conservativehome--2020-03-06--Iain Dale: I’m assertive. You’re a bully.  Discuss.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
Dominic Cummings took great pleasure in fighting the ‘ Education Blob ’ when he was one of Michael Gove ’ s Special Advisers at the Department of Education some years ago .
That fight is now being reprised with the whole of the civil service , following the resignation of Philip Rutnam over alleged bullying by Priti Patel .
The wagons are circling on both sides , and pot shots are being taken through anonymous briefings every day .
If you ’ re on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor beleaguered civil servants .
If you ’ re on the Right , you stand by Patel without reservation or nuance .
You see her as a beacon for reform – and taking on the Home Office establishment over borders and immigration .
The Home Secretary is delightful company in private .
Her eyes sparkle , she has a waspish sense of humour and you can ’ t quite imagine she ’ s capable of bullying .
However , anonymous briefings , presumably from within the civil service , have detailed several examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil servants .
Trouble is , they vary in accuracy .
I have no idea whether Priti Patel is wholly guilty or even partly guilty of what she is accused .
And nor do you .
That ’ s why in theory everyone should leave it to the inquiry to find the truth .
But let ’ s say that she did , on occasion , shout , or lose her temper .
Does that constitute ‘ bullying ’ in the traditional sense ?
The definition of the word bully is to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coerce ( someone perceived as vulnerable ) .
” Shouting at a Permanent Secretary , I would venture to suggest , does not fit the definition , unless you think such a person is somehow vulnerable .
It may be unseemly , it may not be the way to get your own way – but bullying it is surely not .
Persistent derision of a junior member of staff is something very different – but the main allegation that has been raised from Patel ’ s time at Work and Pensions seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philip , in his resignation statement to camera , decried the anonymous briefings against him by “ friends of Priti ” .
He appears to ignore those same anonymous briefings that are being made on his behalf , and also did so in the days leading up to his resignation .
He says he knew nothing about them .
To coin a phrase , I do not believe him .
He is a classic Sir Humphrey : his period as Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport was so disastrous that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office has been lamentable , as Amber Rudd could certainly testify to – and as , in the employment tribunal , she may well have to .
He had been at the Home Office for a year when the Windrush scandal broke , but professed when asked not to be an expert on the immigration system , and let Amber Rudd swing in the wind .
Even when it became clear that she had been utterly failed by Home Office civil servants , Sir Philip refused to take any responsibility .
All that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bowler hat .
In saying all this , I profess to having no clue as to the substance of the bullying allegations either in the Home Office , or at Dfid .
I suggest we let the inquiry do its job and then form a judgement when it has reported .
Perhaps we should all think about our reactions to the Bercow bullying allegations .
The Left rallied to his defence , and took the view ‘ nothing to see , move on ’ .
The Right was all too willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The roles are now being reversed .
You have the ridiculous sight of people like Diane Abbott railing against Priti Patel when they gave Bercow a free pass .
She previously said it was ridiculous to think a General , such as David Leakey , could be bullied by a man of small stature like John Bercow .
Strangely , she doesn ’ t apply the same logic to the 5 ’ 4 inch Priti Patel .
Odd , that .
First we had Bill Clinton , the ‘ Comeback Kid ’ ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Comeback Grandpa ’ .
You really couldn ’ t make it up .
The man who Donald Trump refers to as ‘ Sleepy Joe ’ is now favourite to win the Democratic nomination to run against the President in November .
I suppose anything could happen between now and then , but Trump will not be unhappy at the prospect .
The simple truth is that Biden is not up to the job .
The President tweeted a video this week of Biden ’ s ‘ misspeaks ’ , and it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden could easily do the same to Trump , but that sort of thing seems to wash off Trump with no lasting effect .
Having said all of this , a poll out this week showed every single one of the then Democratic contenders beating Trump in a presidential contest .
What the poll failed to note , however , is that November ’ s contest isn ’ t about the popular vote – it ’ s about the Electoral College .
It ’ s the states who elect a president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hillary Clinton scored three million more votes than Trump , yet he won the college by some margin in the end .
I can see the same happening in November .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
Dominic Cummings took great pleasure in fighting the ‘Education Blob’ when he was one of Michael Gove’s Special Advisers at the Department of Education some years ago. That fight is now being reprised with the whole of the civil service, following the resignation of Philip Rutnam over alleged bullying by Priti Patel.
