glittering career in the Metropolitan Police .
London ’ s coppers , who switched from heavy-handed enforcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who literally dropped to their knees during violent protests , and one of whose commanders went so far as to issue a video asking BLM agitators to break the law considerately , has decided to investigate Darren Grimes over his interview with David Starkey .
Grimes , a Eurosceptic commentator , has been interviewed under caution in connection with Section 22 of the 1986 Public Order Act which makes the producer of a broadcast containing abusive or threatening language liable if “ ( a ) he intends thereby to stir up racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby .
No one , as far as I can tell , has defended Starkey ’ s assertion that , had the transatlantic slave trade constituted a genocide , “ there wouldn ’ t be so many damn blacks ” .
Indeed , the dyspeptic doctor himself has issued a ( for him ) exceptional apology .
We can all agree that his remarks were intemperate , inaccurate and impolite .
More than that , they were racist – a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but which applies in this case .
A racist remark , though , does not in itself constitute a crime .
The test is whether anyone hearing it would be stirred to racial hatred .
In this instance , it seems vanishingly improbable .
The common reaction , as we have seen , was a shudder of distaste at the speaker .
There used to be a clearly understood distinction between opinion ( “ Why are there so many damn Archenlanders in Narnia ?
” ) and incitement ( “ Are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these Archenlanders violate our Marshwiggles ?
” ) But that distinction has been systematically demolished , partly through legislation , partly through judicial activism and partly through over-eager policing .
It seems highly unlikely that the action against Grimes will result in a prosecution , let alone a conviction .
But that doesn ’ t make it OK. For one thing , every investigation of this kind diminishes civil liberties and undermines the police .
For another , there is a human cost even in cases that don ’ t reach court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of frivolous and malicious hate crimes accusations ) puts it , “ the process is the punishment ” .
Grimes spent the better part of four years fighting off vexatious charges brought by people who resented the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum .
Although he was completely exonerated in the end , nothing could undo the stress , the financial cost and the damaging media reports .
Now , he faces going through another such ordeal .
And the poor chap is still only 27 .
Hate crimes are one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our politico-legal class pulls one way and public opinion the other .
It is incomprehensible to most people that a police force that claims to be overstretched and underfunded can find time to chase a young Geordie journalist ( “ investigate crimes , not Grimes ” , as one wag put it ) .
There is also a strong suspicion of partiality .
Had David Starkey made his remarks in , say , a Guardian interview , does anyone seriously imagine that that paper ’ s editor would find herself under investigation ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bewildered alarm , the Law Commission is plugging ahead with its attempts to extend hate crimes legislation even further – this time to include misogyny .
Labour MPs have piled in against Grimes .
Karl Turner , a shadow law minister , came out with a singular definition of free speech when he declared : “ Of course everyone has the right to freedom of expression .
But that doesn ’ t mean freedom from the consequences from what they have said .
As I understand it , the police are investigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should investigate racist behaviour.
” Got that ?
You have absolute freedom of expression , but you may end up getting your collar felt if you exercise it in the wrong way .
Keir Starmer agrees .
“ I think it does sometimes have to involve the police , ” he said on Monday .
“ There has got to be a level of tolerance of course , but there is a line which can be crossed , and it ’ s very important that it is investigated , and that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has what coppers call “ previous ” here .
When he was Director of Public Prosecutions , he reportedly overruled his staff to insist on pushing ahead with a case against someone who had made a joke on Twitter about blowing up Robin Hood airport .
If Boris Johnson moves to reverse the spread in these illiberal laws , he will be in the happy position of having the electorate with him but Labour against him .
That , though , is not why he should act .
He should act because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many more travesties : more wasted resources , more ruined lives , more tarnished liberty .
“ It ’ s a free country ” , we used to tell one another .
Let ’ s make it one .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
Which of the following do you reckon constitutes a public order offence? Holding a demonstration in defiance of lockdown rules; vandalising a statue; recording an interview with a well-known Cambridge historian in which he makes a racist remark.
If you picked the third option, you could have a glittering career in the Metropolitan Police. London’s coppers, who switched from heavy-handed enforcement of the lockdown to indulgence of Leftist demonstrators, who literally dropped to their knees during violent protests, and one of whose commanders went so far as to issue a video asking BLM agitators to break the law considerately, has decided to investigate Darren Grimes over his interview with David Starkey.
