conservativehome--2020-09-25--Sunak said yesterday that “our lives can no longer be put on hold”.  But that’s just what Johnson’s

Sunak said yesterday that “our lives can no longer be put on hold”.  But that’s just what Johnson’s ready to do if he thinks it necessary.

The Government ’ s new Coronavirus plan seeks at once to help move the economy forward , through measures to open it up , while simultaneously moving society backward , through measures to close it down – at least by comparison with the status quo before the new restrictions were announced this week .
This strategy is more sensible than it may sound .
The effect of the virus worldwide , social distancing and our lockdown earlier this year was to put the economy into deep freeze .
Ministers want to protect the mild thaw that has taken place more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leisure , rather than work and schools , bear the brunt of the latest measures .
The problem for Boris Johnson , and for all of us , is that these may not work .
To cut a long story short , it will be very hard to build a firewall between work and leisure ( because retail , cultural activity and the hospitality sector , for example , contain elements of both ) , and between schools and home ( because if children get the virus , they will be sent home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – thus affecting work ) .
As Rishi Sunak knows only too well , this is the mutable background against which his statement yesterday was set .
In public earlier this week , the Prime Minister hinted heavily at further clampdowns , saying that “ we reserve the right to deploy greater fire power , with significantly greater restrictions ” .
In private , this site has yet to meet a Minister who isn ’ t expecting more curbs , and soon .
The Chancellor therefore aimed yesterday to help speed up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon decide that he has no alternative but to slow it down again .
So for example , the Prime Minister may decide to bring forward the closing time for pubs and restaurants from ten o ’ clock in the evening : Sunak fought this off before the latest package of announcements , but the idea is not dead but sleeping .
Furthermore , Johnson is giving ground to the push by Graham Brady and company to give Parliament more control of Covid-19 policy – promising in the Commons this week , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question the government ’ s scientific advisers more regularly ” .
How far the Prime Minister will go remains to be seen , but a new uncertainty is being added to the mix , since it ’ s unclear what the Commons will do with any new powers it gains .
So like his other big financial statements to date , Sunak ’ s statement had a strikingly provisional air .
Its centrepiece was the replacement of furlough , which paid people not to work , with a German-type scheme ( as floated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others ) , which will pay people to work – or rather will co-pay them with employers .
It ’ s called the Jobs Support Scheme , and there ’ s a parallel plan for the self-employed .
The second string to the Chancellor ’ s bow was essentially an extension of measures that he ’ s already introduced – longer and looser repayment periods for Bounce Back Loans ( “ Pay as you Grow ” ) , and similar action for Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans , together with further payment deferrals for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The final element was to roll forward the date for VAT rates to return from five per cent to 20 per cent for the hospitality and tourist sectors .
Inevitably , the specifics have come under fire , with some asking whether firms will want to pay 55 per cent of wages to staff who under the terms of the scheme could work for only 33 per cent of thei r previous hours .
But it should be recognised that the Chancellor is trying to balance no longer paying people for not working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it with alternatives that are both workable and affordable .
If some think the new plan doesn ’ t go far enough , and that Sunak will return with more money and extensions as unemployment rises further , some believe it goes too far , asking : where will the money come from ?
However , what to do if the economy continues to open up is one thing ; what to do if Johnson feels he has to close it down again – for example , by shutting non-essential retail again – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer be put on hold , ” Sunak declared yesterday , signalling to restive Conservative backbenchers that , in the Cabinet debate about what to do , he is the leading champion of opening up .
But as we point out , the Prime Minister has this week signalled something very close to the opposite : that our lives are soon likely to be put on hold again ( or for some , kept on hold ) .
Indeed , the Budget is , so to speak , on hold : it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by yesterday ’ s pared-down package of measures .
There is a questionmark over the Treasury ’ s plan for a three-to-four year comprehensive spending review ( CSR ) .
That there hasn ’ t been a new CSR since 2015 is a sign of the scale of challenges that confront the Chancellor .
Minimising tax rises and spending cuts by means of faster growth would be a daunting one for Sunak in normal conditions .
And these are abnornal ones .

The Government’s new Coronavirus plan seeks at once to help move the economy forward, through measures to open it up, while simultaneously moving society backward, through measures to close it down – at least by comparison with the status quo before the new restrictions were announced this week.
This strategy is more sensible than it may sound. The effect of the virus worldwide, social distancing and our lockdown earlier this year was to put the economy into deep freeze. Ministers want to protect the mild thaw that has taken place more recently. This means that home and leisure, rather than work and schools, bear the brunt of the latest measures.
The problem for Boris Johnson, and for all of us, is that these may not work. To cut a long story short, it will be very hard to build a firewall between work and leisure (because retail, cultural activity and the hospitality sector, for example, contain elements of both), and between schools and home (because if children get the virus, they will be sent home, which will keep many parents there – thus affecting work).
As Rishi Sunak knows only too well, this is the mutable background against which his statement yesterday was set. In public earlier this week, the Prime Minister hinted heavily at further clampdowns, saying that “we reserve the right to deploy greater fire power, with significantly greater restrictions”. In private, this site has yet to meet a Minister who isn’t expecting more curbs, and soon.
The Chancellor therefore aimed yesterday to help speed up the thaw, while understanding that Johnson may soon decide that he has no alternative but to slow it down again. So for example, the Prime Minister may decide to bring forward the closing time for pubs and restaurants from ten o’clock in the evening: Sunak fought this off before the latest package of announcements, but the idea is not dead but sleeping.
Furthermore, Johnson is giving ground to the push by Graham Brady and company to give Parliament more control of Covid-19 policy – promising in the Commons this week, for example, to empower MPs to “question the government’s scientific advisers more regularly”. How far the Prime Minister will go remains to be seen, but a new uncertainty is being added to the mix, since it’s unclear what the Commons will do with any new powers it gains.
So like his other big financial statements to date, Sunak’s statement had a strikingly provisional air. Its centrepiece was the replacement of furlough, which paid people not to work, with a German-type scheme (as floated by Charlotte Gill on this site among others), which will pay people to work – or rather will co-pay them with employers. It’s called the Jobs Support Scheme, and there’s a parallel plan for the self-employed.
The second string to the Chancellor’s bow was essentially an extension of measures that he’s already introduced – longer and looser repayment periods for Bounce Back Loans (“Pay as you Grow”), and similar action for Coronavirus Business Interruption Loans, together with further payment deferrals for VAT and self-assessed income tax returns.
The final element was to roll forward the date for VAT rates to return from five per cent to 20 per cent for the hospitality and tourist sectors. Inevitably, the specifics have come under fire, with some asking whether firms will want to pay 55 per cent of wages to staff who under the terms of the scheme could work for only 33 per cent of thei r previous hours.
But it should be recognised that the Chancellor is trying to balance no longer paying people for not working under the furlough scheme, and replacing it with alternatives that are both workable and affordable. If some think the new plan doesn’t go far enough, and that Sunak will return with more money and extensions as unemployment rises further, some believe it goes too far, asking: where will the money come from?
However, what to do if the economy continues to open up is one thing; what to do if Johnson feels he has to close it down again – for example, by shutting non-essential retail again – is another. “Our lives can no longer be put on hold,” Sunak declared yesterday, signalling to restive Conservative backbenchers that, in the Cabinet debate about what to do, he is the leading champion of opening up.
But as we point out, the Prime Minister has this week signalled something very close to the opposite: that our lives are soon likely to be put on hold again (or for some, kept on hold). Indeed, the Budget is, so to speak, on hold: it’s been cancelled, and replaced by yesterday’s pared-down package of measures. There is a questionmark over the Treasury’s plan for a three-to-four year comprehensive spending review (CSR).
That there hasn’t been a new CSR since 2015 is a sign of the scale of challenges that confront the Chancellor. Minimising tax rises and spending cuts by means of faster growth would be a daunting one for Sunak in normal conditions. And these are abnornal ones.


conservativehome--2020-09-25--Iain Dale: We all want our city and town centres to return to normal. But that isn’t possible at pre