The wagons are circling on both sides, and pot shots are being taken through anonymous briefings every day. If you’re on the Left, you side with the poor beleaguered civil servants. If you’re on the Right, you stand by Patel without reservation or nuance. You see her as a beacon for reform – and taking on the Home Office establishment over borders and immigration.
The Home Secretary is delightful company in private. Her eyes sparkle, she has a waspish sense of humour and you can’t quite imagine she’s capable of bullying. However, anonymous briefings, presumably from within the civil service, have detailed several examples of her alleged ‘robustness’ with civil servants.
Trouble is, they vary in accuracy. I have no idea whether Priti Patel is wholly guilty or even partly guilty of what she is accused. And nor do you. That’s why in theory everyone should leave it to the inquiry to find the truth.
But let’s say that she did, on occasion, shout, or lose her temper. Does that constitute ‘bullying’ in the traditional sense? The definition of the word bully is to “seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).”
Shouting at a Permanent Secretary, I would venture to suggest, does not fit the definition, unless you think such a person is somehow vulnerable. It may be unseemly, it may not be the way to get your own way – but bullying it is surely not. Persistent derision of a junior member of staff is something very different – but the main allegation that has been raised from Patel’s time at Work and Pensions seems to be falling apart under scrutiny.
Sir Philip, in his resignation statement to camera, decried the anonymous briefings against him by “friends of Priti”. He appears to ignore those same anonymous briefings that are being made on his behalf, and also did so in the days leading up to his resignation. He says he knew nothing about them. To coin a phrase, I do not believe him.
He is a classic Sir Humphrey: his period as Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport was so disastrous that he was promoted. His performance at the Home Office has been lamentable, as Amber Rudd could certainly testify to – and as, in the employment tribunal, she may well have to.
He had been at the Home Office for a year when the Windrush scandal broke, but professed when asked not to be an expert on the immigration system, and let Amber Rudd swing in the wind. Even when it became clear that she had been utterly failed by Home Office civil servants, Sir Philip refused to take any responsibility. All that was missing in his resignation statement was the bowler hat.
In saying all this, I profess to having no clue as to the substance of the bullying allegations either in the Home Office, or at Dfid. I suggest we let the inquiry do its job and then form a judgement when it has reported. Perhaps we should all think about our reactions to the Bercow bullying allegations.
The Left rallied to his defence, and took the view ‘nothing to see, move on’. The Right was all too willing to believe very allegation made against him.
The roles are now being reversed. You have the ridiculous sight of people like Diane Abbott railing against Priti Patel when they gave Bercow a free pass. She previously said it was ridiculous to think a General, such as David Leakey, could be bullied by a man of small stature like John Bercow. Strangely, she doesn’t apply the same logic to the 5’4 inch Priti Patel. Odd, that.
– – – – – – – – – –
First we had Bill Clinton, the ‘Comeback Kid’; now we have Joe Biden, the ‘Comeback Grandpa’. You really couldn’t make it up. The man who Donald Trump refers to as ‘Sleepy Joe’ is now favourite to win the Democratic nomination to run against the President in November.
I suppose anything could happen between now and then, but Trump will not be unhappy at the prospect. The simple truth is that Biden is not up to the job. The President tweeted a video this week of Biden’s ‘misspeaks’, and it was devastating.
It has to be said that Biden could easily do the same to Trump, but that sort of thing seems to wash off Trump with no lasting effect. Having said all of this, a poll out this week showed every single one of the then Democratic contenders beating Trump in a presidential contest.
What the poll failed to note, however, is that November’s contest isn’t about the popular vote – it’s about the Electoral College. It’s the states who elect a president, not the general population.
Last time, Hillary Clinton scored three million more votes than Trump, yet he won the college by some margin in the end. I can see the same happening in November.


conservativehome--2020-03-06--Shaun Bailey: I will put 40,000 police officers on the streets of London to make people safe

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London .
In stark contrast to national trends , crime is rising in London and has been for the past four years .
Take the example of homicide : the BBC reported in January that homicides were down “ for [ the ] first time in five years across [ the ] UK ” despite rising in London .
Beyond statistics , there are individual stories – each one shocking in their own right , but worryingly , people are becoming desensitised to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets of London .
But I refuse to sit back and let this continue .
Of all the issues and roles the Mayor of London is ultimately responsible for , policing is the most important .