Grimes, a Eurosceptic commentator, has been interviewed under caution in connection with Section 22 of the 1986 Public Order Act which makes the producer of a broadcast containing abusive or threatening language liable if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
No one, as far as I can tell, has defended Starkey’s assertion that, had the transatlantic slave trade constituted a genocide, “there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks”. Indeed, the dyspeptic doctor himself has issued a (for him) exceptional apology.
We can all agree that his remarks were intemperate, inaccurate and impolite. More than that, they were racist – a word that has been cheapened through overuse, but which applies in this case. A racist remark, though, does not in itself constitute a crime. The test is whether anyone hearing it would be stirred to racial hatred. In this instance, it seems vanishingly improbable. The common reaction, as we have seen, was a shudder of distaste at the speaker.
There used to be a clearly understood distinction between opinion (“Why are there so many damn Archenlanders in Narnia?”) and incitement (“Are you just going to stand there and let these Archenlanders violate our Marshwiggles?”) But that distinction has been systematically demolished, partly through legislation, partly through judicial activism and partly through over-eager policing.
It seems highly unlikely that the action against Grimes will result in a prosecution, let alone a conviction. But that doesn’t make it OK. For one thing, every investigation of this kind diminishes civil liberties and undermines the police. For another, there is a human cost even in cases that don’t reach court. As Mark Steyn (himself a victim of frivolous and malicious hate crimes accusations) puts it, “the process is the punishment”.
Grimes spent the better part of four years fighting off vexatious charges brought by people who resented the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum. Although he was completely exonerated in the end, nothing could undo the stress, the financial cost and the damaging media reports. Now, he faces going through another such ordeal. And the poor chap is still only 27.
Hate crimes are one of the places where we hear screeching gears as our politico-legal class pulls one way and public opinion the other. It is incomprehensible to most people that a police force that claims to be overstretched and underfunded can find time to chase a young Geordie journalist (“investigate crimes, not Grimes”, as one wag put it).
There is also a strong suspicion of partiality. Had David Starkey made his remarks in, say, a Guardian interview, does anyone seriously imagine that that paper’s editor would find herself under investigation? Yet, as the public looks on in bewildered alarm, the Law Commission is plugging ahead with its attempts to extend hate crimes legislation even further – this time to include misogyny.
Labour MPs have piled in against Grimes. Karl Turner, a shadow law minister, came out with a singular definition of free speech when he declared: “Of course everyone has the right to freedom of expression. But that doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences from what they have said. As I understand it, the police are investigating complaints. And it is right that they should investigate racist behaviour.”
Got that? You have absolute freedom of expression, but you may end up getting your collar felt if you exercise it in the wrong way.
Keir Starmer agrees. “I think it does sometimes have to involve the police,” he said on Monday. “There has got to be a level of tolerance of course, but there is a line which can be crossed, and it’s very important that it is investigated, and that in some cases there are prosecutions.”
Starmer has what coppers call “previous” here. When he was Director of Public Prosecutions, he reportedly overruled his staff to insist on pushing ahead with a case against someone who had made a joke on Twitter about blowing up Robin Hood airport.
If Boris Johnson moves to reverse the spread in these illiberal laws, he will be in the happy position of having the electorate with him but Labour against him. That, though, is not why he should act. He should act because, until he does, there will be many more travesties: more wasted resources, more ruined lives, more tarnished liberty. “It’s a free country”, we used to tell one another. Let’s make it one.


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Ryan Bourne: Johnson’s green jobs.  Subsidy-reliant, expensive, price-raising. And a job loser elsew

Ryan Bourne: Johnson’s green jobs.  Subsidy-reliant, expensive, price-raising. And a job loser elsewhere.

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
It is said that , during the 1960s , Milton Friedman was visiting China , where guides took him to a canal-building site .
Shocked at the prevalence of men bearing shovels , Friedman asked why the project wasn ’ t utilising modern technologies , such as mechanical diggers .
“ You don ’ t understand , Professor Friedman , ” his host explained , “ this is a job creation programme.
” To which Friedman retorted , “ Oh , I thought you were trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really want to create jobs , then by all means give your workers spoons , not shovels.
” That tale is beloved by economists because it contains an important truth : gross job creation is a poor metric to judge success when considering government-led infrastructure .
We could “ create jobs ” through getting people to fill in holes .
What matters is the net value added of the output created , as determined in markets – i.e : by consumers and open trade .
Using more workers less efficiently to produce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value , because labour is a cost of production .