Iain Dale: We all want our city and town centres to return to normal. But that isn’t possible at present, so we must get used to it.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
A sign of a Prime Minister in trouble is when journalists start writing articles about possible successors , and who might be the runners and riders in a leadership contest .
Given that Boris Johnson has only been the Conservative leader for just over a year , it comes as something of a surprise that he ’ s already being written off by some of his colleagues and commentators .
Some allege that it ’ s clear that he ’ s suffering from so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his heart of hearts that he ’ s not performing on all six cylinders .
Others reckon that if he gets a free trade agreement with the EU and the post- Coronavirus economy returns to something like normality , he might decide his work is done and he ’ ll be off to enjoy the fruits of a post Prime Ministerial career .
The truth is that no one knows .
I find both these scenarios entirely plausible , if not wholly likely .
It is very rare for a Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they might not be in the best of health .
Tony Blair did – sort of , although a Gordon Brown shaped gun had been put to his temple .
Harold Wilson did , but he knew his mental capacity was on the decline .
A party leader only serves at the pleasure of the Parliamentary Conservative Party .
Yes , there are rumblings of discontent but , again , this is nothing unusual .
Margaret Thatcher experienced such tremors throughout her leadership , but it took the cowards 15 years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it difficult to foresee that things would get so bad within the next twelve months that Tory MPs would get rid of the man who brought them an 80 seat majority only 10 months ago .
But in politics , the unexpected often happens .
On Matt Forde ’ s Political Party podcast this week , I recounted a tale from my schooldays which left him open- mouthed with horror .
Back in 1978 , when I was 15 my school held an end of term fancy dress disco in the cavernous school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I decided to go as a gamekeeper , given I had all the gear .
I arrived at the do dressed up in proper ‘ Seth Armstrong ’ gear ( if you aren ’ t an Emmerdale fan , you won ’ t get that reference ) , replete with flat cap and wellington boots .
But more to the point , I was also carrying a double barrel twelve-bore shotgun ( my father ’ s ) and a cartridge belt full of live cartridges .
No one batted an eyelid .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be called and I ’ d probably get a mention in the Daily Mail , and get an ASBO .
Innocent times .
I am starting a new series of 55 podcasts on each of our 55 Prime Minsters to accompany the book I am editing on the subject which comes out in November .
Yesterday , one of the contributors pulled out of recording the podcast , because his three meetings in London that were summarily cancelled and transferred to Zoom calls – so he didn ’ t want to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nicola Sturgeon had continued to urge people to work from home if they could , whereas in England we had all be encouraged to return to work outside it if we could from July onwards .
In hindsight , that was wrong .
Of course , we all want to get our city and town centres back to normal , but policy can not be guided by an understandable desire to keep sandwich shops in business .
We are not yet ‘ Pret a Manger ’ .
The thought that this could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not one any of us relishes , yet I think it was quite right of the Prime Minister to say that .
In March , he was criticised for what some described as false optimism , when he intimated that everything would be back to normal by Christmas .
Now he ’ s being criticised for being a doomster…Sometimes , as a politician , you just can ’ t win .
There ’ s a new authorised biography of Diane Abbott out this week .
In the index it says I get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only Dale mentioned on that page is Diane ’ s maternal grandmother , Dinah Dale .
I wonder if we are by any chance related ?
Now there ’ s one for Who do you think you are ?
It ’ s entirely possible we could be related , you know – I can ’ t count either .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
A sign of a Prime Minister in trouble is when journalists start writing articles about possible successors, and who might be the runners and riders in a leadership contest.
Given that Boris Johnson has only been the Conservative leader for just over a year, it comes as something of a surprise that he’s already being written off by some of his colleagues and commentators.
Some allege that it’s clear that he’s suffering from so-called “Long Covid”, and knows in his heart of hearts that he’s not performing on all six cylinders. Others reckon that if he gets a free trade agreement with the EU and the post- Coronavirus economy returns to something like normality, he might decide his work is done and he’ll be off to enjoy the fruits of a post Prime Ministerial career.
The truth is that no one knows. I find both these scenarios entirely plausible, if not wholly likely. It is very rare for a Prime Minister to give up office voluntarily, even when they might not be in the best of health. Tony Blair did – sort of, although a Gordon Brown shaped gun had been put to his temple. Harold Wilson did, but he knew his mental capacity was on the decline.
A party leader only serves at the pleasure of the Parliamentary Conservative Party. Yes, there are rumblings of discontent but, again, this is nothing unusual. Margaret Thatcher experienced such tremors throughout her leadership, but it took the cowards 15 years to get rid of her.
I find it difficult to foresee that things would get so bad within the next twelve months that Tory MPs would get rid of the man who brought them an 80 seat majority only 10 months ago. But in politics, the unexpected often happens.
– – – – – – – – – –
On Matt Forde’s Political Party podcast this week, I recounted a tale from my schooldays which left him open- mouthed with horror.
Back in 1978, when I was 15 my school held an end of term fancy dress disco in the cavernous school hall at Saffron Walden County High. I decided to go as a gamekeeper, given I had all the gear.
I arrived at the do dressed up in proper ‘Seth Armstrong’ gear (if you aren’t an Emmerdale fan, you won’t get that reference), replete with flat cap and wellington boots.
But more to the point, I was also carrying a double barrel twelve-bore shotgun (my father’s) and a cartridge belt full of live cartridges. No one batted an eyelid. If I did that now, the Police would be called and I’d probably get a mention in the Daily Mail, and get an ASBO. Innocent times.
– – – – – – – – – –
I am starting a new series of 55 podcasts on each of our 55 Prime Minsters to accompany the book I am editing on the subject which comes out in November.
Yesterday, one of the contributors pulled out of recording the podcast, because his three meetings in London that were summarily cancelled and transferred to Zoom calls – so he didn’t want to come in just for one.
In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon had continued to urge people to work from home if they could, whereas in England we had all be encouraged to return to work outside it if we could from July onwards. In hindsight, that was wrong.
Of course, we all want to get our city and town centres back to normal, but policy cannot be guided by an understandable desire to keep sandwich shops in business. We are not yet ‘Pret a Manger’.
The thought that this could all go on for another six months is not one any of us relishes, yet I think it was quite right of the Prime Minister to say that.
In March, he was criticised for what some described as false optimism, when he intimated that everything would be back to normal by Christmas. Now he’s being criticised for being a doomster…Sometimes, as a politician, you just can’t win.
– – – – – – – – – –
There’s a new authorised biography of Diane Abbott out this week. In the index it says I get a mention on page 52. The only Dale mentioned on that page is Diane’s maternal grandmother, Dinah Dale. I wonder if we are by any chance related? Now there’s one for Who do you think you are? It’s entirely possible we could be related, you know – I can’t count either.


conservativehome--2020-09-25--Simon Clark: How local authorities are waging war on personal freedom

Simon Clark is director of the smokers ’ rights group , Forest .
When did local authorities become such busybodies , interfering in the lifestyles of council staff and the local people they are supposed to represent ?
Polls conducted by Populus , for Forest , have consistently shown that compared to issues like addressing crime and anti-social behaviour , or investing in roads and other infrastructure , the public does not consider tackling smoking , alcohol misuse , or obesity , to be a priority for local government .
Despite this , local authorities are increasingly targeting adults who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habit for council employees during working hours , or extending smoking bans to outdoor areas where there is no evidence of risk to non-smokers , including children .
Nine years ago things looked a little different .
When a lone councillor in Stony Stratford suggested a ban on smoking throughout this small Buckinghamshire town , few people took him seriously .
Indeed , for many people , he was a figure of fun .
Sunday Times columnist , Rod Liddle , a former editor of BBC Radio 4 ’ s Today programme , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s not a single person in Stony Stratford who ’ s in favour of your plan ?
We ’ ve trawled the streets .
We ’ ve walked up and down .
We haven ’ t found a single person who doesn ’ t think that it ’ s a fatuous idea.
” Even his fellow councillors thought the proposal was a step too far and resoundingly rejected it .
Although prohibition remains a dream for Britain ’ s tobacco control industry , an increasing number of local authorities have nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to dictate where and when adults can light up .
Indeed , as a new Forest report makes clear , many councillors now believe it is perfectly acceptable to micro-manage the lives not only of their own staff but also members of the public who voted them into office .
Interestingly , it seems to make very little difference whether a council is run by Labour , the Conservatives , the Liberal Democrats , or , in Scotland , the Scottish National Party .
Denying adults the right to choose , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one party .
Instead , councillors of all political persuasions and none , are more than happy to embrace an increasingly interventionist agenda , ignoring the fact that if an adult chooses to smoke without breaking the law it is none of their business .
What is equally clear , as the report ’ s author , Josie Appleton , points out , is that anti-smoking campaigns are no longer exclusively about health .
The risks of smoking have been known for decades , hence the steep fall in smoking rates long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all enclosed public spaces , prohibit the display of tobacco in shops , or introduce standardised packaging of tobacco .
Today smoking cessation has become a moral crusade .
The tobacco control industry even has a word for it – ‘ smokefree ’ .
Smoking is not merely unhealthy , it ’ s ‘ bad ’ , while not smoking is ‘ good ’ and virtuous .
Public Health England has been targeted for serious criticism during the coronavirus crisis , and justifiably so .
Following its launch in 2013 , PHE became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifestyle – including our eating , drinking and smoking habits – officials completely lost sight of their primary function which was to protect the nation from infectious diseases over which individuals have little or no control .
Local authorities too have strayed far from their traditional role into areas in which they have little or no business .
According to Appleton ’ s research , 192 councils ( 68 per cent of those that responded to her Freedom of Information requests ) have a policy restricting or banning smoking at work , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open air public spaces , including children ’ s play areas , parks , beaches , council campuses or open air public events , with some of these bans enforced with fixed penalty notices .
Forty-nine councils ban cigarette breaks entirely , even if workers clock off , while a further 87 councils require workers to clock off or to obtain permission from a manager .
In total , 113 councils currently ban smoking outside council buildings with some requiring employees to leave the site entirely or stand up to 50 metres from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether adults choose to smoke is a matter for them and their nearest and dearest .
It has nothing to do with local government .
Thankfully , as the responses to this new research demonstrate , many councils do still adopt a common sense approach to the habit .
A complete ban on smoking by council staff during working hours is not yet the norm , nor are bans on smoking in council-owned parks and other outdoor areas where the health risk to non-smokers can be rated somewhere between insignificant and zero .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enough to worry those of us who value individual freedom and personal responsibility .
In recent weeks we ’ ve heard a lot about government overreach in relation to the way ministers have responded to the coronavirus .
If there ’ s one group familiar with government overreach– at national and local level – it ’ s smokers .
As one participant in a recent Forest webinar noted , “ Smokers have been in lockdown since 2007.
” He was referring to the year smoking was banned in every pub and club @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a stretch to compare the two situations , smokers know all about enforced isolation .
Councillors and local authority chief executives should therefore think twice before giving the green light to further intrusions into the lives of millions of ordinary people who are fed up with being dictated to by an army of politicians and public health professionals .
The ‘ smokefree ’ utopia envisaged by many anti-smoking campaigners may appear benign and caring to some ( including , I suspect , many readers of ConservativeHome ) .
In reality however a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieved by removing people ’ s freedom to think for themselves and make their own choices , so be careful what you wish for .