As per the Mayor ’ s Office for Policing And Crime , “ Sadiq Khan , is the equivalent of the Police and Crime Commissioner and is responsible for the totality of policing in the capital.
” Therefore the Mayor must step up , make tough decisions , and accept that they are accountable for policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stops with the Mayor if crime is rising on their watch .
Sadly , Sadiq Khan refuses to take responsibility for soaring crime on his watch .
Knife crime is at record levels in London , the murder rate has hit an 11-year high , burglaries are up 38 % on his watch .
But this Mayor refuses to step up , do his job and take action .
I am leading the fightback against the inaction of the Mayor and a few days ago , I announced my plan to get 40,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is what I meant when I previously stated that London requires ‘ New York levels of policing ’ in order to restore law and order .
This number is more than symbolic : it would make London safer for residents and more attractive for tourists and businesses .
40,000 officers alone will not solve the capital ’ s unique crime issues but it sends a clear message to criminals – that the police will be rolling deep and have the requisite numbers to actively pursue criminals until their successful prosecution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city , reset the conversation on crime , and make criminals question when – not if – they are going to be caught by law enforcement .
It is an ambitious pledge but I make no apologies for that .
It would require some tough decisions to pay for it , decisions I am ready to take .
I would enact an Emergency Crime Budget in City Hall , cutting budgets on marketing , staff , and union reps and releasing £104 milion for the police..
I would lobby the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotel levy ’ – a one per cent charge on hotel bills which would raise almost £50m annually .
London is one of the only major tourist destination cities in Europe that doesn ’ t levy such a charge .
And I would embrace technological advancements such as the NYPD Domain Awareness System to save the Met money .
Unlike the current Mayor , I am not simply approaching government with a begging bowl asking for more .
I am showing I can take measures myself to fund more officers out of City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a youth worker of 20 years and someone who grew up in a council house with a single mum , I know the importance of police presence .
I know we also have to focus on tackling the causes of crime , which is why I have also announced measures such as my Second Chances Fund , a scheme to divert young Londoners away from crime .
It is because I understand the complex factors that lead to crime that I am best placed to tackle them .
After four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nothing .
London simply can not afford another four years of broken promises and inaction .
So much is at stake on May 7th 2020 for London ’ s future .
I will hope you will join me over the next 10 weeks in doing all we can to deliver victory in London , so we can regain control of crime and make London safe .

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.
In stark contrast to national trends, crime is rising in London and has been for the past four years. Take the example of homicide: the BBC reported in January that homicides were down “for [the] first time in five years across [the] UK” despite rising in London. Beyond statistics, there are individual stories – each one shocking in their own right, but worryingly, people are becoming desensitised to the almost daily reports of more stabbings on the streets of London. But I refuse to sit back and let this continue.
Of all the issues and roles the Mayor of London is ultimately responsible for, policing is the most important. As per the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime, “Sadiq Khan, is the equivalent of the Police and Crime Commissioner and is responsible for the totality of policing in the capital.”
Therefore the Mayor must step up, make tough decisions, and accept that they are accountable for policing and keeping Londoners safe. The buck stops with the Mayor if crime is rising on their watch.
Sadly, Sadiq Khan refuses to take responsibility for soaring crime on his watch. Knife crime is at record levels in London, the murder rate has hit an 11-year high, burglaries are up 38% on his watch. But this Mayor refuses to step up, do his job and take action.
I am leading the fightback against the inaction of the Mayor and a few days ago, I announced my plan to get 40,000 police officers on the streets of London. This is what I meant when I previously stated that London requires ‘New York levels of policing’ in order to restore law and order. This number is more than symbolic: it would make London safer for residents and more attractive for tourists and businesses.
40,000 officers alone will not solve the capital’s unique crime issues but it sends a clear message to criminals – that the police will be rolling deep and have the requisite numbers to actively pursue criminals until their successful prosecution. This will force a change of culture in the city, reset the conversation on crime, and make criminals question when – not if – they are going to be caught by law enforcement.
It is an ambitious pledge but I make no apologies for that. It would require some tough decisions to pay for it, decisions I am ready to take. I would enact an Emergency Crime Budget in City Hall, cutting budgets on marketing, staff ,and union reps and releasing £104 milion for the police.. I would lobby the government for the power to introduce a ‘hotel levy’ – a one per cent charge on hotel bills which would raise almost £50m annually. London is one of the only major tourist destination cities in Europe that doesn’t levy such a charge. And I would embrace technological advancements such as the NYPD Domain Awareness System to save the Met money.