This lesson sprang to mind last week during Boris Johnson ’ s speech to the Conservative Party Conference .
As part of his ode to offshore wind , Johnson talked of the UK ’ s natural abundance of the stuff ( the “ Saudi Arabia ” of wind ) and his excitement at the technology ( floating wind islands ) .
But he also extolled the idea of a UK “ green industrial revolution ” that “ in the next ten years will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of jobs.
” Any market-led or government-incentivised shift towards wind will see new jobs in the industry “ created.
” But this shouldn ’ t be the goal .
To echo Friedman , “ we thought you were trying to produce electricity , subject to mitigating climate change .
If you wanted to create jobs , why not have people make the wind turbines by hand ?
” We should judge the desirability of a pro-wind energy policy framework , in other words , by its contribution to this social value added , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Gross job creation in wind and other renewable generation is clearly a cost in economic terms , ” Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh explained to me last week .
“ The higher the number [ of jobs ] , the larger the subsidies required and the larger the damage to the rest of the economy.
” He views this outcome as an unacknowledged problem of wind power generally , which does require labour for operations and maintenance , particularly as turbines age .
If we are purely looking at how to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a hindrance – an economic failure , not success .
According to Hughes , talking of creating “ millions of jobs ” is a “ shortcut to national impoverishment ” .
Of course , the desire for climate change mitigation means policymakers reject the premise that we just want our energy sector to simply prize efficiency .
Due to the “ social costs ” of carbon , they aren ’ t just concerned about traditional measured value added , but are explicitly willing to take an economic hit in targeting a broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account these CO2 externalities .
And that ’ s fine , in principle .
Yet even then , “ green jobs ” shouldn ’ t be the aim .
An economist would say we should try ( albeit imperfectly ) to price this social cost , and then let markets find the most efficient way of delivering power accounting for it .
What that does not require is industrial strategies , picking winners , and seeing the green energy sector as some sort of jobs machine .
Indeed , simple logic would suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary reduces net jobs across the whole economy because of its impact on energy prices .
“ Energy is a labour-extensive industry .
It does not employ a lot of people ” Richard Tol , the renowned climate economist , explains .
“ If the energy sector would start to employ many more people , retail energy prices would rise rapidly.
” Given every other activity uses power as an input , it surely doesn ’ t need to be said that “ more expensive energy means less growth and so less job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ energy ” and “ non-energy ” sectors too , “ a large relative increase in employment in energy is easily offset by a small relative decrease in employment in the rest of the economy.
” An explicit aim to “ create jobs ” in the wind industry , in other words , would be vastly outweighed by job losses elsewhere .
Note : none of my analysis here is passing judgment on the desirability of decarbonisation .
Tol believes that given the energy framework of UK policy , wind power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas through the 2030s .
What I am simply saying is that aiming for more employment in wind , rather than merely trying to deliver power cheaply subject to any climate goals , is a deeply economically destructive way of thinking .
So why is the Prime Minister talking of millions of green jobs ?
Well , unfortunately , many politicians have moved beyond simply wanting to set frameworks for energy or even climate goals , and their green credentials have become wrapped with their becoming re-inured to the idea of national industrial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and producers to find the best ways to allocate resources , the Conservative Government increasingly wants to decide which sectors the national economy specialises in , thinking the state will this time do a good job of picking winners .
And Boris Johnson ’ s “ Saudi Arabia of wind ” suggests that he wants to try to use policy to actively push the UK towards exporting wind power .
Would that work ?
No , says Tol .
“ Electricity is much more expensive to transport than oil…Wind power in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in Italy – but wind power generated in the UK and transmitted to Italy can not compete with wind power generated in Italy.
” Exporting the end product is a non-starter .
What about manufacturing the parts ?
“ Despite what he [ Johnson ] says , no one is going to manufacture wind turbines in the UK without massive subsidies – that game is long past , ” Hughes concludes .
So having the Government tilt the deck further to try to create a wind manufacturing export industry would not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher net value added , but make us a hostage to technological fortunes .
As Hughes has previously written : there ’ s no guarantee technological progress is more likely to come in renewables than fossil fuels or nuclear ( see , for example , fracking ) .
To return to the Friedman analogy : we might accept some more shovel than machine use for canal building , if there were greater environmental costs of using machines , though recognising this makes us poorer .
It ’ s another thing to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible subject to this , the national government should intervene to support canal building or our selling shovels around the world .
Yet with his promise of a green revolution , that is precisely what the Prime Minister implies .