Simon Clark is director of the smokers’ rights group, Forest.
When did local authorities become such busybodies, interfering in the lifestyles of council staff and the local people they are supposed to represent? Polls conducted by Populus, for Forest, have consistently shown that compared to issues like addressing crime and anti-social behaviour, or investing in roads and other infrastructure, the public does not consider tackling smoking, alcohol misuse, or obesity, to be a priority for local government. Despite this, local authorities are increasingly targeting adults who smoke, restricting or even banning the habit for council employees during working hours, or extending smoking bans to outdoor areas where there is no evidence of risk to non-smokers, including children.
Nine years ago things looked a little different. When a lone councillor in Stony Stratford suggested a ban on smoking throughout this small Buckinghamshire town, few people took him seriously. Indeed, for many people, he was a figure of fun. Sunday Times columnist, Rod Liddle, a former editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, told him:
“Do you realise there’s not a single person in Stony Stratford who’s in favour of your plan? We’ve trawled the streets. We’ve walked up and down. We haven’t found a single person who doesn’t think that it’s a fatuous idea.”
Even his fellow councillors thought the proposal was a step too far and resoundingly rejected it.
Although prohibition remains a dream for Britain’s tobacco control industry, an increasing number of local authorities have nevertheless been emboldened to introduce strict new measures designed to dictate where and when adults can light up. Indeed, as a new Forest report makes clear, many councillors now believe it is perfectly acceptable to micro-manage the lives not only of their own staff but also members of the public who voted them into office.
Interestingly, it seems to make very little difference whether a council is run by Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, or, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party. Denying adults the right to choose, and extinguishing personal freedoms, is not restricted to one party. Instead, councillors of all political persuasions and none, are more than happy to embrace an increasingly interventionist agenda, ignoring the fact that if an adult chooses to smoke without breaking the law it is none of their business.
What is equally clear, as the report’s author, Josie Appleton, points out, is that anti-smoking campaigns are no longer exclusively about health. The risks of smoking have been known for decades, hence the steep fall in smoking rates long before government intervened to ban smoking in all enclosed public spaces, prohibit the display of tobacco in shops, or introduce standardised packaging of tobacco. Today smoking cessation has become a moral crusade. The tobacco control industry even has a word for it – ‘smokefree’. Smoking is not merely unhealthy, it’s ‘bad’, while not smoking is ‘good’ and virtuous.
Public Health England has been targeted for serious criticism during the coronavirus crisis, and justifiably so. Following its launch in 2013, PHE became so focussed on tackling people’s lifestyle – including our eating, drinking and smoking habits – officials completely lost sight of their primary function which was to protect the nation from infectious diseases over which individuals have little or no control.
Local authorities too have strayed far from their traditional role into areas in which they have little or no business. According to Appleton’s research, 192 councils (68 per cent of those that responded to her Freedom of Information requests) have a policy restricting or banning smoking at work, while almost a third now restrict smoking in open air public spaces, including children’s play areas, parks, beaches, council campuses or open air public events, with some of these bans enforced with fixed penalty notices.
Forty-nine councils ban cigarette breaks entirely, even if workers clock off, while a further 87 councils require workers to clock off or to obtain permission from a manager. In total, 113 councils currently ban smoking outside council buildings with some requiring employees to leave the site entirely or stand up to 50 metres from a council building to light up.
Whether adults choose to smoke is a matter for them and their nearest and dearest. It has nothing to do with local government. Thankfully, as the responses to this new research demonstrate, many councils do still adopt a common sense approach to the habit. A complete ban on smoking by council staff during working hours is not yet the norm, nor are bans on smoking in council-owned parks and other outdoor areas where the health risk to non-smokers can be rated somewhere between insignificant and zero. Nevertheless, the trend towards further intervention is enough to worry those of us who value individual freedom and personal responsibility.
In recent weeks we’ve heard a lot about government overreach in relation to the way ministers have responded to the coronavirus. If there’s one group familiar with government overreach– at national and local level – it’s smokers. As one participant in a recent Forest webinar noted, “Smokers have been in lockdown since 2007.” He was referring to the year smoking was banned in every pub and club in the country and although it may be a stretch to compare the two situations, smokers know all about enforced isolation.
Councillors and local authority chief executives should therefore think twice before giving the green light to further intrusions into the lives of millions of ordinary people who are fed up with being dictated to by an army of politicians and public health professionals. The ‘smokefree’ utopia envisaged by many anti-smoking campaigners may appear benign and caring to some (including, I suspect, many readers of ConservativeHome). In reality however a ‘smokefree’ world will only be achieved by removing people’s freedom to think for themselves and make their own choices, so be careful what you wish for.


conservativehome--2020-09-26--Alliance for Unity, the new movement which could give Galloway his next political life

Next year ’ s Holyrood elections are shaping up to potentially make-or-break clash between unionists and separatists .
If the SNP ( plus their pro-independence foederati , the Greens ) win a majority , the Government will come under increasing pressure to grant a second referendum on Scottish independence .
This fact has produced not one but two new parties , one on each side of the debate , which aim to skew the next Scottish Parliament towards their chosen position .
First out of the traps was the Alliance for Independence .
Their plan is quite straightforward : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituencies at the election , and encourage as many pro-independence voters as possible to back them after voting SNP at the constituency level .
Whilst list SNP votes might get discounted if the Nationalists win a lot of FPTP constituencies , this new party would get the full entitlement and thus maximise the separatist caucus .
There are questions to be asked about this plan .
Will the A4I really contribute much that the Scottish Greens ( whose MPs are all elected on the lists already ) don ’ t ?
Is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to be a proportional system ?
Is it all just a front for a controversial far-left politician ?
In fact , that last point is one that might also be asked of the pro-UK counter to A4I : the Alliance4Unity , a new non-partisan unionist initiative being headed up by none other than George Galloway .
Galloway has form on this .
He represents a quite old-school strain of left-wing unionism which backs Irish republicanism but is sternly opposed to separatism on the British mainland , which was traditionally viewed as antithetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believers , a distraction from the class struggle .
( And after two decades of devocrats hiding behind the flag rather than defend their poor records , maybe they have a point ? )
During the 2014 referendum , Galloway conducted an independent town-hall speaking tour which offered many people who are usually bitterly opposed to his politics an opportunity to see how electrifying his oratory can be when he ’ s on your side .
Nonetheless , A4U represents a sharp break in his career .
Whilst he has not previously been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right when seeking sectarian votes for Respect , this looks like the first time he has openly collaborated with Tories .
Their initial tranche of candidates includes not only Gorgeous George himself but Alan Sked , the founder of UKIP , as well as a GP , an ex-soldier , and a barrister , and the group is calling for a broader pact between the unionist parties .
Whether or not explicitly modelled on A4I , the A4U has adopted a very similar strategy of standing only in the regional lists in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to their website , any MSPs elected under the Alliance ’ s banner will sit as Independents and support any anti-independence administration .
This will not only make it easier to run an ideologically heterogeneous slate , but may help to remove any barriers to cooperation between them and the mainstream pro-UK parties , who might balk ( quite understandably ) at collaborating with an organised party commanded by Galloway .
Yet its road to Holyrood won ’ t be easy .
Some of its output on social media has been crank-ish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the loose ‘ alliance ’ model and the professionalism expected of a modern political campaign .
It also faces the task of trying to woo list votes from people who have voted for three different parties at the constituency level , a much tougher ask than the A4I ’ s bid for SNP switches , and it is harder to argue to the most committed unionist voters that a list vote for the Tories is a wasted vote .
For all that it at aspires to breadth and an electoral pact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics will probably hinge on whether Galloway himself can identify and energise a section of the pro-UK electorate that is left cold by the major parties – perhaps in the left-unionist space vacated by a moribund and swithering Labour Party .

