conservativehome--2020-10-14--Sweden. Once the outlier. But a new localised approach brings it closer to other countries.

Throughout the Coronavirus crisis , it could be said that Sweden has been the biggest outlier in terms of its pandemic strategy .
While many countries quickly introduced lockdowns at the outbreak , and others implemented already-developed test and trace systems , Sweden pushed to keep society open as much as possible .
Johan Carlson , head of its public health agency , justified this approach by saying that Sweden couldn ’ t take “ draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society.
” These words stunned members of the lockdown-loving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anders Tegnell , chief epidemiologist , who refused to apologise for taking such a radical approach .
Hawkish Britons looked on with jealousy .
As shoppers in this country were photographed frantically stockpiling Andrex , Sweden had more tranquil scenes of people going about their day .
Bars and restaurants – as well as events of under 500 people were allowed to run .
Seven months later , the debate still rages on about whether Britain “ should have done a Sweden ” .
There ’ s a libertarian romanticisation of it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
It has become the axis on which people place arguments on whether to reopen , or close , the economy further .
The curious thing , though , is that the Swedish approach has actually changed a fair bit , making it not quite the radical experiment newspapers would have us all believe .
It has , in fact , recently become closer to systems such as Germany ’ s , whereby local authorities get to decide what measures should apply to their area .
Indeed , next week Sweden will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines in their area to curb specific outbreaks of Covid-19 .
The National Board of Health and Welfare has set out what some of these could be , such as avoiding public transport ; avoiding unnecessary travel ; avoiding visiting people in a risk group , like elderly care homes , and avoiding physical contact with people who do not belong to your household .
It remains to be seen how much councils will take up these instructions .
Furthermore , at a national level , Sweden has actually been quite cautious in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to work from home if they can , avoid large social gatherings and keep a distance , as well as asking vulnerable people and over 70s to avoid shops , restaurants and public transport .
Maybe the crucial difference about Sweden is that it has been a more consensual model than others ’ .
Instead of introducing Emergency Powers , it has relied on people ’ s sense of personal responsibility to achieve a balance between keeping the economy open , and saving lives .
Some of the more cautious move towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fears about care homes – and his regret that they were not protected enough initially .
It has been shown that a large number of the country ’ s 5,899 fatalities took place in such settings in spring , and he has since urged these places to “ test staff very generously ” .
In spite of Sweden ’ s evolving Covid strategy , the press still very much likes to sensationalise it .
TIMES magazine recently called it a “ disaster ” , and focussed upon rising cases ( never mind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – as seen above ) .
But as with many other countries , the Swedish approach is changing .
Perhaps that ’ s the biggest lesson from it .
Nothing is known about this virus , not least how a government might – in future – choose to deal with it .

Throughout the Coronavirus crisis, it could be said that Sweden has been the biggest outlier in terms of its pandemic strategy. While many countries quickly introduced lockdowns at the outbreak, and others implemented already-developed test and trace systems, Sweden pushed to keep society open as much as possible.
Johan Carlson, head of its public health agency, justified this approach by saying that Sweden couldn’t take “draconian measures that have a limited impact on the epidemic but knock out the functions of society.” These words stunned members of the lockdown-loving press, as did the confidence of Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist, who refused to apologise for taking such a radical approach.
Hawkish Britons looked on with jealousy. As shoppers in this country were photographed frantically stockpiling Andrex, Sweden had more tranquil scenes of people going about their day. Bars and restaurants – as well as events of under 500 people were allowed to run. Seven months later, the debate still rages on about whether Britain “should have done a Sweden”.
There’s a libertarian romanticisation of it, and those with more interventionist instincts demonise it. It has become the axis on which people place arguments on whether to reopen, or close, the economy further.
The curious thing, though, is that the Swedish approach has actually changed a fair bit, making it not quite the radical experiment newspapers would have us all believe. It has, in fact, recently become closer to systems such as Germany’s, whereby local authorities get to decide what measures should apply to their area.
Indeed, next week Sweden will grant regional authorities the ability to introduce guidelines in their area to curb specific outbreaks of Covid-19. The National Board of Health and Welfare has set out what some of these could be, such as avoiding public transport; avoiding unnecessary travel; avoiding visiting people in a risk group, like elderly care homes, and avoiding physical contact with people who do not belong to your household. It remains to be seen how much councils will take up these instructions.
Furthermore, at a national level, Sweden has actually been quite cautious in many ways. Its health authorities encourage people to work from home if they can, avoid large social gatherings and keep a distance, as well as asking vulnerable people and over 70s to avoid shops, restaurants and public transport.
Maybe the crucial difference about Sweden is that it has been a more consensual model than others’. Instead of introducing Emergency Powers, it has relied on people’s sense of personal responsibility to achieve a balance between keeping the economy open, and saving lives.
Some of the more cautious move towards regional powers also reflects Tegnell’s fears about care homes – and his regret that they were not protected enough initially. It has been shown that a large number of the country’s 5,899 fatalities took place in such settings in spring, and he has since urged these places to “test staff very generously”.
In spite of Sweden’s evolving Covid strategy, the press still very much likes to sensationalise it. TIMES magazine recently called it a “disaster”, and focussed upon rising cases (never mind that daily deaths are relatively low and stable – as seen above).
But as with many other countries, the Swedish approach is changing. Perhaps that’s the biggest lesson from it. Nothing is known about this virus, not least how a government might – in future – choose to deal with it.


conservativehome--2020-10-14--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Starmer’s pessimism enables Johnson to harness the power of wishful thi

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Starmer’s pessimism enables Johnson to harness the power of wishful thinking

Sir Keir Starmer ’ s pessimism cheered the Prime Minister up .
At last Boris Johnson could do what he does best , namely place himself at the head of the forces of optimism .
The PM is the Candide of British politics .
While morose and conscientious scientists present mounting evidence that the pandemic is getting worse , Johnson holds out hope that we may yet find ourselves living in the best of all possible worlds .
Sir Keir demanded to know why Johnson had abandoned “ the science ” and “ why the numbers are all heading in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the numbers in Cornwall are far better than the numbers in Liverpool , so it would be ridiculous to go for a nationwide “ circuit breaker ” lockdown , as advocated by Sir Keir , especially as Sir Keir keeps changing his mind .
The Leader of the Opposition proceeded to announce that the PM is “ behind the curve ” and “ someone who ’ s been an opportunist all his life ” .
Sir Keir added that he himself , on the other hand , has “ genuinely concluded a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
In other words , Sir Keir is a stern upholder of the truth while Johnson is a liar who will say absolutely anything in order to gain some temporary advantage over an opponent .
The problem with this accusation is not that Johnson is regarded as a pillar of moral rectitude , but that the British public thinks all politicians are liars will say absolutely anything in order to gain some temporary advantage over an opponent .
“ They ’ re all the same , ” as the man in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the days when he was allowed to go there .
Johnson proceeded to turn Sir Keir ’ s charge against Labour : “ opportunism is I ’ m afraid the name of the game for the party opposite.
” There is , the PM urged , a better way : “ Let ’ s work together…to keep kids in school…keep our economy going.
” The sunlit uplands are almost within sight .
We can together make a better world .
The doomsters and the gloomsters will , as he promised on another occasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had become spokesman for the doomsters : “ I can ’ t think of a single scientist who backs him.
” Indeed , the Leader of the Opposition went on , according to The Daily Telegraph there is an 80 per cent chance the PM will back a circuit breaker in the next two weeks .
Johnson accused the Opposition of seeing this “ as a good crisis for the Labour Party ” , opportunism in other words , and added that while he ruled “ out nothing of course in combatting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it with the local , the regional approach ” .
The PM today sounded liberated , free at last to harness the power of wishful thinking , and defy the grim official wisdom for which Sir Keir has become chief advocate .