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
It is said that, during the 1960s, Milton Friedman was visiting China, where guides took him to a canal-building site. Shocked at the prevalence of men bearing shovels, Friedman asked why the project wasn’t utilising modern technologies, such as mechanical diggers.
“You don’t understand, Professor Friedman,” his host explained, “this is a job creation programme.” To which Friedman retorted, “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you really want to create jobs, then by all means give your workers spoons, not shovels.”
That tale is beloved by economists because it contains an important truth: gross job creation is a poor metric to judge success when considering government-led infrastructure. We could “create jobs” through getting people to fill in holes.
What matters is the net value added of the output created, as determined in markets – i.e: by consumers and open trade. Using more workers less efficiently to produce a canal reduces the output’s net value, because labour is a cost of production.
This lesson sprang to mind last week during Boris Johnson’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference. As part of his ode to offshore wind, Johnson talked of the UK’s natural abundance of the stuff (the “Saudi Arabia” of wind) and his excitement at the technology (floating wind islands). But he also extolled the idea of a UK “green industrial revolution” that “in the next ten years will create hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs.”
Any market-led or government-incentivised shift towards wind will see new jobs in the industry “created.” But this shouldn’t be the goal. To echo Friedman, “we thought you were trying to produce electricity, subject to mitigating climate change. If you wanted to create jobs, why not have people make the wind turbines by hand?” We should judge the desirability of a pro-wind energy policy framework, in other words, by its contribution to this social value added, not numbers employed in the sector.
“Gross job creation in wind and other renewable generation is clearly a cost in economic terms,” Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh explained to me last week. “The higher the number [of jobs], the larger the subsidies required and the larger the damage to the rest of the economy.”
He views this outcome as an unacknowledged problem of wind power generally, which does require labour for operations and maintenance, particularly as turbines age. If we are purely looking at how to produce power most efficiently, then these jobs are a hindrance – an economic failure, not success. According to Hughes, talking of creating “millions of jobs” is a “shortcut to national impoverishment”.
Of course, the desire for climate change mitigation means policymakers reject the premise that we just want our energy sector to simply prize efficiency. Due to the “social costs” of carbon, they aren’t just concerned about traditional measured value added, but are explicitly willing to take an economic hit in targeting a broader conception of economic welfare that takes into account these CO2 externalities.
And that’s fine, in principle. Yet even then, “green jobs” shouldn’t be the aim. An economist would say we should try (albeit imperfectly) to price this social cost, and then let markets find the most efficient way of delivering power accounting for it. What that does not require is industrial strategies, picking winners, and seeing the green energy sector as some sort of jobs machine.
Indeed, simple logic would suggest that making energy less efficiently than socially necessary reduces net jobs across the whole economy because of its impact on energy prices. “Energy is a labour-extensive industry. It does not employ a lot of people” Richard Tol, the renowned climate economist, explains. “If the energy sector would start to employ many more people, retail energy prices would rise rapidly.”
Given every other activity uses power as an input, it surely doesn’t need to be said that “more expensive energy means less growth and so less job creation” elsewhere. Given the sizes of the “energy” and “non-energy” sectors too, “a large relative increase in employment in energy is easily offset by a small relative decrease in employment in the rest of the economy.” An explicit aim to “create jobs” in the wind industry, in other words, would be vastly outweighed by job losses elsewhere.
Note: none of my analysis here is passing judgment on the desirability of decarbonisation. Tol believes that given the energy framework of UK policy, wind power will probably be cheaper than coal or gas through the 2030s. What I am simply saying is that aiming for more employment in wind, rather than merely trying to deliver power cheaply subject to any climate goals, is a deeply economically destructive way of thinking.
So why is the Prime Minister talking of millions of green jobs? Well, unfortunately, many politicians have moved beyond simply wanting to set frameworks for energy or even climate goals, and their green credentials have become wrapped with their becoming re-inured to the idea of national industrial strategies.
Not content with allowing consumers and producers to find the best ways to allocate resources, the Conservative Government increasingly wants to decide which sectors the national economy specialises in, thinking the state will this time do a good job of picking winners. And Boris Johnson’s “Saudi Arabia of wind” suggests that he wants to try to use policy to actively push the UK towards exporting wind power.
Would that work? No, says Tol. “Electricity is much more expensive to transport than oil…Wind power in the UK is cheaper than, say, wind power in Italy – but wind power generated in the UK and transmitted to Italy cannot compete with wind power generated in Italy.” Exporting the end product is a non-starter.