Next year’s Holyrood elections are shaping up to potentially make-or-break clash between unionists and separatists. If the SNP (plus their pro-independence foederati, the Greens) win a majority, the Government will come under increasing pressure to grant a second referendum on Scottish independence.
This fact has produced not one but two new parties, one on each side of the debate, which aim to skew the next Scottish Parliament towards their chosen position.
First out of the traps was the Alliance for Independence. Their plan is quite straightforward: to run candidates only in the regional list constituencies at the election, and encourage as many pro-independence voters as possible to back them after voting SNP at the constituency level. Whilst list SNP votes might get discounted if the Nationalists win a lot of FPTP constituencies, this new party would get the full entitlement and thus maximise the separatist caucus.
There are questions to be asked about this plan. Will the A4I really contribute much that the Scottish Greens (whose MPs are all elected on the lists already) don’t? Is it legitimate to so obviously game what is meant to be a proportional system? Is it all just a front for a controversial far-left politician?
In fact, that last point is one that might also be asked of the pro-UK counter to A4I: the Alliance4Unity, a new non-partisan unionist initiative being headed up by none other than George Galloway.
Galloway has form on this. He represents a quite old-school strain of left-wing unionism which backs Irish republicanism but is sternly opposed to separatism on the British mainland, which was traditionally viewed as antithetical to solidarity or, for the true believers, a distraction from the class struggle. (And after two decades of devocrats hiding behind the flag rather than defend their poor records, maybe they have a point?) During the 2014 referendum, Galloway conducted an independent town-hall speaking tour which offered many people who are usually bitterly opposed to his politics an opportunity to see how electrifying his oratory can be when he’s on your side.
Nonetheless, A4U represents a sharp break in his career. Whilst he has not previously been shy about falling in with the religious right when seeking sectarian votes for Respect, this looks like the first time he has openly collaborated with Tories. Their initial tranche of candidates includes not only Gorgeous George himself but Alan Sked, the founder of UKIP, as well as a GP, an ex-soldier, and a barrister, and the group is calling for a broader pact between the unionist parties.
Whether or not explicitly modelled on A4I, the A4U has adopted a very similar strategy of standing only in the regional lists in an effort to maximise the pro-UK vote. According to their website, any MSPs elected under the Alliance’s banner will sit as Independents and support any anti-independence administration. This will not only make it easier to run an ideologically heterogeneous slate, but may help to remove any barriers to cooperation between them and the mainstream pro-UK parties, who might balk (quite understandably) at collaborating with an organised party commanded by Galloway.
Yet its road to Holyrood won’t be easy. Some of its output on social media has been crank-ish, and there will inevitably be tension between the loose ‘alliance’ model and the professionalism expected of a modern political campaign. It also faces the task of trying to woo list votes from people who have voted for three different parties at the constituency level, a much tougher ask than the A4I’s bid for SNP switches, and it is harder to argue to the most committed unionist voters that a list vote for the Tories is a wasted vote.
For all that it at aspires to breadth and an electoral pact, the A4U’s future in Scottish politics will probably hinge on whether Galloway himself can identify and energise a section of the pro-UK electorate that is left cold by the major parties – perhaps in the left-unionist space vacated by a moribund and swithering Labour Party.


conservativehome--2020-09-26--David Gauke: Johnson’s Covid policy – and why it’s opening up a rift between him and his traditional

David Gauke: Johnson’s Covid policy – and why it’s opening up a rift between him and his traditional Tory supporters