Sir Keir Starmer’s pessimism cheered the Prime Minister up. At last Boris Johnson could do what he does best, namely place himself at the head of the forces of optimism.
The PM is the Candide of British politics. While morose and conscientious scientists present mounting evidence that the pandemic is getting worse, Johnson holds out hope that we may yet find ourselves living in the best of all possible worlds.
Sir Keir demanded to know why Johnson had abandoned “the science” and “why the numbers are all heading in the wrong direction”?
Johnson retorted that the numbers in Cornwall are far better than the numbers in Liverpool, so it would be ridiculous to go for a nationwide “circuit breaker” lockdown, as advocated by Sir Keir, especially as Sir Keir keeps changing his mind.
The Leader of the Opposition proceeded to announce that the PM is “behind the curve” and “someone who’s been an opportunist all his life”.
Sir Keir added that he himself, on the other hand, has “genuinely concluded a circuit breaker is in the national interest”.
In other words, Sir Keir is a stern upholder of the truth while Johnson is a liar who will say absolutely anything in order to gain some temporary advantage over an opponent.
The problem with this accusation is not that Johnson is regarded as a pillar of moral rectitude, but that the British public thinks all politicians are liars will say absolutely anything in order to gain some temporary advantage over an opponent.
“They’re all the same,” as the man in the pub used to put it, in the days when he was allowed to go there.
Johnson proceeded to turn Sir Keir’s charge against Labour: “opportunism is I’m afraid the name of the game for the party opposite.”
There is, the PM urged, a better way: “Let’s work together…to keep kids in school…keep our economy going.”
The sunlit uplands are almost within sight. We can together make a better world. The doomsters and the gloomsters will, as he promised on another occasion, loose their shirts.
Sir Keir had become spokesman for the doomsters: “I can’t think of a single scientist who backs him.” Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition went on, according to The Daily Telegraph there is an 80 per cent chance the PM will back a circuit breaker in the next two weeks.
Johnson accused the Opposition of seeing this “as a good crisis for the Labour Party”, opportunism in other words, and added that while he ruled “out nothing of course in combatting the virus”, he was “going to do it with the local, the regional approach”.
The PM today sounded liberated, free at last to harness the power of wishful thinking, and defy the grim official wisdom for which Sir Keir has become chief advocate.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Director of Labour Market Enforcement – an

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

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

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


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Three actions that Ministers must take if we’re to live without fear. Or else they and we will be lo

Three actions that Ministers must take if we’re to live without fear. Or else they and we will be lost.

If ConservativeHome is writing about the Coronavirus , we know where to look for Government information .
A mass of guidance and information is available .
But if , on the other hand , we want to find out the number of operations postponed since the original lockdown was announced on March 24 ; or that of cancer deaths ; or that of those brought about by heart disease ; or the harm wrought by rising mental health problems , or domestic abuse , or lost schooling , the Government has not compiled the relevant information and statistics for publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to find and read .
We are better off if we wish to report the number of job losses .
But these are not issued together by the Government with , say , the rise in child and poverty since late March .
There is no one-stop-shop source of official information about the damage to the economy since then – to livelihoods as well as to lives .
As well , as we say , about those other harms to lives .
Now it is true that not all cancer deaths since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be blamed on the long shutdown .
But it isn ’ t beyond the wit of man to work out the number of deaths since then compared to those of a comparable six month period in a usual year .
It is also the case that some of any figures published would be contestable .
But that ’ s also true of official Coronavirus estimates .
For example , the task of working out the number of deaths in England has been has been complicated by two major changes in the way they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August ) .
There is an urgent point to this dry analysis .
Today , Boris Johnson is trapped in a pincer movement between Labour , which is arguing for a short national lockdown , and his own party , which inclines to fewer restrictions faster .
He will try to find a compromise – by tightening the conditions in the most repressive of the Government ’ s new three tiers , and extending these .
That would enable him to toughen up while avoiding an England-wide shutdown .
So the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keir Starmer towards that circuit-breaker lockdown in all but name .
And once in it , there will be no quick way out , since the test and trace system isn ’ t working well enough to quell the rise in cases that would follow the end of the shutdown .
So that wouldn ’ t happen at all , or at least only do in a curtailed form .
We would be in semi-lockdown semi-permanently – which seems to be SAGE ’ s real aim .
All in all , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of near-total winter lockdowns and partially-eased summer ones , until or unless a vaccine is widely available , herd immunity is achieved or the virus abates .
This would risk bankrupting the country .
National debt hit a record £2 trillion in September .
It has reached 100.5 per cent of GDP , the highest level in 60 years .
We can not be sure that Britain would be able to borrow for the duration at the present rock-bottom rates to grow its way out of trouble .
Even if it could , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would come to stave off medium-term spending cuts and tax rises .
These would intensify the damage that this crisis is inflicting on lives as well as livelihoods – the rising toll in cancer deaths and educational harm and mental health problems which we refer to above , and so much more , including more poverty and deprivation .
Which takes us back to those figures .
There is fierce dispute about whether voters are really as supportive of harsher lockdowns as the polls suggest .
But Johnson can scarcely be blamed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political weather .
In order to steer his way out of it , he will have to change it : changing the weather , after all , is what the best politicians do .
In short , the Government must try to widen and deepen the national conversation about the Coronavirus .
That will take a bit of time .
It entails drawing voters ’ attention to the wider social and economic damage that living semi-permanently in lockdown would do .
Some of the information that would help to do this is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed out on this site , the Department of Health ’ s own health cost-benefit analysis shows that to date “ in the long-term , the health impacts of the two month lockdown and lockdown-induced recession are greater than those of the direct Covid-19 deaths ” .
But Government sources tell ConservativeHome that the Department of Health has been resistant to getting all the healthcare-related facts and figures together in one place .
That ’ s perhaps not surprising given its focus on the virus .
It ’ s more surprising that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise on the economy .
Ultimately , it ’ s up to Downing Street to make the case , backed up by more information and strategic messaging , against more national lockdowns , with the damage to lives and livelihoods that this would bring .
But the key player in forcing it to change is Rishi Sunak .
If we are truly to live with the virus and “ live without fear ” , as the Chancellor put it in the Commons recently , we must prepare to shift , in the absence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works , to a less restrictive and more voluntarist policy – one based on the balance of risk between the harm that Covid-19 does and the harm that shutdowns do .
And an indispensable part of any push for change is shifting public opinion to support it .
This site has been calling since the spring for the Government to publish its estimate of non-Coronavirus healthcare costs to date ; of the costs of lockdown to the economy to date , and of the total cost and total saving of the lockdown ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value , as government does elsewhere , to each human life in Britain ) .
Sunak , together with Ministers in other economic departments , such as Alok Sharma at BEIS , needs to push for three actions : • A regular Treasury report that calculates the economic cost of the lockdown .
That ’ s within his own gift , as it were , and the work could start today .
• A rolling Department of Health assessment of the human cost of the shutdown .
That will be harder to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister ’ s support to extract it .
• The creation of an economic counterweight to SAGE that considers livelihoods as well as lives , thus ensuring broader advice to the Prime Minister .
Finally , Ministers can ’ t act as the sole pathfinders for policy .
Intrinsic to Margaret Thatcher ’ s success during the 1980s was the work of think-tanks and Conservative MPs in preparing the way for change .
There are a mass of Tory backbench groups and wider pressure organisations .
The One Nation Caucus comes to mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green , its Chair , wrote a perceptive piece for this site yesterday about the choices that the Government now faces .
Perhaps it or the No Turning Back Group – to pick a Parliamentary group a bit different in outlook – could produce a report .
Some of the think tanks are already working in this field .
The Resolution Foundation has done an intergenerational audit .
( See also David Willetts ’ recent ConHome piece . )
Policy Exchange has probed the Government ’ s NHS tracing app .
( Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here . )
The Institute of Economic Affairs has examined the NHS ’ shortcomings ; the Centre for Policy Studies has led the way in probing economic costs .
But more work will be needed if public opinion is to move .
In the meantime , Sunak must continue to lead the way .