Unlike the current Mayor, I am not simply approaching government with a begging bowl asking for more. I am showing I can take measures myself to fund more officers out of City Hall’s budgets and embracing technology.
As a youth worker of 20 years and someone who grew up in a council house with a single mum, I know the importance of police presence. I know we also have to focus on tackling the causes of crime, which is why I have also announced measures such as my Second Chances Fund, a scheme to divert young Londoners away from crime.
It is because I understand the complex factors that lead to crime that I am best placed to tackle them.
After four years as Mayor, Khan has delivered next to nothing. London simply cannot afford another four years of broken promises and inaction.
So much is at stake on May 7th 2020 for London’s future. I will hope you will join me over the next 10 weeks in doing all we can to deliver victory in London, so we can regain control of crime and make London safe.


conservativehome--2020-03-06--Free speech is in crisis at universities. Just ask Rudd.

Yesterday , in an incident that was beyond parody , Amber Rudd was no-platformed from Oxford University for allegedly “ exacerbating racial and class tensions ” .
What did this mean , exactly ?
Well , it turned out that the students were upset over her involvement in the Windrush scandal .
Fair enough , one might say , but what wasn ’ t so fair was the way in which they put forward their objections .
Far from using the opportunity to debate and scrutinise Rudd , they held a committee meeting – probably resembling something out of Lord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cancel her talk .
Speaking of the decision , the UNWomen Oxford UK Student Society wrote : “ We are deeply sorry for all and any hurt caused to our members and other wom*n and non binary people in Oxford over this event.
” But the only “ hurt ” they caused was presumably experienced by Rudd , who found herself on the receiving end of their pathetic zealotry ( why else would they use the word “ wom*n ” ? )
.
The whole debacle serves as an enormous wake-up call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become at universities – and , indeed , the West .
So much so that the former Home Secretary is now treated as if she were Abu Hamza or Tommy Robinson .
The Left has historically called the free speech crisis concocted ; they seem to think Tories are making it up , so that we can be offensive as possible .
Every Guardian piece on the issue suggests we want regulations to disappear so that we can normalise hate speech .
This is a smear , obviously .
The reality is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the most inoffensive of comments and ideas .
Moderate voices are increasingly being removed from discussions at the whim of left-wing ideologues .
Censorship has , generally , created immense fear in our culture , having been used as a tool by faux liberals to eliminate political dissent and solidify left-wink groupthink .
Far from actually being offended , one suspects censorious students get a kick out of cancelling others .
Fortunately , the Tories seem to understand how serious matters are .
In their manifesto , they have pledged to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universities ” , and have Dr Munira Mirza as one of their key advisors , who has a strong understanding of the censorship culture there .
Writing for The Times in February , Gavin Williamson has even gone so far as to declare that if universities didn ’ t take action to protect freedom of speech on campus the government would .
The issue , however , is that it ’ s not entirely obvious what mechanisms the Tories can use to do this .
Williamson , for instance , has pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence are crimes .
But the “ right to civil and non-violent protest is sacrosanct ” .
Herein lies the problem ; non-violent protest is the main way in which students get their way .
They cancel speakers , or ignore them , or create petitions , and the rest .
Students technically haven ’ t broken any rules with these methods , so they ’ re very difficult to deal with .
It seems to me that the change will come from more serious reforms to universities .
For one , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work out who will truly appreciate the experience .
Clearly the Oxford brats are not suitable for higher education .
One suspects they are a product of too many teenagers being shoved into the university system ; thus they treat it in the same vein as school , as if someone forced them to go .
No-platforming is their little rebellion .
We must also ensure that those running universities have more of a grip on the situation – which would be easier if they were not having to deal with such colossal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of universities becoming all about bums on seats .
With academics having such little contact time with scholars , is it any wonder that young people – left to their own devices – are throwing their toys out of the pram ?
Maybe universities should take disciplinary procedures more seriously , too – dare I say even go so far as to suspend or expel students who engage in censorious tactics ( give them a taste of their own no-platforming medicine ) .
They could enshrine free speech in their applications process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the university understands its importance , and will not engage in cancel tactics .
Fundamentally , something major has to be done to end this nonsense .
Students may be students now , but one day they will be serious decision makers in the UK – lawyers , politicians and the rest .