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at last year ’ s general election .
For an amendment of no legal force that may not even be called , Graham Brady ’ s proposal that there should approve in advance any Covid-19 restrictions is of real significance .
On the face of it , it is an amendment that is more about process than substance – the extent to which Parliament , rather than just the executive , has a say on future restrictions .
But in reality , it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government – and the Prime Minister in particular – and many of his Parliamentary colleagues on how far we should go in attempting to stop the spread of the virus .
For the first time in many years , Boris Johnson ’ s position puts him at odds with the instincts of many on the right of the Conservative Party .
What is more , his position appears to put him at odds with his own instincts .
The Coronavirus crisis has been immensely difficult for the Prime Minister .
In part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own ill-health that took him out of action at the peak of the virus , and from which he has made a slow and painful recovery ( although , from what I hear , he is now physically in good shape ) .
t has also been a crisis that has exposed his longstanding inability to grasp detail .
A Prime Minister was needed to get Whitehall focused on the virus in February , identify and prioritise testing and tracing and spot that the Department for Education was heading for a fall with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all these issues , he appears to have been absent .
However , I suspect that the most challenging aspect of recent months for Johnson is that he has felt compelled to do things that alien to his normal approach to life .
By restricting the freedoms of his fellow citizens , he is not acting like the great admirer of Mayor of Amity Island , the foe of the doomsters and gloomsters , the critic of pettifogging bureaucrats , the ‘ freedom-loving , twinkly-eyed , Rabelaisian character ’ for whom Toby Young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why has this happened ?
His own experience of the virus may be a factor , but one can only conclude that he has been convinced that there is a real risk that , without further action , the virus will spread more widely – including to the vulnerable , and that this will result in very large numbers of deaths .
Given the widely-held view that we locked down too late in March , this would not just be a health disaster but a political one as well .
His libertarian critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary .
There is anger over the projections of a weekly doubling of cases ( a much worse trajectory than France and Spain have followed ) .
Some point to Sweden or Brazil – countries that have been hit hard , but now have falling or stable levels of infection – to argue that herd immunity comes quicker than we previously thought , perhaps because of T cell immunity .
Maybe these critics are right ; I certainly hope that they are .
There are reputable scientists who are making the case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are telling us that it is all going to be alright .
But there are also reputable scientists who are making the opposite case , who are arguing that we should be tightening up further and faster ( a view , incidentally , that has a lot of public support ) .
This is where the job of Prime Minister is a difficult and lonely one .
I think we all know where Johnson would stand on this issue if he were still a Daily Telegraph columnist .
We can also take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if someone else was Prime Minister , and he was an ambitious backbencher with a desire to free the ball from the back of the scrum .
But he is not a columnist nor a backbencher but the person who has t person who has to make the decision .
And unlike some decisions that a Prime Minister might make , if he gets it wrong the consequences will be both enormous and very quickly apparent to all .
So when faced with advice that the virus was now spreading strongly and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise substantially , Johnson acted in much the same way as any recent Prime Minister would have done .
Maybe his libertarian instincts softened some of the new restrictions , but essentially he has made a decision to be risk averse ; to be conventional .
This is not the first time during the pandemic that he has reached that conclusion .
But it has also been obvious that this sits uneasily with him .
He does not like restricting people ’ s liberties ( not a bad quality , by and large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good news .
He has promised we would have this licked by July and then by Christmas .
He has urged us back to our offices when it was predictable ( indeed , predicted that he would soon have to reverse that advice .
Even on Tuesday , he seemed to consider it a matter of national pride that we , as a great freedom-loving people , have not been following the rules .
The old Johnsom instinct is hard to suppress .
The consequence of this internal conflict is inconsistency and muddled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who value freedom and independence from the State and are most sceptical about the advice of experts – are in revolt .
This has manifested itself in signatures for the Brady amendment .
There are signatories from across the Conservative Party spectrum , but they notably include big Brexiteer beasts such as David Davis , Iain Duncan Smith , Steve Baker and Bernard Jenkin .
These could be dangerous opponents .
Of course , Covid is not the only issue where the Prime Minister is going to have to make a big choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he make the necessary concessions in order to conclude a Free Trade Agreement with the EU before the end of the transition period ?
Yesterday , James Forsyth suggested that a deal was close and that the UK might take a more flexible approach to the negotiations , choosing to fight some battles in the future ( ‘ you have to make it through the short term to get to the long term ’ says James , using language that will sound very familiar to anyone who served in Cabinet with Michael Gove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Prime Minister is ‘ totally focused on Covid ’ .
But he will soon have to make a choice .
On the one hand , he will be receiving advice from officials that the adverse consequences of No Deal are very significant , especially for a fragile economy .
On the other hand , his instincts presumably tell him that this is all over-stated gloomsterism .
The Prime Minister knows that the instinct to take a risk , to chance it , to tell the experts to go to hell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amongst many of his Parliamentary colleagues .
He is already defying those instincts on one issue .
If he is to take the necessary steps to get a Brexit deal ( and I hope he does ) , he is going to have to defy those instincts on a second issue , too .
Given that he is already in danger of losing his hold over his traditional allies , it is not obvious that he will .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at last year’s general election.
For an amendment of no legal force that may not even be called, Graham Brady’s proposal that there should approve in advance any Covid-19 restrictions is of real significance.
On the face of it, it is an amendment that is more about process than substance – the extent to which Parliament, rather than just the executive, has a say on future restrictions. But in reality, it also exposes the divide between the position of the Government – and the Prime Minister in particular – and many of his Parliamentary colleagues on how far we should go in attempting to stop the spread of the virus. For the first time in many years, Boris Johnson’s position puts him at odds with the instincts of many on the right of the Conservative Party. What is more, his position appears to put him at odds with his own instincts.
The Coronavirus crisis has been immensely difficult for the Prime Minister. In part, that has been due to his own ill-health that took him out of action at the peak of the virus, and from which he has made a slow and painful recovery (although, from what I hear, he is now physically in good shape).
t has also been a crisis that has exposed his longstanding inability to grasp detail. A Prime Minister was needed to get Whitehall focused on the virus in February, identify and prioritise testing and tracing and spot that the Department for Education was heading for a fall with its approach to exam results. On all these issues, he appears to have been absent.
However, I suspect that the most challenging aspect of recent months for Johnson is that he has felt compelled to do things that alien to his normal approach to life. By restricting the freedoms of his fellow citizens, he is not acting like the great admirer of Mayor of Amity Island, the foe of the doomsters and gloomsters, the critic of pettifogging bureaucrats, the ‘freedom-loving, twinkly-eyed, Rabelaisian character’ for whom Toby Young – and many others – voted.
Why has this happened? His own experience of the virus may be a factor, but one can only conclude that he has been convinced that there is a real risk that, without further action, the virus will spread more widely – including to the vulnerable, and that this will result in very large numbers of deaths. Given the widely-held view that we locked down too late in March, this would not just be a health disaster but a political one as well.
His libertarian critics argue that these measures are panicked and unnecessary. There is anger over the projections of a weekly doubling of cases (a much worse trajectory than France and Spain have followed). Some point to Sweden or Brazil – countries that have been hit hard, but now have falling or stable levels of infection – to argue that herd immunity comes quicker than we previously thought, perhaps because of T cell immunity.
Maybe these critics are right; I certainly hope that they are. There are reputable scientists who are making the case, and we all want to believe those that are telling us that it is all going to be alright. But there are also reputable scientists who are making the opposite case, who are arguing that we should be tightening up further and faster (a view, incidentally, that has a lot of public support).
This is where the job of Prime Minister is a difficult and lonely one. I think we all know where Johnson would stand on this issue if he were still a Daily Telegraph columnist. We can also take a good guess as to his approach if someone else was Prime Minister, and he was an ambitious backbencher with a desire to free the ball from the back of the scrum.
But he is not a columnist nor a backbencher but the person who has t person who has to make the decision. And unlike some decisions that a Prime Minister might make, if he gets it wrong the consequences will be both enormous and very quickly apparent to all.
So when faced with advice that the virus was now spreading strongly and that, without intervention, deaths would soon rise substantially, Johnson acted in much the same way as any recent Prime Minister would have done. Maybe his libertarian instincts softened some of the new restrictions, but essentially he has made a decision to be risk averse; to be conventional.
This is not the first time during the pandemic that he has reached that conclusion. But it has also been obvious that this sits uneasily with him. He does not like restricting people’s liberties (not a bad quality, by and large) and he likes to tell people good news. He has promised we would have this licked by July and then by Christmas. He has urged us back to our offices when it was predictable (indeed, predicted that he would soon have to reverse that advice. Even on Tuesday, he seemed to consider it a matter of national pride that we, as a great freedom-loving people, have not been following the rules. The old Johnsom instinct is hard to suppress.
The consequence of this internal conflict is inconsistency and muddled messages. His natural supporters – those who value freedom and independence from the State and are most sceptical about the advice of experts – are in revolt. This has manifested itself in signatures for the Brady amendment. There are signatories from across the Conservative Party spectrum, but they notably include big Brexiteer beasts such as David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Steve Baker and Bernard Jenkin. These could be dangerous opponents.
Of course, Covid is not the only issue where the Prime Minister is going to have to make a big choice in the next few weeks. Does he make the necessary concessions in order to conclude a Free Trade Agreement with the EU before the end of the transition period? Yesterday, James Forsyth suggested that a deal was close and that the UK might take a more flexible approach to the negotiations, choosing to fight some battles in the future (‘you have to make it through the short term to get to the long term’ says James, using language that will sound very familiar to anyone who served in Cabinet with Michael Gove in 2018-19).
The piece suggests that the Prime Minister is ‘totally focused on Covid’. But he will soon have to make a choice. On the one hand, he will be receiving advice from officials that the adverse consequences of No Deal are very significant, especially for a fragile economy. On the other hand, his instincts presumably tell him that this is all over-stated gloomsterism.
The Prime Minister knows that the instinct to take a risk, to chance it, to tell the experts to go to hell, is very strong both within himself and amongst many of his Parliamentary colleagues. He is already defying those instincts on one issue. If he is to take the necessary steps to get a Brexit deal (and I hope he does), he is going to have to defy those instincts on a second issue, too. Given that he is already in danger of losing his hold over his traditional allies, it is not obvious that he will.


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: Davey – “I think there needs to be some financial support” for students

# Marr : Should university students get their money back ?
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey : `` I @ @ @ @ @ some financial support '' # Covid-19 https : //t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/o9FDRlROMR

#Marr: Should university students get their money back?
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey: "I think there needs to be some financial support"#Covid-19 https://t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/o9FDRlROMR
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: “Young people have paid a huge price during this crisis… it’s only fair to get them back to u

WATCH: “Young people have paid a huge price during this crisis… it’s only fair to get them back to university” – Dowden

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden tells # Marr `` it 's important for students not to have to give up a @ @ @ @ @ not going to university and they are going to university and paying the fees '' @ @ @ @

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden tells #Marr "it's important for students not to have to give up a year of their life by not going to university and they are going to university and paying the fees"https://t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/saCQ87SyT9
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: Lammy on universities – “Williamson needs to come to the House tomorrow and explain what he’s

WATCH: Lammy on universities – “Williamson needs to come to the House tomorrow and explain what he’s going to do”

Students have been `` done over on their A-levels ” and the government is threatening to `` lock them up @ @ @ @ @ Justice Secretary David Lammy # Marr # coronavirus https : //t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/BqAuv8rukZ

Students have been "done over on their A-levels” and the government is threatening to "lock them up" at university says Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy #Marr #coronavirus https://t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/BqAuv8rukZ
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: “Students didn’t start this current phase of the epidemic…” but university spread was “entire

WATCH: “Students didn’t start this current phase of the epidemic…” but university spread was “entirely predictable”

WATCH : “ Students didn ’ t start this current phase of the epidemic… ” but university spread was “ @ @ @

Coronavirus spreading in universities was "entirely predictable," says epidemiologist Prof Mark Woolhouse#Marr https://t.co/sqRmBXw2x7 pic.twitter.com/JZMAmB1gBx
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: Gupta – “The best way we can protect lives” is by allowing “the infection to spread among tho

WATCH: Gupta – “The best way we can protect lives” is by allowing “the infection to spread among those who are not vulnerable.”

“ The best way we can protect lives… is by allowing the infection to spread among those who are not @ @ @ @ @ says that the best way to fight # COVID19 is to allow the virus to @ @ @ @ @ the vulnerable ” .
# Ridge https : //t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/trWJFxWfZV

“The best way we can protect lives… is by allowing the infection to spread among those who are not vulnerable.”
Prof Sunetra Gupta says that the best way to fight #COVID19 is to allow the virus to spread and “aggressively shield the vulnerable”.#Ridge https://t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/trWJFxWfZV
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: “Lack of clear communication from the Government” is “why we’re not seeing high levels of com

WATCH: “Lack of clear communication from the Government” is “why we’re not seeing high levels of compliance”, says Stevens

“ Part of the reason why we are not seeing high levels of compliance comes back to the lack of @ @ @ @ @ Labour 's @ JoStevensLabour says people need to “ follow the guidance ” but there @ @ @ @ @ # Ridge https : //t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/UrpFp2P0cJ

“Part of the reason why we are not seeing high levels of compliance comes back to the lack of communication from the government.”
Labour's @JoStevensLabour says people need to “follow the guidance” but there is a lot of confusion.#Ridge https://t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/UrpFp2P0cJ
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: Dowden – “If we all pull together”, students going home for Christmas “should be possible”

Should university students be allowed to go home in the holidays ?
@ OliverDowden says he “ very much wants @ @ @ @ @ ” and that it “ should be possible ” if everyone follows the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/AEJARL5ELN

Should university students be allowed to go home in the holidays?@OliverDowden says he “very much wants students to home at Christmas” and that it “should be possible” if everyone follows the government’s measures.#Ridge https://t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/AEJARL5ELN
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--WATCH: Baker – “MPs should be sharing in the dreadful burden of decision in these circumstances”

“ There are plenty of MPs who would vote for this amendment if it is selected.
” Conservative MP @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly helpless ” and is calling for members of parliament to be able to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ decision making.
# Ridge https : //t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/KZGLUaKpmR

“There are plenty of MPs who would vote for this amendment if it is selected.”
Conservative MP @SteveBakerHW says MPs feel “increasingly helpless” and is calling for members of parliament to be able to ‘share the burden’ of decision making.#Ridge https://t.co/Ags3OvGNKR pic.twitter.com/KZGLUaKpmR
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) September 27, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-27--Dacre, Moore, Neil. Is triple change coming for the BBC?