If ConservativeHome is writing about the Coronavirus, we know where to look for Government information. A mass of guidance and information is available.
But if, on the other hand, we want to find out the number of operations postponed since the original lockdown was announced on March 24; or that of cancer deaths; or that of those brought about by heart disease; or the harm wrought by rising mental health problems, or domestic abuse, or lost schooling, the Government has not compiled the relevant information and statistics for publication in a way that makes these easily available to find and read.
We are better off if we wish to report the number of job losses. But these are not issued together by the Government with, say, the rise in child and poverty since late March. There is no one-stop-shop source of official information about the damage to the economy since then – to livelihoods as well as to lives. As well, as we say, about those other harms to lives.
Now it is true that not all cancer deaths since March 24, say, can fairly be blamed on the long shutdown. But it isn’t beyond the wit of man to work out the number of deaths since then compared to those of a comparable six month period in a usual year.
It is also the case that some of any figures published would be contestable. But that’s also true of official Coronavirus estimates. For example, the task of working out the number of deaths in England has been has been complicated by two major changes in the way they have been calculated (in April and August).
There is an urgent point to this dry analysis. Today, Boris Johnson is trapped in a pincer movement between Labour, which is arguing for a short national lockdown, and his own party, which inclines to fewer restrictions faster. He will try to find a compromise – by tightening the conditions in the most repressive of the Government’s new three tiers, and extending these. That would enable him to toughen up while avoiding an England-wide shutdown.
So the Prime Minister is set gradually to be dragged by Keir Starmer towards that circuit-breaker lockdown in all but name. And once in it, there will be no quick way out, since the test and trace system isn’t working well enough to quell the rise in cases that would follow the end of the shutdown. So that wouldn’t happen at all, or at least only do in a curtailed form. We would be in semi-lockdown semi-permanently – which seems to be SAGE’s real aim.
All in all, we are all being manoeuvered into an annual cycle of near-total winter lockdowns and partially-eased summer ones, until or unless a vaccine is widely available, herd immunity is achieved or the virus abates.
This would risk bankrupting the country. National debt hit a record £2 trillion in September. It has reached 100.5 per cent of GDP, the highest level in 60 years. We cannot be sure that Britain would be able to borrow for the duration at the present rock-bottom rates to grow its way out of trouble. Even if it could, there is no guarantee that enough growth would come to stave off medium-term spending cuts and tax rises.
These would intensify the damage that this crisis is inflicting on lives as well as livelihoods – the rising toll in cancer deaths and educational harm and mental health problems which we refer to above, and so much more, including more poverty and deprivation.
Which takes us back to those figures. There is fierce dispute about whether voters are really as supportive of harsher lockdowns as the polls suggest. But Johnson can scarcely be blamed for not wanting to sail against the prevailing political weather.
In order to steer his way out of it, he will have to change it: changing the weather, after all, is what the best politicians do. In short, the Government must try to widen and deepen the national conversation about the Coronavirus. That will take a bit of time.
It entails drawing voters’ attention to the wider social and economic damage that living semi-permanently in lockdown would do. Some of the information that would help to do this is already out there. As Raghib Ali has pointed out on this site, the Department of Health’s own health cost-benefit analysis shows that to date “in the long-term, the health impacts of the two month lockdown and lockdown-induced recession are greater than those of the direct Covid-19 deaths”.
But Government sources tell ConservativeHome that the Department of Health has been resistant to getting all the healthcare-related facts and figures together in one place. That’s perhaps not surprising given its focus on the virus. It’s more surprising that the Treasury hasn’t done a parallel exercise on the economy.
Ultimately, it’s up to Downing Street to make the case, backed up by more information and strategic messaging, against more national lockdowns, with the damage to lives and livelihoods that this would bring. But the key player in forcing it to change is Rishi Sunak.
If we are truly to live with the virus and “live without fear”, as the Chancellor put it in the Commons recently, we must prepare to shift, in the absence of a track and trace plan that works, to a less restrictive and more voluntarist policy – one based on the balance of risk between the harm that Covid-19 does and the harm that shutdowns do.
And an indispensable part of any push for change is shifting public opinion to support it. This site has been calling since the spring for the Government to publish its estimate of non-Coronavirus healthcare costs to date; of the costs of lockdown to the economy to date, and of the total cost and total saving of the lockdown (which can be calculated by assigning a value, as government does elsewhere, to each human life in Britain).
Sunak, together with Ministers in other economic departments, such as Alok Sharma at BEIS, needs to push for three actions:
A regular Treasury report that calculates the economic cost of the lockdown. That’s within his own gift, as it were, and the work could start today.
A rolling Department of Health assessment of the human cost of the shutdown. That will be harder to get. The Chancellor will need the Prime Minister’s support to extract it.
The creation of an economic counterweight to SAGE that considers livelihoods as well as lives, thus ensuring broader advice to the Prime Minister.
Finally, Ministers can’t act as the sole pathfinders for policy. Intrinsic to Margaret Thatcher’s success during the 1980s was the work of think-tanks and Conservative MPs in preparing the way for change.
There are a mass of Tory backbench groups and wider pressure organisations. The One Nation Caucus comes to mind for us at once, because Damian Green, its Chair, wrote a perceptive piece for this site yesterday about the choices that the Government now faces. Perhaps it or the No Turning Back Group – to pick a Parliamentary group a bit different in outlook – could produce a report.
Some of the think tanks are already working in this field. The Resolution Foundation has done an intergenerational audit. (See also David Willetts’ recent ConHome piece.) Policy Exchange has probed the Government’s NHS tracing app. (Benjamin Barnard wrote about its findings for us here.) The Institute of Economic Affairs has examined the NHS’ shortcomings; the Centre for Policy Studies has led the way in probing economic costs.
But more work will be needed if public opinion is to move. In the meantime, Sunak must continue to lead the way.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Stephen Booth: As the Brexit deadline nears, the UK stands strong on fishing rights, but Frost hints

Stephen Booth: As the Brexit deadline nears, the UK stands strong on fishing rights, but Frost hints at movement on state aid