What about manufacturing the parts? “Despite what he [Johnson] says, no one is going to manufacture wind turbines in the UK without massive subsidies – that game is long past,” Hughes concludes. So having the Government tilt the deck further to try to create a wind manufacturing export industry would not only drag resources away from other activities with higher net value added, but make us a hostage to technological fortunes.
As Hughes has previously written: there’s no guarantee technological progress is more likely to come in renewables than fossil fuels or nuclear (see, for example, fracking).
To return to the Friedman analogy: we might accept some more shovel than machine use for canal building, if there were greater environmental costs of using machines, though recognising this makes us poorer. It’s another thing to say that rather than building a canal as efficiently as possible subject to this, the national government should intervene to support canal building or our selling shovels around the world. Yet with his promise of a green revolution, that is precisely what the Prime Minister implies.


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Susan Hall: Khan is punishing London’s commuters for Transport for London’s wasteful spending

Susan Hall is the Leader of the Conservative Group on the London Assembly .
Transport for London is bust .
Mayor Khan can ’ t afford to pay City Hall ’ s rent .
And to balance the books , Khan is planning to cut the police .
The level of financial incompetence in Sadiq Khan ’ s City Hall is astounding .
In the London Assembly , we ’ ve been working on getting to the bottom of Khan ’ s botched books to expose the waste , find savings , and get London ’ s devolved government back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest from the front line in the GLA Conservatives ’ battle to protect taxpayers ’ cash from Khan ’ s shredder .
As Transport for London ( TfL ) is continuing to waste millions of pounds , Khan looks for another taxpayer-funded bailout .
It won ’ t come as a surprise to anyone that TfL is a bloated bureaucratic mess , but the scale of waste on Khan ’ s watch is eye-watering .
The latest waste the London Assembly Conservatives have exposed revealed that the bill for TfL staff working on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khan .
In Boris Johnson ’ s final year as Mayor , the bill was only £4.4 million , but it has soared to £8.7 million in 2019/20 .
In comparison , the entire civil service spends just £10 million on so-called facility time , that ’ s £1 million more than TfL , despite the fact that it has over 400,000 staff to TfL ’ s 27,000 .
In the Assembly , the GLA Conservatives have been pushing for the Mayor to scrap one of the appalling examples of waste at TfL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perk allows someone they live with , from a family member or spouse to flatmate or lodger , to travel for free in London .
This wasteful perk has reached record levels under Khan , and we , conservatively , estimate that it costs £44 million in lost fares revenue .
However , no one at TfL or the Mayor ’ s office , which both argue the perk costs nothing as the trains would be running regardless ( ridiculous , I know ) , don ’ t appear to know the true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more than our conservative estimate and punching a sizeable hole in TfL ’ s finances .
That ’ s why I put forward a motion in the Assembly calling on the Mayor to scrap TfL ’ s nominee passes .
Unsurprisingly , Labour voted against it , to protect Khan ’ s wasteful perk .
We ’ ve also uncovered more information which again shows that the Mayor ’ s plan to move City Hall to east London simply doesn ’ t add up .
In the Assembly ’ s Oversight Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a foul mood , to “ answer ” questions about his plan to abandon the custom-made City Hall building for the far smaller Crystal building in the Royal Docks .
The Mayor claims that the move will save up to £55 million , and while I welcome his sudden desire to save taxpayers ’ money , his figures just don ’ t add up .
The latest revelation has been that costs of moving have spiralled upwards by 70 per cent to £13.6 million , mainly due to security concerns about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to light in the meeting , Khan then increased his saving projection to £59 million .
Later , his aides admitted that Khan ’ s latest claim didn ’ t take account of the new lower rent deal , City Hall ’ s landlord is offering .
This confused matters even more as not only does Khan ’ s new claim not consider the likely cost of staying at City Hall ; it seemingly ignores the spiralling costs of the move .
Previously , the GLA Conservatives had estimated that the likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 per cent less than Khan claimed .
Mainly because the Mayor failed to consider the forgone rental and commercial income from the move .
Taking into account the latest developments , and supposing the landlord was willing to reduce the rent by a third , the savings could be as low as £10.4 million over five years .
London ’ s devolved government has been hit by the perfect storm .
After years of financial mismanagement and waste , Khan ’ s bloated TfL and City Hall has been hit by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus crisis .
Far from learning his lesson , Khan is sacrificing Londoners ’ priorities to preserve his wasteful spending .