Each weekday , this site publishes a list of public appointments vacancy highlights , in order to encourage conservatives to apply .
This may just be worth mentioning in the context of the Sunday Times ‘ claim today that Paul Dacre , the former Daily Mail Editor , and Charles Moore , the former Daily Telegraph Editor , are tipped to be the next Chairman of Ofcom and the BBC respectively .
We got the list up and running in the wake of the Taxpayers ’ Alliance reporting , during the early years of the Coalition , that “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Its findings were followed on ConservativeHome by an occasional back-and-forth between Matthew Elliott , then of the Alliance , and the Cabinet Office , where Francis Maude was in place .
Elliott would write about the latest figures , suggesting that there was still an imbalance .
The Cabinet Office would fight back , arguing that Elliott ’ s statistics didn ’ t show the whole picture : for example , many appointments were made on a local and not a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear over time .
First , the Coalition gradually began to encourage its supporters to apply for posts , and some were appointed : William Shawcross at the Charities Commission , Peter Bazalgette at the Arts Council , David Prior to the Quality Care Commission .
Second , it became clear , as a Policy Exchange report said , that part of the reason there were fewer Conservatives on public bodies is that fewer of them applied in the first place , compared to Labour supporters .
This remains an issue : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who apply to negotiate diversity requirements – or , rather , the nature of those requirements in the first place .
Third , the reporting criteria has changed .
Candidates for posts now don ’ t have to declare if they belong to a political party – merely if they ’ ve been politically active during the past five years .
That ’ s extremely convenient from a civil service controversy-smothering point of view .
Our sense is that holding office for the last ten years has altered the balance a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , despite the discontinuity of having three different Tory Prime Ministers in office over five years , is alert to the issues , some of which are beyond its remit .
For example , it ’ s CCHQ ’ s job , not Number Ten ’ s , to take on the party political work of getting conservatives to apply for posts , and training them for interviews .
At any rate , if Boris Johnson wants Dacre at Ofcom and Moore at the BBC , it ’ s a sign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the one hand , we think the Sunday Times is correct , about Moore at any rate .
On the other , it would be a mistake to think that Dacre would actually run Ofcom day-to-day if appointed , since it has a Chief Executive , Melanie Dawes , a former civil servant .
Moore would be a similar position at the BBC , where Tim Davie has recently taken over as Director-General .
Furthermore , neither appointment is in the gift of the Prime Minister or of anyone else : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change at the Corporation is coming .
In a sense , it ’ s already arrived , because the BBC has lost Andrew Neil , its most formidable political interviewer and another former Fleet Street editor , to GB News , a new TV venture – and thus a challenger to the Corporation .
The appointment of either Dacre or Moore would horrify the BBC powers-that-be , but the former has said that he “ would die in a ditch defending the BBC as a great civilising force ” , while Moore thoroughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission – to “ inform , educate and entertain ” ( in that order ) .
As for the Corporation itself , we repeat what we ’ ve written before : what ’ s required is fewer BBC TV stations , a reduced number of radio services , a scaled-back website , more spent on the World Service , a bigger presence for the Corporation outside London .
In other words , less money plus the right reform – change that would leave a solid core of public service broadcasting with the BBC @ @ @ @

Each weekday, this site publishes a list of public appointments vacancy highlights, in order to encourage conservatives to apply. This may just be worth mentioning in the context of the Sunday Times‘ claim today that Paul Dacre, the former Daily Mail Editor, and Charles Moore, the former Daily Telegraph Editor, are tipped to be the next Chairman of Ofcom and the BBC respectively.
We got the list up and running in the wake of the Taxpayers’ Alliance reporting, during the early years of the Coalition, that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Its findings were followed on ConservativeHome by an occasional back-and-forth between Matthew Elliott, then of the Alliance, and the Cabinet Office, where Francis Maude was in place. Elliott would write about the latest figures, suggesting that there was still an imbalance. The Cabinet Office would fight back, arguing that Elliott’s statistics didn’t show the whole picture: for example, many appointments were made on a local and not a national basis.
A number of points became clear over time. First, the Coalition gradually began to encourage its supporters to apply for posts, and some were appointed: William Shawcross at the Charities Commission, Peter Bazalgette at the Arts Council, David Prior to the Quality Care Commission.
Second, it became clear, as a Policy Exchange report said, that part of the reason there were fewer Conservatives on public bodies is that fewer of them applied in the first place, compared to Labour supporters. This remains an issue: a further one is the relative inability of those who apply to negotiate diversity requirements – or, rather, the nature of those requirements in the first place.
Third, the reporting criteria has changed. Candidates for posts now don’t have to declare if they belong to a political party – merely if they’ve been politically active during the past five years. That’s extremely convenient from a civil service controversy-smothering point of view.
Our sense is that holding office for the last ten years has altered the balance a bit and that the Conservative presence in Downing Street, despite the discontinuity of having three different Tory Prime Ministers in office over five years, is alert to the issues, some of which are beyond its remit. For example, it’s CCHQ’s job, not Number Ten’s, to take on the party political work of getting conservatives to apply for posts, and training them for interviews.
At any rate, if Boris Johnson wants Dacre at Ofcom and Moore at the BBC, it’s a sign that he himself understands the importance of appointments. On the one hand, we think the Sunday Times is correct, about Moore at any rate. On the other, it would be a mistake to think that Dacre would actually run Ofcom day-to-day if appointed, since it has a Chief Executive, Melanie Dawes, a former civil servant.
Moore would be a similar position at the BBC, where Tim Davie has recently taken over as Director-General. Furthermore, neither appointment is in the gift of the Prime Minister or of anyone else: there are appointments processes.
Nonetheless, change at the Corporation is coming. In a sense, it’s already arrived, because the BBC has lost Andrew Neil, its most formidable political interviewer and another former Fleet Street editor, to GB News, a new TV venture – and thus a challenger to the Corporation.
The appointment of either Dacre or Moore would horrify the BBC powers-that-be, but the former has said that he “would die in a ditch defending the BBC as a great civilising force”, while Moore thoroughly grasps the Corporation’s original Reithian mission – to “inform, educate and entertain” (in that order).
As for the Corporation itself, we repeat what we’ve written before: what’s required is fewer BBC TV stations, a reduced number of radio services, a scaled-back website, more spent on the World Service, a bigger presence for the Corporation outside London. In other words, less money plus the right reform – change that would leave a solid core of public service broadcasting with the BBC at its heart.


conservativehome--2020-09-28--The 43 Conservative MPs backing Brady’s amendment on coronavirus regulations

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

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


conservativehome--2020-09-28--We need a Plan B for universities as well as schools – and much the same one