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange .
The Prime Minster set today as the deadline for the UK-EU negotiations to bear fruit .
However , as EU leaders gather in Brussels , a trade deal remains elusive .
A path to a deal is within sight but there is a risk that the remaining moving parts do not fall into place in time or that small , yet politically combustible , differences could yet blow the talks apart .
In recent days , there have been growing signs of optimism in London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the UK were to call time on negotiations at this stage , so long as today ’ s EU summit suggests there is still a credible path towards an agreement .
It is also fair to say that the EU side is more circumspect about how close to a deal we might be .
Michael Roth , the German EU Affairs Minister , this week urged the UK to make greater moves on the well-worn issues of state aid , fishing and governance that continue to stand in the way of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly clear that the EU has to resolve internal differences between the member states over the point at which Brussels should be prepared to settle on the key issues .
Going into today ’ s summit , the draft statement prepared for EU leaders does not suggest a decisive breakthrough is imminent .
The draft summit conclusions merely call on the EU and UK chief negotiators Michel Barnier and David Frost to “ intensify ” negotiations and for the EU to continue to “ work on preparedness ” for no deal .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK to show its hand on state aid , it has started to do so .
Frost recently told the House of Lords EU Committee that the UK was willing to begin discussing commitments on state aid policy that would “ go further than you normally do in a free trade agreement ” .
He noted that this might involve high-level principles such as how state subsidies must correct market failures , be transparent and not have negative effects on trade and investment .
The issue of state aid is bound up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The row over the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Internal Market Bill has strengthened the EU ’ s resolve to insist on mechanisms that would enable it to enforce various commitments .
This includes the right for either side to take “ interim ” and “ autonomous ” countermeasures – such as imposing tariffs – against a perceived breach , even before a dispute settlement panel has ruled .
It is notable that Frost has accepted the UK could benefit from a robust dispute-resolution mechanism on state subsidies , where once the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying at all .
“ I can see us being ready to use them just as much as the EU in future , ” he said .
“ Other EU countries subsidise quite often more than we do and that could definitely have an impact on us.
” However , the UK will be keen to limit the EU ’ s ability to use any enforcement mechanisms to “ cross-retaliate ” against different sectors of the UK economy for political leverage .
The progress on state aid has amplified the remaining differences – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU members themselves – over fishing rights .
All eyes will be on Emmanuel Macron this week , since France has been most prepared to play hardball .
Over recent days , despite internal EU calls for compromise , senior French ministers have warned Barnier to show “ no weakness ” over demands that European fishermen keep the same fishing rights in British waters after the end of the transition period .
The fact that fishing is still in play presents a tactical victory for UK negotiators .
The UK ’ s leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement could mean EU fleets losing their access to British waters altogether .
Therefore , a compromise solution ought to be possible .
However , the French belief appears to be that , ultimately , the wider costs of no trade agreement will fall more heavily on the UK than the EU , so it can afford to hold out for now .
Angela Merkel is more concerned about no deal than Macron .
“ We are going to continue to stand together in these withdrawal talks , ” she said this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take into account the reality : an agreement has to be in the interests of both parties , in British interests as well as the interests of the 27-member EU.
” She also noted that a deal was “ particularly urgent from the Irish perspective ” .
Ultimately , what happens next all rests on a series of fine political judgment calls , in London , Paris and Berlin .
Whatever the outcome over the next few weeks , the consequences of Brexit for the UK-EU relationship – held in suspension by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In London , it is clear , just from the Government ’ s preparations for our borders and customs arrangements , that UK-EU trade faces a period of disruption and adjustment , deal or no deal .
The UK has already left the EU but no deal would mean a further period of political and economic uncertainty as the UK and the EU would spend more months haggling over mini-deals .
A deal would provide tariff-free trade and grant a degree of closure that would enable the Government to focus its attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and international .
Macron is going to have to face the domestic political consequences of fewer fishing rights one way or another , but a deal , if presented as a hard-won compromise , would ensure a better outcome than the alternative .
Brussels ’ ability to influence the way the UK economy competes with the EU – a preoccupation for France above all others – will be reduced on January 1 come what may .
But it will be all the more limited without a deal and a cooperative relationship .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Market Bill , has underlined this point .
Germany is more concerned about the geopolitical consequences of a major rupture with Britain .
Charles Michel , the European Council president , recently suggested Brexit was contributing to an “ arc of instability ” – including Russia , Turkey and the South-Eastern Mediterranean – surrounding the EU .
If this is the genuine fear in Brussels and Berlin , it is difficult to see how a no deal departure would improve the situation .
Meanwhile , the EU is just as preoccupied as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are plans to launch a “ conference on the Future of Europe ” in the coming months when an easing of the crisis allows .
On balance , these conditions point towards a deal , since it would better enable both sides to move on and build their respective post-Brexit futures .

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange.
The Prime Minster set today as the deadline for the UK-EU negotiations to bear fruit. However, as EU leaders gather in Brussels, a trade deal remains elusive. A path to a deal is within sight but there is a risk that the remaining moving parts do not fall into place in time or that small, yet politically combustible, differences could yet blow the talks apart. In recent days, there have been growing signs of optimism in London, so it would be a surprise if the UK were to call time on negotiations at this stage, so long as today’s EU summit suggests there is still a credible path towards an agreement.
It is also fair to say that the EU side is more circumspect about how close to a deal we might be. Michael Roth, the German EU Affairs Minister, this week urged the UK to make greater moves on the well-worn issues of state aid, fishing and governance that continue to stand in the way of a deal. However, it is also increasingly clear that the EU has to resolve internal differences between the member states over the point at which Brussels should be prepared to settle on the key issues.
Going into today’s summit, the draft statement prepared for EU leaders does not suggest a decisive breakthrough is imminent. The draft summit conclusions merely call on the EU and UK chief negotiators Michel Barnier and David Frost to “intensify” negotiations and for the EU to continue to “work on preparedness” for no deal.
After months of the EU calling on the UK to show its hand on state aid, it has started to do so. Frost recently told the House of Lords EU Committee that the UK was willing to begin discussing commitments on state aid policy that would “go further than you normally do in a free trade agreement”. He noted that this might involve high-level principles such as how state subsidies must correct market failures, be transparent and not have negative effects on trade and investment.
The issue of state aid is bound up with the broader governance arrangements of an agreement. The row over the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Internal Market Bill has strengthened the EU’s resolve to insist on mechanisms that would enable it to enforce various commitments. This includes the right for either side to take “interim” and “autonomous” countermeasures – such as imposing tariffs – against a perceived breach, even before a dispute settlement panel has ruled.
It is notable that Frost has accepted the UK could benefit from a robust dispute-resolution mechanism on state subsidies, where once the UK had ruled out such a tool applying at all. “I can see us being ready to use them just as much as the EU in future,” he said. “Other EU countries subsidise quite often more than we do and that could definitely have an impact on us.” However, the UK will be keen to limit the EU’s ability to use any enforcement mechanisms to “cross-retaliate” against different sectors of the UK economy for political leverage.
The progress on state aid has amplified the remaining differences – between London and Brussels and between the EU members themselves – over fishing rights. All eyes will be on Emmanuel Macron this week, since France has been most prepared to play hardball. Over recent days, despite internal EU calls for compromise, senior French ministers have warned Barnier to show “no weakness” over demands that European fishermen keep the same fishing rights in British waters after the end of the transition period.
The fact that fishing is still in play presents a tactical victory for UK negotiators. The UK’s leverage here is pretty strong, since no agreement could mean EU fleets losing their access to British waters altogether. Therefore, a compromise solution ought to be possible. However, the French belief appears to be that, ultimately, the wider costs of no trade agreement will fall more heavily on the UK than the EU, so it can afford to hold out for now.
Angela Merkel is more concerned about no deal than Macron. “We are going to continue to stand together in these withdrawal talks,” she said this week. “But we also have to take into account the reality: an agreement has to be in the interests of both parties, in British interests as well as the interests of the 27-member EU.” She also noted that a deal was “particularly urgent from the Irish perspective”.
Ultimately, what happens next all rests on a series of fine political judgment calls, in London, Paris and Berlin. Whatever the outcome over the next few weeks, the consequences of Brexit for the UK-EU relationship – held in suspension by the transition period – are starting to crystallise.
In London, it is clear, just from the Government’s preparations for our borders and customs arrangements, that UK-EU trade faces a period of disruption and adjustment, deal or no deal. The UK has already left the EU but no deal would mean a further period of political and economic uncertainty as the UK and the EU would spend more months haggling over mini-deals. A deal would provide tariff-free trade and grant a degree of closure that would enable the Government to focus its attention on other pressing matters – both domestic and international.
Macron is going to have to face the domestic political consequences of fewer fishing rights one way or another, but a deal, if presented as a hard-won compromise, would ensure a better outcome than the alternative. Brussels’ ability to influence the way the UK economy competes with the EU – a preoccupation for France above all others – will be reduced on January 1 come what may. But it will be all the more limited without a deal and a cooperative relationship. If anything, the row over the Internal Market Bill, has underlined this point.
Germany is more concerned about the geopolitical consequences of a major rupture with Britain. Charles Michel, the European Council president, recently suggested Brexit was contributing to an “arc of instability” – including Russia, Turkey and the South-Eastern Mediterranean – surrounding the EU. If this is the genuine fear in Brussels and Berlin, it is difficult to see how a no deal departure would improve the situation.
Meanwhile, the EU is just as preoccupied as the UK is with Covid-19. However, there are plans to launch a “conference on the Future of Europe” in the coming months when an easing of the crisis allows.
On balance, these conditions point towards a deal, since it would better enable both sides to move on and build their respective post-Brexit futures.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Meghan Gallacher: The shambolic new restrictions in Scotland are a blow to the hospitality sector