This is crystal clear in the Mayor ’ s decision to cut London ’ s policing and fire budgets by £135 million to balance his chaotic books .
That ’ s why it ’ s more important than ever that Khan is held to account and his damaging choices exposed .
And that ’ s what I will be doing in my new column for this website .
As we head towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I hope to give Conservative Home readers a greater insight into the work of London Assembly Members and why , alongside Shaun Bailey , we need a strong Conservative team to join him in the Assembly .

Susan Hall is the Leader of the Conservative Group on the London Assembly.
Transport for London is bust. Mayor Khan can’t afford to pay City Hall’s rent. And to balance the books, Khan is planning to cut the police. The level of financial incompetence in Sadiq Khan’s City Hall is astounding. In the London Assembly, we’ve been working on getting to the bottom of Khan’s botched books to expose the waste, find savings, and get London’s devolved government back on track. Here’s the latest from the front line in the GLA Conservatives’ battle to protect taxpayers’ cash from Khan’s shredder.
As Transport for London (TfL) is continuing to waste millions of pounds, Khan looks for another taxpayer-funded bailout. It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that TfL is a bloated bureaucratic mess, but the scale of waste on Khan’s watch is eye-watering. The latest waste the London Assembly Conservatives have exposed revealed that the bill for TfL staff working on trade union activities has nearly doubled under Khan. In Boris Johnson’s final year as Mayor, the bill was only £4.4 million, but it has soared to £8.7 million in 2019/20. In comparison, the entire civil service spends just £10 million on so-called facility time, that’s £1 million more than TfL, despite the fact that it has over 400,000 staff to TfL’s 27,000.
In the Assembly, the GLA Conservatives have been pushing for the Mayor to scrap one of the appalling examples of waste at TfL, nominee passes. This TfL staff perk allows someone they live with, from a family member or spouse to flatmate or lodger, to travel for free in London. This wasteful perk has reached record levels under Khan, and we, conservatively, estimate that it costs £44 million in lost fares revenue. However, no one at TfL or the Mayor’s office, which both argue the perk costs nothing as the trains would be running regardless (ridiculous, I know), don’t appear to know the true cost. It could be losing TfL far more than our conservative estimate and punching a sizeable hole in TfL’s finances. That’s why I put forward a motion in the Assembly calling on the Mayor to scrap TfL’s nominee passes. Unsurprisingly, Labour voted against it, to protect Khan’s wasteful perk.
We’ve also uncovered more information which again shows that the Mayor’s plan to move City Hall to east London simply doesn’t add up. In the Assembly’s Oversight Committee, Khan made a rare appearance, in a foul mood, to “answer” questions about his plan to abandon the custom-made City Hall building for the far smaller Crystal building in the Royal Docks. The Mayor claims that the move will save up to £55 million, and while I welcome his sudden desire to save taxpayers’ money, his figures just don’t add up.
The latest revelation has been that costs of moving have spiralled upwards by 70 per cent to £13.6 million, mainly due to security concerns about the new building. Bizarrely, after this came to light in the meeting, Khan then increased his saving projection to £59 million. Later, his aides admitted that Khan’s latest claim didn’t take account of the new lower rent deal, City Hall’s landlord is offering. This confused matters even more as not only does Khan’s new claim not consider the likely cost of staying at City Hall; it seemingly ignores the spiralling costs of the move. Previously, the GLA Conservatives had estimated that the likely savings of the move would be nearly 50 per cent less than Khan claimed. Mainly because the Mayor failed to consider the forgone rental and commercial income from the move. Taking into account the latest developments, and supposing the landlord was willing to reduce the rent by a third, the savings could be as low as £10.4 million over five years.
London’s devolved government has been hit by the perfect storm. After years of financial mismanagement and waste, Khan’s bloated TfL and City Hall has been hit by an unprecedented loss of income due to the coronavirus crisis. Far from learning his lesson, Khan is sacrificing Londoners’ priorities to preserve his wasteful spending. This is crystal clear in the Mayor’s decision to cut London’s policing and fire budgets by £135 million to balance his chaotic books. That’s why it’s more important than ever that Khan is held to account and his damaging choices exposed. And that’s what I will be doing in my new column for this website. As we head towards the rescheduled London election next year, I hope to give Conservative Home readers a greater insight into the work of London Assembly Members and why, alongside Shaun Bailey, we need a strong Conservative team to join him in the Assembly.