Government sources insist that students will be allowed to go home for Christmas – and not be locked up en masse , as they have been at some universities , unable to leave halls of residence .
Ruth Davidson has swooped on the shutdown in Scotland , writing that students have been confined to their rooms , barred from visiting shops to buy food – let alone pubs or restaurants – banned from travelling home , policed by extra security staff and threatened with letters instructing compliance under threat of suspension .
These , remember , aren ’ t people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been directly in contact with others who do .
It isn ’ t obvious that the situation is much different in parts of England , where some three thousand students are apparently also locked down .
Nor is it clear how many students will be able to be at home with their family when Christmas comes .
For either the Government ’ s latest restrictions will be in place , if Boris Johnson maintains his grip on policy , or else even stricter ones will have superceded them .
We hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by then , but aren ’ t counting our chickens , or Yuletide turkeys either , come to that .
In which case , the number of students allowed home will depend on the number who have symptoms of the virus , since those who have it must self-isolate for 14 days by law , as must those contacted by test-and-trace services .
Government guidance also says that “ all other household members need to stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days ” if another has the virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a home but student accommodation ?
This provokes the further question of whether students should have returned to university .
If you want to attack Ministers , you will claim that the present tangle was forseeable .
If you want to defend it , you will counter that normality must resume – as nearly as possible , anyway .
There are a number of short-term means of plastering over the cracks , none of which will provide a smooth and seamless finish .
Some universities are offering vouchers for food , or rebates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Halfon wants the students affected to recieve discounts .
The colleges will argue that they shouldn ’ t pay these , since they aren ’ t responsible for the lockdown rules .
The Chancellor might well say in response that this may be so , but the Commons can ’ t simply load more debt on the taxpayer indefinitely – or there won ’ t be any public money for universities in the first place .
There are issues for the long-term as well as for the short .
The central aim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to build a firewall between work and home , with the former operating as near normally as possible but the latter less , as part of the balance to protect livelihoods as well as lives .
Schools are placed in the former category , partly because parents will be unable to work normally if they aren ’ t , and partly because of the value we place on education .
University education also has value , both to the economy and in its own right .
But it has never been universally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as is obviously the case for primary and secondary schooling .
And as our columnist Neil O ’ Brien notes , the number of students in higher education is out of balance : for around ten per cent of women , and a quarter of men , their degree isn ’ t worth it .
He wrote recently that “ highly subsidised universities would propose to government how they will reduce their cost to the taxpayer .
That could mean reducing numbers on some courses , or making them cheaper with shorter degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or a mix ” .
This is where student accomodation comes in .
Why do a higher proportion of British students leave home for higher education , compared to some other comparable countries ?
The answer is bound up with the monopoly that Oxford and Cambridge held on university education in England from the medieval period until 1827 , when University College , London , opened .
In consequence , an assumption was written into our educational culture that if students were to go university , they should go to it rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less so on the continent , where local universities are more common – though our national picture has changed as new universities have suddenly sprung up fully-formed , or as other institutions have gradually become universities .
So for example , David Willetts , in his A University Education , traces the story of how , in Bradford , the Mechanics Institute morphed its way through Bradford Technical School to Bradford Technical College to the Bradford College of Art & Technology to Bradford College…to Bradford University .
However , there is no uniform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , complete with ivy-laden walls or red brick or both .
The former colleges of advanced techology , such as Braford itself , have spells in industry as part of their courses .
Others have links to regional or local industries .
All of which reinforces the question of whether the country needs so many other universities and students following the Oxbridge model in the first place .
The short-term pressure on living space , accomodation and lecture rooms will intensify next year , as the knock-on effects of this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , because of the students who have now qualified to enter a university , but have been forced to postpone entry until next year .
Meanwhile , the long-term trend to doing more online is being speeded up by the Coronavirus , as the move from learning together from lectures in big rooms to doing to separately from screens in smaller ones gathers pace .
Furthermore , universities aren ’ t always in full control of the living quarters that they offer students .
Halfon is certainly right in believing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – mirroring the one that both he , this site and others have called for in schools , as the Covid-19 case numbers rise .
Obviously , universities have an independence from government that schools don ’ t .
But it wouldn ’ t be beyond the wit of man to design a fee and finance system that rewards universities for more online teaching .
Such a solution would be fiercely debated .
Moving schooling online temporarily is one thing ; shifting “ the university experience ” online too would be another ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already ) .
We already complain that young people are stuck at home for too long .
Do we want them there during their university years , too ?
What about the horizan-widening that moving to a new place brings , together with mixing with others from outside one ’ s home town , city or village ?
Our bleak answer is that one can no more turn back the online tide than one could turn back a real one , and that the universities , like so much and many elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swim in it .

Government sources insist that students will be allowed to go home for Christmas – and not be locked up en masse, as they have been at some universities, unable to leave halls of residence.
Ruth Davidson has swooped on the shutdown in Scotland, writing that students have been confined to their rooms, barred from visiting shops to buy food – let alone pubs or restaurants – banned from travelling home, policed by extra security staff and threatened with letters instructing compliance under threat of suspension.
These, remember, aren’t people who necessarily have Covid-19, or who have been directly in contact with others who do. It isn’t obvious that the situation is much different in parts of England, where some three thousand students are apparently also locked down.
Nor is it clear how many students will be able to be at home with their family when Christmas comes. For either the Government’s latest restrictions will be in place, if Boris Johnson maintains his grip on policy, or else even stricter ones will have superceded them. We hope that mass testing will be up and running by then, but aren’t counting our chickens, or Yuletide turkeys either, come to that.
In which case, the number of students allowed home will depend on the number who have symptoms of the virus, since those who have it must self-isolate for 14 days by law, as must those contacted by test-and-trace services. Government guidance also says that “all other household members need to stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days” if another has the virus. What happens when the location is not a home but student accommodation?
This provokes the further question of whether students should have returned to university. If you want to attack Ministers, you will claim that the present tangle was forseeable. If you want to defend them, you will counter that normality must resume – as nearly as possible, anyway.
There are a number of short-term means of plastering over the cracks, none of which will provide a smooth and seamless finish. Some universities are offering vouchers for food, or rebates, or providing food directly. Robert Halfon wants the students affected to recieve discounts.
The colleges will argue that they shouldn’t pay these, since they aren’t responsible for the lockdown rules. The Chancellor might well say in response that this may be so, but the Commons can’t simply load more debt on the taxpayer indefinitely – or there won’t be any public money for universities in the first place.
There are issues for the long-term as well as for the short. The central aim of the Government’s latest Covid-19 measures is to build a firewall between work and home, with the former operating as near normally as possible but the latter less, as part of the balance to protect livelihoods as well as lives.
Schools are placed in the former category, partly because parents will be unable to work normally if they aren’t, and partly because of the value we place on education. University education also has value, both to the economy and in its own right.
But it has never been universally available to all regardless of qualification, as is obviously the case for primary and secondary schooling. And as our columnist Neil O’Brien notes, the number of students in higher education is out of balance: for around ten per cent of women, and a quarter of men, their degree isn’t worth it.
He wrote recently that “highly subsidised universities would propose to government how they will reduce their cost to the taxpayer. That could mean reducing numbers on some courses, or making them cheaper with shorter degrees, or and doing more online. Or a mix”. This is where student accomodation comes in. Why do a higher proportion of British students leave home for higher education, compared to some other comparable countries?
The answer is bound up with the monopoly that Oxford and Cambridge held on university education in England from the medieval period until 1827, when University College, London, opened. In consequence, an assumption was written into our educational culture that if students were to go university, they should go to it rather than it come to them.
This was less so on the continent, where local universities are more common – though our national picture has changed as new universities have suddenly sprung up fully-formed, or as other institutions have gradually become universities.
So for example, David Willetts, in his A University Education, traces the story of how, in Bradford, the Mechanics Institute morphed its way through Bradford Technical School to Bradford Technical College to the Bradford College of Art & Technology to Bradford College…to Bradford University.
However, there is no uniform story of locally-rooted colleges becoming Oxbridge-type universities, complete with ivy-laden walls or red brick or both. The former colleges of advanced techology, such as Braford itself, have spells in industry as part of their courses. Others have links to regional or local industries.
All of which reinforces the question of whether the country needs so many other universities and students following the Oxbridge model in the first place.
The short-term pressure on living space, accomodation and lecture rooms will intensify next year, as the knock-on effects of this year’s A-level fiasco work their way through the system, because of the students who have now qualified to enter a university, but have been forced to postpone entry until next year.
Meanwhile, the long-term trend to doing more online is being speeded up by the Coronavirus, as the move from learning together from lectures in big rooms to doing to separately from screens in smaller ones gathers pace. Furthermore, universities aren’t always in full control of the living quarters that they offer students.
Halfon is certainly right in believing that the Government needs a Plan B for universities – mirroring the one that both he, this site and others have called for in schools, as the Covid-19 case numbers rise.
Obviously, universities have an independence from government that schools don’t. But it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to design a fee and finance system that rewards universities for more online teaching.
Such a solution would be fiercely debated. Moving schooling online temporarily is one thing; shifting “the university experience” online too would be another (though to some extent this is happening already).
We already complain that young people are stuck at home for too long. Do we want them there during their university years, too?
What about the horizan-widening that moving to a new place brings, together with mixing with others from outside one’s home town, city or village?
Our bleak answer is that one can no more turn back the online tide than one could turn back a real one, and that the universities, like so much and many elsewhere, have no alternative but to sink or swim in it.


conservativehome--2020-09-28--Richard Holden: Access to cash. Here in County Durham, it matters to voters. Sunak should help to gu

Richard Holden: Access to cash. Here in County Durham, it matters to voters. Sunak should help to guarantee it.