Cllr Meghan Gallacher is the Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Group on North Lanarkshire Council .
Last week , Nicola Sturgeon announced tougher lockdown restrictions across the Central Belt of Scotland , due to the stark increase of COVID-19 cases .
As of 6pm on Friday 9th October , licensed premises , pool/snooker halls , casino/ bingo halls , and indoor bowling clubs , need to close their doors until 26th October .
These further restrictions could be the final blow to many businesses , who have endured unprecedented hardship since the beginning of the pandemic .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am frustrated by the First Minister ’ s announcement .
Local businesses have spent thousands of pounds renovating their premises to adhere to social distancing measures , which has meant reducing the number of people they can accommodate each day .
They have also stuck to the rules , by taking customer details for track and trace purposes and asking people to comply by wearing a facemask and using hand sanitiser when entering and leaving their business .
To add to the woes of many business owners and staff , the Scottish Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear as mud .
Initially , when Nicola Sturgeon announced the new restrictions in Holyrood , she said that cafes with an alcohol licence must close .
This guidance then changed to allow cafes to open but not sell alcohol , creating confusion to many business owners as to what constitutes a café .
However , the confusion does not stop there .
During a BBC Radio Scotland interview , Jason Leitch – the Scottish Government ’ s National Clinical Director – stated that it would be left to Scotland ’ s already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definition of a café and to enforce these restrictions .
I should add that this was the same Clinical Director , who , this time last week , was asking “ the guys to look into it ” to allow pubs to stay open beyond the 10pm curfew , should the Scotland vs Israel game go to penalties ( which it did ! )
.
It ’ s clear that the Scottish Government do not have a handle on these restrictions and prioritise a football game over the livelihoods of others .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the definition of a ‘ café ’ by expressing that it is a premise , whose primary activity is the sale of non-alcoholic drinks and “ snacks or light meals ” .
It appears that our First Minister managed to find time to look up the definition in the dictionary .
However , in effect , Sturgeon has allowed café ’ s which may have alcoholic beverages on their premises to remain open , but restaurants and pubs , who sell snacks and light meals , must close .
There are great discrepancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hours to go before the lockdown is in place , many businesses still do not know if they are to remain open or close .
The chaos caused over the last week by the Scottish Government will have a long-lasting impact on businesses in North Lanarkshire .
Within each of our eight town centres , we have pubs , restaurants , and other businesses within the entertainment industry , which will have to close for a second time .
I know many of them will adapt and run a take-away service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor bowling alleys and pool halls , they have no option but to adhere to the restrictions enforced on them .
It is going to be a tough 16 days for businesses impacted by the new lockdown rules , and I hope that they receive the urgent packages of support from the Scottish Government that they deserve .
Without our small , independent businesses , North Lanarkshire ’ s unemployment rate will soar as local businesses provide local jobs .
In addition , it could be the catalyst which accelerates the demise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is clear that the Scottish Government ’ s decision this week has been shambolic and will have a detrimental impact on those in the hospitality and entertainment sector .
I just hope that this latest disaster does not deliver the final blow .

Cllr Meghan Gallacher is the Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Group on North Lanarkshire Council.
Last week, Nicola Sturgeon announced tougher lockdown restrictions across the Central Belt of Scotland, due to the stark increase of COVID-19 cases. As of 6pm on Friday 9th October, licensed premises, pool/snooker halls, casino/ bingo halls, and indoor bowling clubs, need to close their doors until 26th October. These further restrictions could be the final blow to many businesses, who have endured unprecedented hardship since the beginning of the pandemic.
As a councillor in North Lanarkshire, I am frustrated by the First Minister’s announcement. Local businesses have spent thousands of pounds renovating their premises to adhere to social distancing measures, which has meant reducing the number of people they can accommodate each day. They have also stuck to the rules, by taking customer details for track and trace purposes and asking people to comply by wearing a facemask and using hand sanitiser when entering and leaving their business.
To add to the woes of many business owners and staff, the Scottish Government’s new lockdown measures are as clear as mud.
Initially, when Nicola Sturgeon announced the new restrictions in Holyrood, she said that cafes with an alcohol licence must close. This guidance then changed to allow cafes to open but not sell alcohol, creating confusion to many business owners as to what constitutes a café. However, the confusion does not stop there. During a BBC Radio Scotland interview, Jason Leitch – the Scottish Government’s National Clinical Director – stated that it would be left to Scotland’s already overworked environmental Council officers to determine the definition of a café and to enforce these restrictions. I should add that this was the same Clinical Director, who, this time last week, was asking “the guys to look into it” to allow pubs to stay open beyond the 10pm curfew, should the Scotland vs Israel game go to penalties (which it did!). It’s clear that the Scottish Government do not have a handle on these restrictions and prioritise a football game over the livelihoods of others.
The First Minister has since attempted to clarify the definition of a ‘café’ by expressing that it is a premise, whose primary activity is the sale of non-alcoholic drinks and “snacks or light meals”. It appears that our First Minister managed to find time to look up the definition in the dictionary. However, in effect, Sturgeon has allowed café’s which may have alcoholic beverages on their premises to remain open, but restaurants and pubs, who sell snacks and light meals, must close. There are great discrepancies with the restrictions being announced and with only hours to go before the lockdown is in place, many businesses still do not know if they are to remain open or close.
The chaos caused over the last week by the Scottish Government will have a long-lasting impact on businesses in North Lanarkshire. Within each of our eight town centres, we have pubs, restaurants, and other businesses within the entertainment industry, which will have to close for a second time. I know many of them will adapt and run a take-away service, but for others, such as the indoor bowling alleys and pool halls, they have no option but to adhere to the restrictions enforced on them.
It is going to be a tough 16 days for businesses impacted by the new lockdown rules, and I hope that they receive the urgent packages of support from the Scottish Government that they deserve. Without our small, independent businesses, North Lanarkshire’s unemployment rate will soar as local businesses provide local jobs. In addition, it could be the catalyst which accelerates the demise of our town centres once and for all.
It is clear that the Scottish Government’s decision this week has been shambolic and will have a detrimental impact on those in the hospitality and entertainment sector. I just hope that this latest disaster does not deliver the final blow.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Germany enters a critical stage – as Europe increasingly converges in its Covid-19 response

With much of the UK media focussing its energies on the Government ’ s latest Tier 2 and 3 restrictions , it ’ s easy to think that the country is alone in having to go through such harsh measures .
But European countries are , in fact , converging in many ways , from facing the same challenges – to how leaders are reacting to them .
One country whose current situation is not too dissimilar to the UK ’ s is Germany .
It has been better at controlling the virus in a number of respects , thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to outbreaks and ability to introduce testing early on in the crisis .
Even so , it is not immune to the same problem that this country , France and others have experienced .
That is , rising cases with the emergence of colder weather .
In fact , today Germany has seen a record daily increase in cases – reporting 6,638 new infections , according to data from the Robert Koch Institute ( the national agency responsible for disease control and prevention ) .
It ’ s previous record daily increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be said that improvements in testing regimes will inevitably lead to more cases being detected ( paradoxically making a country ’ s situation look worse ) , it ’ s the rapid uptick that has concerned its government .
What is the answer to this ?
As with UK politicians , German leaders have issued some strong words to the public , urging them to be sensible .
“ It is up to us to stop the infections ” , Helge Braun , Merkel ’ s chief of staff , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ depends on the population ” .
Angela Merkel , the chancellor , has warned that there could be over 19,000 new infections per day if the trends continue , and taken strong action to prevent this , meeting with the leaders of Germany ’ s 16 federal states – who will soon reveal tougher restrictions to slow down the virus .
One of these will be compulsory mask-wearing in crowded spaces when an area reaches 35 per 100,000 cases in people in seven days .
There have also been new curfews for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in addition to restrictions on how many people can gather in public and private settings .
In Berlin , alcohol can no longer be sold between 11pm and 6am – a similar policy to the one enacted by Nicola Sturgeon recently , who has imposed a two week alcohol ban for pubs and restaurants .
Merkel especially focussed on young people , asking them to stop holding parties together – “ in order to have a good life tomorrow or the day after.
” In one of the most radical warnings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even suggested that Germany could be close to another lockdown .
In better news , Jens Spahn , the health minister , has said that a vaccination drive for Germany was just months away ; a far more optimistic assessment than Boris Johnson ’ s recent admission to Steve Baker , when quizzed in parliament , that “ there is a good chance of a vaccine , but it can not be taken for granted.
” The plan in Germany so far is for it to be voluntary , and given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , it looks as though Germany will indefinitely face similar restrictions to the UK , and that of France ( where Emmanuel Macron implemented 9pm curfews ) .
As I wrote yesterday for ConservativeHome , there is a tendency to believe that countries are taking radically different approaches , particularly with Sweden – which has become more cautious in recent times .
In fact , the evidence is that countries are increasingly unified in their strategies to deal with the pandemic .

With much of the UK media focussing its energies on the Government’s latest Tier 2 and 3 restrictions, it’s easy to think that the country is alone in having to go through such harsh measures. But European countries are, in fact, converging in many ways, from facing the same challenges – to how leaders are reacting to them.
One country whose current situation is not too dissimilar to the UK’s is Germany. It has been better at controlling the virus in a number of respects, thanks to its high quality healthcare, localised response to outbreaks and ability to introduce testing early on in the crisis. Even so, it is not immune to the same problem that this country, France and others have experienced. That is, rising cases with the emergence of colder weather.
In fact, today Germany has seen a record daily increase in cases – reporting 6,638 new infections, according to data from the Robert Koch Institute (the national agency responsible for disease control and prevention). It’s previous record daily increase was 6,294 on March 28. While it should be said that improvements in testing regimes will inevitably lead to more cases being detected (paradoxically making a country’s situation look worse), it’s the rapid uptick that has concerned its government.
What is the answer to this? As with UK politicians, German leaders have issued some strong words to the public, urging them to be sensible. “It is up to us to stop the infections”, Helge Braun, Merkel’s chief of staff, told one broadcaster, adding that the situation “depends on the population”.
Angela Merkel, the chancellor, has warned that there could be over 19,000 new infections per day if the trends continue, and taken strong action to prevent this, meeting with the leaders of Germany’s 16 federal states – who will soon reveal tougher restrictions to slow down the virus.
One of these will be compulsory mask-wearing in crowded spaces when an area reaches 35 per 100,000 cases in people in seven days. There have also been new curfews for bars and restaurants in hotspots for Covid-19, in addition to restrictions on how many people can gather in public and private settings. In Berlin, alcohol can no longer be sold between 11pm and 6am – a similar policy to the one enacted by Nicola Sturgeon recently, who has imposed a two week alcohol ban for pubs and restaurants.
Merkel especially focussed on young people, asking them to stop holding parties together – “in order to have a good life tomorrow or the day after.” In one of the most radical warnings, Markus Söder, the Bavarian state premier, even suggested that Germany could be close to another lockdown.
In better news, Jens Spahn, the health minister, has said that a vaccination drive for Germany was just months away; a far more optimistic assessment than Boris Johnson’s recent admission to Steve Baker, when quizzed in parliament, that “there is a good chance of a vaccine, but it cannot be taken for granted.” The plan in Germany so far is for it to be voluntary, and given to high-risk groups to start with.
Until then, it looks as though Germany will indefinitely face similar restrictions to the UK, and that of France (where Emmanuel Macron implemented 9pm curfews). As I wrote yesterday for ConservativeHome, there is a tendency to believe that countries are taking radically different approaches, particularly with Sweden – which has become more cautious in recent times. In fact, the evidence is that countries are increasingly unified in their strategies to deal with the pandemic.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Burnham is trying to face both ways on lockdown restrictions