“ Cash is King ” .
In the City of London that means liquidity , numbers on paper – but what it boils down to is freedom of action when things get tight .
For many of my constituents , it means something slightly different : it means hard currency and it means control .
When I ’ m away in Westminster , I rarely use notes and coins .
Transactions happen at the touch of a card or , more likely , at the push of a few buttons on my phone .
In the ‘ real world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still very important .
Recently , while I was queueing outside the Golden Fish Inn on Delves Lane to pick up fish and chip , mushy peas and some cans of pop for the team who ’ d been out leafleting , I remembered that the chip shop is still cash only .
A quick dash across the road to get some money from the cash machine and all was well .
But for many in my community – particularly those on tight budgets , pensioners , and people trying to manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what they live by .
It ’ s easy to manage because once it ’ s gone , it ’ s gone .
You can take £20 to get some shopping for the next few days , or take £10 out with you to get a few pints ( yes , London readers : you really can get ‘ a few pints ’ for £10 in Consett ) and go home not having spent more than you intended to .
Access to physical cash remains crucial .
There has been a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fish Inn is now unusual .
Shops and businesses which were ‘ cash only ’ are fewer and further between .
Even my Wolsingham local , the Black Lion ( where during the election campaign the regulars didn ’ t bat an eye as the Education Secretary and I grabbed a couple of pints , picked eggs and played pool poorly one evening ) a staunchly cash-only wet pub until lockdown has now got a card machine .
But in North West Durham generally it ’ s cash-and-card , not just card .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most need , as the recent transformation away from cash in Sweden has shown .
The issue of access to cash was highlighted a few weeks ago , when I got a call from a small local shop in Billy Row , a small village near Crook in the south part of my constituency .
The shop is basically open from first thing until late evening , seven days a week , provides essentials and has a cash machine inside .
It also has a post office counter , open dor much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had got in touch with them to say that the contract with the cash machine operator had expired , and the machine would be coming out for good in a matter of months .
The result , the shop keeper told me , was that it would probably end the business and the shop in the village .
Why ?
Because a lot of local people budget use cash , and they don ’ t want to only be able to withdraw it at certain times on certain days from the Post Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means it being printed off and passed over before they know if and how much they can take out .
It also means the workers who swing by on their way by in the morning to pick up a can , paper , packet of fags and grab some cash for lunchtime wouldn ’ t carry on doing so .
And for the pub across the green , it means a lifeline for the business ( being able to deposit and do basic banking ) and access to cash for customers would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a bit of local media , touching base with LINK ( who were superb ) and a few letters to senior management all helped – and the Billy Row cash machine will stay .
But it got me talking to people about how important cash is more broadly .
I discovered that in one of the least affluent parts of my constituency , the only nearby cash machine charges £2 a go .
That ’ s a lot to get access to your own money when you ’ re on a tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so cash to pay to top up your electric meter , pay your hairdresser or grab some bits and pieces from the local shop or sandwich shop .
So I ’ m now campaigning to get a free-to-use machine there to replace it and reduce what has been called in some quarters the ‘ poverty premium.
’ In the months since I was elected , it ’ s often these day-to-day issues : cash machines , speeding , unadopted roads , street-lighting , potholes , low-level crime and anti-social behaviour that I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t try ( or at least not very hard ) to do anything about .
Either they felt it was beneath them ( and too many Labour councillors think these issues are beneath them still ) , or they were too busy concentrating on planning the revolution to deal with the issues that mean so much in people ’ s everyday lives .
Throughout the global pandemic , the Government has stood up in an unprecedented way to support jobs and businesses across the country .
My constituents know that nothing comes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support that has been provided to save jobs and businesses can not be provided in the long-term .
The broader levelling-up agenda – the defining mission of this Government – needs to be the focus , and delivering on key manifesto promised on hospitals , police numbers , nurses and doctors must be the overarching focus post-Coronavirus .
But now that the budget is delayed until spring , we have a window of opportunity for the Chancellor and his team to also step back , and target support for schemes and policies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a difference to families and communities in the ‘ Blue Wall ’ , and also pockets in every constituency .
Not all of it needs to cost the earth – and in some cases , need not cost anything .
Access to cash is one of these issues in the broader Treasury remit , and needs to be looked at .
With a bit of time , we can drill down into the long-term issues that make communities feel left behind , isolated , ignored and yes , ripped off .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at them , we can avoid the fate of our Labour predecessors across the newly Blue constituencies by getting things done on the ground that make an immediate difference to people ’ s lives , alongside our broader ‘ levelling up ’ agenda .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
“Cash is King”. In the City of London that means liquidity, numbers on paper – but what it boils down to is freedom of action when things get tight.
For many of my constituents, it means something slightly different: it means hard currency and it means control. When I’m away in Westminster, I rarely use notes and coins. Transactions happen at the touch of a card or, more likely, at the push of a few buttons on my phone.
In the ‘real world’ of my constituency, though, cash is still very important. Recently, while I was queueing outside the Golden Fish Inn on Delves Lane to pick up fish and chip, mushy peas and some cans of pop for the team who’d been out leafleting, I remembered that the chip shop is still cash only. A quick dash across the road to get some money from the cash machine and all was well.
But for many in my community – particularly those on tight budgets, pensioners, and people trying to manage their way out of debt – cash is what they live by. It’s easy to manage because once it’s gone, it’s gone. You can take £20 to get some shopping for the next few days, or take £10 out with you to get a few pints (yes, London readers: you really can get ‘a few pints’ for £10 in Consett) and go home not having spent more than you intended to. Access to physical cash remains crucial.
There has been a big shift under Covid-19, and the Golden Fish Inn is now unusual. Shops and businesses which were ‘cash only’ are fewer and further between.
Even my Wolsingham local, the Black Lion (where during the election campaign the regulars didn’t bat an eye as the Education Secretary and I grabbed a couple of pints, picked eggs and played pool poorly one evening) a staunchly cash-only wet pub until lockdown has now got a card machine. But in North West Durham generally it’s cash-and-card, not just card. Card only is exclusive of those in the most need, as the recent transformation away from cash in Sweden has shown.
The issue of access to cash was highlighted a few weeks ago, when I got a call from a small local shop in Billy Row, a small village near Crook in the south part of my constituency. The shop is basically open from first thing until late evening, seven days a week, provides essentials and has a cash machine inside.
It also has a post office counter, open dor much more restricted hours. Post Office Ltd had got in touch with them to say that the contract with the cash machine operator had expired, and the machine would be coming out for good in a matter of months. The result, the shop keeper told me, was that it would probably end the business and the shop in the village.
Why? Because a lot of local people budget use cash, and they don’t want to only be able to withdraw it at certain times on certain days from the Post Office counter, when to check the balance means it being printed off and passed over before they know if and how much they can take out.
It also means the workers who swing by on their way by in the morning to pick up a can, paper, packet of fags and grab some cash for lunchtime wouldn’t carry on doing so. And for the pub across the green, it means a lifeline for the business (being able to deposit and do basic banking) and access to cash for customers would go too.
A short, local campaign, a bit of local media, touching base with LINK (who were superb) and a few letters to senior management all helped – and the Billy Row cash machine will stay.
But it got me talking to people about how important cash is more broadly. I discovered that in one of the least affluent parts of my constituency, the only nearby cash machine charges £2 a go. That’s a lot to get access to your own money when you’re on a tight budget, and just want to grab so cash to pay to top up your electric meter, pay your hairdresser or grab some bits and pieces from the local shop or sandwich shop. So I’m now campaigning to get a free-to-use machine there to replace it and reduce what has been called in some quarters the ‘poverty premium.’
In the months since I was elected, it’s often these day-to-day issues: cash machines, speeding, unadopted roads, street-lighting, potholes, low-level crime and anti-social behaviour that I’ve noticed my Labour predecessors didn’t try (or at least not very hard) to do anything about.
Either they felt it was beneath them (and too many Labour councillors think these issues are beneath them still), or they were too busy concentrating on planning the revolution to deal with the issues that mean so much in people’s everyday lives.
Throughout the global pandemic, the Government has stood up in an unprecedented way to support jobs and businesses across the country. My constituents know that nothing comes for free, and that the colossal short-term support that has been provided to save jobs and businesses cannot be provided in the long-term.
The broader levelling-up agenda – the defining mission of this Government – needs to be the focus, and delivering on key manifesto promised on hospitals, police numbers, nurses and doctors must be the overarching focus post-Coronavirus.
But now that the budget is delayed until spring, we have a window of opportunity for the Chancellor and his team to also step back, and target support for schemes and policies that can really deliver those smaller changes that make a difference to families and communities in the ‘Blue Wall’, and also pockets in every constituency.
Not all of it needs to cost the earth – and in some cases, need not cost anything. Access to cash is one of these issues in the broader Treasury remit, and needs to be looked at. With a bit of time, we can drill down into the long-term issues that make communities feel left behind, isolated, ignored and yes, ripped off.
By listening to them, rather than talking at them, we can avoid the fate of our Labour predecessors across the newly Blue constituencies by getting things done on the ground that make an immediate difference to people’s lives, alongside our broader ‘levelling up’ agenda.