Andy Burnham , the directly elected Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester , is a shrewd politician .
Within a few months of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader , Burnham concluded that the hard Left were destined to prove themselves right in their long-standing contention that there is “ no Parliamentary road to socialism.
” Rather than sit on the Oppositiion benches , if he wanted to exercise power it would require a new role .
Given that at the General Election last year , his constituency of Leigh was gained by the Conservatives , it ’ s unlikely Burnham has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Burnham is familiar with producing forms of words designed to reconcile what are irreconcilable positions .
He certainly wishes to disguise , if possible , a split in his stance and that of , Sir Keir Starmer , his Party leader .
Yet when it comes to his stance on the lockdown , Burnham ’ s efforts to maintain contradictory positions surely leave his credibility in shreds .
At present , Greater Manchester is at the “ Tier 2 ” level of restrictions .
Burnham argues strongly that it would be wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the level being applied in Liverpool .
He has gone so far as to threaten legal action against the Government over such a proposal .
The logic being such an imposition would be unnecessary – or even counterproductive .
Yet at the same time , Burnham has indicated his support for a new national lockdown – which would be far more draconian than the situation currently being applied in Liverpool .
One of the criticisms of the Government ’ s approach to local lockdowns is that the areas they cover are too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader of Manchester City Council , was among the signatories to a letter which argued that as “ decision making must balance difficult trade-offs .
This requires a more nuanced approach than moving straight to a full local lockdown under the ‘ tier three ’ arrangements .
Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections : impacts on jobs and business ; effects on poverty and deprivation ; and relative infection rates in different sections of the population ( e.g .
between students and care homes ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made for greater targetting .
But would a fullscale national lockdown constitute a “ more nuanced approach ” ?
Thus we have this statement from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority which sought to combine the messages that the restrictions went too far – as well as going not far enough .
It starts off : “ We do not believe we should be put into Tier 3 for two reasons .
First , the evidence does not currently support it .
The rate of Covid infection in Greater Manchester is much lower , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Liverpool City Region which is in Tier 3 at 488.0 cases per 100,000 .
Plus our hospital admission rate is much lower than in LCR as Deputy CMO , Jonathan Van Tam , highlighted in his press conference this week .
Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 7-day rolling average Covid patients in beds is at around the 225 mark and in Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust it ’ s at the 100 mark .
Second , the financial package accompanying Tier 3 is nowhere near sufficient to prevent severe hardship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If cases continue to rise as predicted , and the Government continues to refuse to provide the substantial economic support that Tier 3 areas will need , then a number of Leaders in Greater Manchester believe a national circuit break , with the required financial support would be a preferable option .
This would create the conditions for a re-set of the Test and Trace service into a more locally-controlled operation which , with cases driven down to a lower level , would be more likely to succeed.
” Note the reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a reference the Labour leader missed at Prime Minister ’ s Question Time yesterday .
Sir Keir stated : “ I think the Prime Minister is behind the curve again .
He probably has not noticed that this morning , the council leaders in Greater Manchester that he just quoted , including the Mayor and the Conservative leader of Bolton Council , said in a press statement that they support a circuit break above tier 3 restrictions—keep up , Prime Minister.
” Cllr David Greenhalgh , the Leader of Bolton Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Labour leader .
Why has Sir Keir not apologised ?
How long would Burnham be willing to back a “ circuit breaker ” lasting for ?
The statement doesn ’ t set a limit .
Sir Keir has proposed that “ two or three weeks ” restrictions would include all “ non essential ” offices being closed , as well as pubs and restaurants .
What if case numbers don ’ t fall ?
Would Burnham favour another two or three weeks ?
What if they fell a certain amount , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberalisation , certain areas – such as Greater Manchester , perhaps – should be on Tier 3 ?
Would Burnham agree ?
As Burnham is willing to support a “ circuit break ” of undefined length , what if he finds that there is a difficulty for The Treasury in stumping up the “ required financial support ” he so breezily calls for .
The statement refers to “ a furlough scheme of at least 80 per cent of wages offered to all businesses forced to close or severely affected.
” But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown would be as generous – or more generous – than provided for the first one is fantasy .
There is a serious case to be made for more restrictions .
There is a serious case to be made against .
Burnham ’ s tortuous efforts to put forward both cases at once are a dire failure of leadership .

Andy Burnham, the directly elected Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, is a shrewd politician. Within a few months of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Burnham concluded that the hard Left were destined to prove themselves right in their long-standing contention that there is “no Parliamentary road to socialism.” Rather than sit on the Oppositiion benches, if he wanted to exercise power it would require a new role. Given that at the General Election last year, his constituency of Leigh was gained by the Conservatives, it’s unlikely Burnham has any regrets.
Given his political experience, Burnham is familiar with producing forms of words designed to reconcile what are irreconcilable positions. He certainly wishes to disguise, if possible, a split in his stance and that of, Sir Keir Starmer, his Party leader.
Yet when it comes to his stance on the lockdown, Burnham’s efforts to maintain contradictory positions surely leave his credibility in shreds. At present, Greater Manchester is at the “Tier 2” level of restrictions. Burnham argues strongly that it would be wrong to increase it to “Tier 3” the level being applied in Liverpool. He has gone so far as to threaten legal action against the Government over such a proposal. The logic being such an imposition would be unnecessary – or even counterproductive. Yet at the same time, Burnham has indicated his support for a new national lockdown – which would be far more draconian than the situation currently being applied in Liverpool.
One of the criticisms of the Government’s approach to local lockdowns is that the areas they cover are too wide. Sir Richard Leese, the Leader of Manchester City Council, was among the signatories to a letter which argued that as “decision making must balance difficult trade-offs. This requires a more nuanced approach than moving straight to a full local lockdown under the ‘tier three’ arrangements. Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections: impacts on jobs and business; effects on poverty and deprivation; and relative infection rates in different sections of the population (e.g. between students and care homes).” There is a strong case to be made for greater targetting. But would a fullscale national lockdown constitute a “more nuanced approach”?
Thus we have this statement from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority which sought to combine the messages that the restrictions went too far – as well as going not far enough. It starts off:
“We do not believe we should be put into Tier 3 for two reasons. First, the evidence does not currently support it. The rate of Covid infection in Greater Manchester is much lower, at 357.6 cases per 100,000, compared to Liverpool City Region which is in Tier 3 at 488.0 cases per 100,000. Plus our hospital admission rate is much lower than in LCR as Deputy CMO, Jonathan Van Tam, highlighted in his press conference this week. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 7-day rolling average Covid patients in beds is at around the 225 mark and in Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust it’s at the 100 mark. Second, the financial package accompanying Tier 3 is nowhere near sufficient to prevent severe hardship, widespread job losses and business failure.”
But it continues:
“If cases continue to rise as predicted, and the Government continues to refuse to provide the substantial economic support that Tier 3 areas will need, then a number of Leaders in Greater Manchester believe a national circuit break, with the required financial support would be a preferable option. This would create the conditions for a re-set of the Test and Trace service into a more locally-controlled operation which, with cases driven down to a lower level, would be more likely to succeed.”
Note the reference to “a number of”. It was a reference the Labour leader missed at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday. Sir Keir stated:
“I think the Prime Minister is behind the curve again. He probably has not noticed that this morning, the council leaders in Greater Manchester that he just quoted, including the Mayor and the Conservative leader of Bolton Council, said in a press statement that they support a circuit break above tier 3 restrictions—keep up, Prime Minister.”
Cllr David Greenhalgh, the Leader of Bolton Council has made clear that he was misrepresented by the Labour leader. Why has Sir Keir not apologised?
How long would Burnham be willing to back a “circuit breaker” lasting for? The statement doesn’t set a limit. Sir Keir has proposed that “two or three weeks” restrictions would include all “non essential” offices being closed, as well as pubs and restaurants. What if case numbers don’t fall? Would Burnham favour another two or three weeks? What if they fell a certain amount, but SAGE advised that rather than full liberalisation, certain areas – such as Greater Manchester, perhaps – should be on Tier 3? Would Burnham agree?
As Burnham is willing to support a “circuit break” of undefined length, what if he finds that there is a difficulty for The Treasury in stumping up the “required financial support” he so breezily calls for. The statement refers to “a furlough scheme of at least 80 per cent of wages offered to all businesses forced to close or severely affected.” But the idea that funding for a second national lockdown would be as generous – or more generous – than provided for the first one is fantasy.
There is a serious case to be made for more restrictions. There is a serious case to be made against. Burnham’s tortuous efforts to put forward both cases at once are a dire failure of leadership.


conservativehome--2020-10-15--Henry Hill: Tories hit out at bid to ‘balkanise’ the UK with new travel restrictions

Drakeford and Sturgeon look to turn Covid-19 into hard borders Conservative MPs and MSs have hit out at Mark Drakeford , the First Minister of Wales , after he proposed to bar entry to Wales for people from Covid-19 ‘ hot spots ’ in other parts of the United Kingdom .
According to the Daily Mail , the Labour politician has been accused of obsessing over ‘ banning the English ’ .
Earlier in the pandemic , his administration was criticised after inspiring this Anglophobic headline on the Western Mail .
His threats , a cue which has naturally been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk introducing ‘ hard borders ’ between not just the mainland and Northern Ireland ( as a result of the Government ’ s capitulation on the Protocol ) but on the mainland too .
It is not clear that such a move is within the Welsh Government ’ s competence .
Policing , for example , is not devolved , so Drakeford could not instruct officers to set up border checkpoints or anything like that .
But suggestions that they could instead rely on people reporting ‘ non-locals ’ gives an indicator of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to enforce .
Of course , some internal movement restrictions are not per se an illegitimate response to a pandemic .
But it would be very naive for unionists not to place these proposals in their broader context , namely that they are each being proposed by nationalist politicians ( one small-n , one big-N ) with no interest in the cohesion of the United Kingdom and every motive to shore up their own popularity at the expense of ‘ Westminster ’ .
As Matt Kilcoyne points out , the Government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welsh or Scots citizens who wish to visit England , nor do some politicians appear to have thought through the impact that hardening Britain ’ s internal borders will have on people used to living across them .
Indeed , regulating cross-border movement is something which even in a federal system – which the UK rightly is not – feels like it ought to be reserved to the national government .
Ministers have already demonstrated , via the Internal Market Bill , that they are not afraid to tread on devolved toes when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake .
They should defend the British free-movement territory ( a phrase it feels absurd to need ) with equal vigour .
Salmond quagmire deepens for Sturgeon as independence holds up A couple of weeks ago , this column covered the remarkable – and for unionists , deeply frustrating – spectacle of the Scottish Government ’ s ongoing defiance of political gravity .
Despite being in office for 13 years – as long as New Labour – the SNP are currently set to win a second overall majority in an electoral system which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The First Minister continues to enjoy strong public esteem , and independence – which for years languished behind its main party in popular support – is now posting record poll results .
Yet as I set out , time really is starting to catch up with the Nationalists .
The party ’ s legendary , phalanx-like discipline is breaking down as different factions start taking lumps out of each other .
The Scottish Government is neither governing well nor brimming over with new ideas .
And Sturgeon is embroiled in a bitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even according to sympathetic commentators such as Kenny Farquharson , lead to her resignation .
It ’ s as if we can suddenly see the SNP ’ s version of the picture of Dorian Grey , but can not get them to meet its gaze and so break the spell granting the Scottish Government its unnatural political life .
This week , the Herald reports that MSPs investigating the Salmond fiasco raised the question of whether or not the First Minister misled the Scottish Parliament about a key meeting where she was first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Nationalists ended up in a war of words with the Scouts after they defied the charity ’ s instructions not to use a uniformed scout leader in a party political broadcast .
It may be that the only thing that will hold the SNP together over the medium term is the discipline imposed by a second independence referendum – which is all the better reason for Boris Johnson to be true to his word and not grant one .
But if he does intend to stay the course ( and privately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he and Michael Gove need to develop their argument beyond the rote repetition of ‘ once in a generation ’ .
They should start here .

Drakeford and Sturgeon look to turn Covid-19 into hard borders
Conservative MPs and MSs have hit out at Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, after he proposed to bar entry to Wales for people from Covid-19 ‘hot spots’ in other parts of the United Kingdom.
According to the Daily Mail, the Labour politician has been accused of obsessing over ‘banning the English’. Earlier in the pandemic, his administration was criticised after inspiring this Anglophobic headline on the Western Mail.
His threats, a cue which has naturally been immediately taken up by Nicola Sturgeon, risk introducing ‘hard borders’ between not just the mainland and Northern Ireland (as a result of the Government’s capitulation on the Protocol) but on the mainland too.
It is not clear that such a move is within the Welsh Government’s competence. Policing, for example, is not devolved, so Drakeford could not instruct officers to set up border checkpoints or anything like that. But suggestions that they could instead rely on people reporting ‘non-locals’ gives an indicator of just how nasty such a rule could be to enforce.
Of course, some internal movement restrictions are not per se an illegitimate response to a pandemic. But it would be very naive for unionists not to place these proposals in their broader context, namely that they are each being proposed by nationalist politicians (one small-n, one big-N) with no interest in the cohesion of the United Kingdom and every motive to shore up their own popularity at the expense of ‘Westminster’.
As Matt Kilcoyne points out, the Government has not proposed any reciprocal travel bans for Welsh or Scots citizens who wish to visit England, nor do some politicians appear to have thought through the impact that hardening Britain’s internal borders will have on people used to living across them.
Indeed, regulating cross-border movement is something which even in a federal system – which the UK rightly is not – feels like it ought to be reserved to the national government. Ministers have already demonstrated, via the Internal Market Bill, that they are not afraid to tread on devolved toes when the integrity of the Union is at stake. They should defend the British free-movement territory (a phrase it feels absurd to need) with equal vigour.
Salmond quagmire deepens for Sturgeon as independence holds up
A couple of weeks ago, this column covered the remarkable – and for unionists, deeply frustrating – spectacle of the Scottish Government’s ongoing defiance of political gravity.
Despite being in office for 13 years – as long as New Labour – the SNP are currently set to win a second overall majority in an electoral system which was designed to prevent such an outcome. The First Minister continues to enjoy strong public esteem, and independence – which for years languished behind its main party in popular support – is now posting record poll results.
Yet as I set out, time really is starting to catch up with the Nationalists. The party’s legendary, phalanx-like discipline is breaking down as different factions start taking lumps out of each other. The Scottish Government is neither governing well nor brimming over with new ideas. And Sturgeon is embroiled in a bitter battle with Alex Salmond which could, even according to sympathetic commentators such as Kenny Farquharson, lead to her resignation.
It’s as if we can suddenly see the SNP’s version of the picture of Dorian Grey, but cannot get them to meet its gaze and so break the spell granting the Scottish Government its unnatural political life.
This week, the Herald reports that MSPs investigating the Salmond fiasco raised the question of whether or not the First Minister misled the Scottish Parliament about a key meeting where she was first informed about the allegations against him, and the Nationalists ended up in a war of words with the Scouts after they defied the charity’s instructions not to use a uniformed scout leader in a party political broadcast.
It may be that the only thing that will hold the SNP together over the medium term is the discipline imposed by a second independence referendum – which is all the better reason for Boris Johnson to be true to his word and not grant one. But if he does intend to stay the course (and privately some MPs are sceptical about this) he and Michael Gove need to develop their argument beyond the rote repetition of ‘once in a generation’. They should start here.


conservativehome--2020-10-16--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Director of Labour Market Enforcement – an