Do we really want people who get upset about Amber Rudd to be calling the shots ?
What is today ’ s daft story about university snowflakes puts in jeopardy our future ability to speak .

Yesterday, in an incident that was beyond parody, Amber Rudd was no-platformed from Oxford University for allegedly “exacerbating racial and class tensions”.
What did this mean, exactly? Well, it turned out that the students were upset over her involvement in the Windrush scandal. Fair enough, one might say, but what wasn’t so fair was the way in which they put forward their objections.
Far from using the opportunity to debate and scrutinise Rudd, they held a committee meeting – probably resembling something out of Lord of the Flies – where they voted to cancel her talk.
Speaking of the decision, the UNWomen Oxford UK Student Society wrote: “We are deeply sorry for all and any hurt caused to our members and other wom*n and non binary people in Oxford over this event.”
But the only “hurt” they caused was presumably experienced by Rudd, who found herself on the receiving end of their pathetic zealotry (why else would they use the word “wom*n”?).
The whole debacle serves as an enormous wake-up call about how extreme the free speech crisis has become at universities – and, indeed, the West. So much so that the former Home Secretary is now treated as if she were Abu Hamza or Tommy Robinson.
The Left has historically called the free speech crisis concocted; they seem to think Tories are making it up, so that we can be offensive as possible. Every Guardian piece on the issue suggests we want regulations to disappear so that we can normalise hate speech.
This is a smear, obviously. The reality is that censorship has been used to shut down the most inoffensive of comments and ideas. Moderate voices are increasingly being removed from discussions at the whim of left-wing ideologues.
Censorship has, generally, created immense fear in our culture, having been used as a tool by faux liberals to eliminate political dissent and solidify left-wing groupthink. Far from actually being offended, one suspects censorious students get a kick out of cancelling others.
Fortunately, the Tories seem to understand how serious matters are. In their manifesto, they have pledged to “strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities”, and have Dr Munira Mirza as one of their key advisors, who has a strong understanding of the censorship culture there.
Writing for The Times in February, Gavin Williamson has even gone so far as to declare that if universities didn’t take action to protect freedom of speech on campus the government would.
The issue, however, is that it’s not entirely obvious what mechanisms the Tories can use to do this. Williamson, for instance, has pointed out that intimidation, violence and threats of violence are crimes. But the “right to civil and non-violent protest is sacrosanct”.
Herein lies the problem; non-violent protest is the main way in which students get their way. They cancel speakers, or ignore them, or create petitions, and the rest. Students technically haven’t broken any rules with these methods, so they’re very difficult to deal with.
It seems to me that the change will come from more serious reforms to universities. For one, we need to vet students better – to work out who will truly appreciate the experience. Clearly the Oxford brats are not suitable for higher education. One suspects they are a product of too many teenagers being shoved into the university system; thus they treat it in the same vein as school, as if someone forced them to go. No-platforming is their little rebellion.
We must also ensure that those running universities have more of a grip on the situation – which would be easier if they were not having to deal with such colossal numbers of students, as a result of universities becoming all about bums on seats. With academics having such little contact time with scholars, is it any wonder that young people – left to their own devices – are throwing their toys out of the pram?
Maybe universities should take disciplinary procedures more seriously, too – dare I say even go so far as to suspend or expel students who engage in censorious tactics (give them a taste of their own no-platforming medicine). They could enshrine free speech in their applications process, making sure that anyone who enrols at the university understands its importance, and will not engage in cancel tactics.
Fundamentally, something major has to be done to end this nonsense. Students may be students now, but one day they will be serious decision makers in the UK – lawyers, politicians and the rest. Do we really want people who get upset about Amber Rudd to be calling the shots? What is today’s daft story about university snowflakes puts in jeopardy our future ability to speak.


conservativehome--2020-03-07--Grassroots members stand by Patel in our latest Cabinet League Table

It ’ s the second Cabinet League Table of the year , and our first look at the new Government after the reshuffle .
It hasn ’ t been the best of months for the Government news-wise , but what impact has this had on the scores ?
• The Prime Minister has made a point of standing by the Home Secretary , and our respondents appear to have done the same .
Her score is down , in line with the overall pattern , but she retains fourth position .
• There has been a slight fall in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the Heathrow defeat and storm over the allegations against Priti Patel hasn ’ t shown up .
• None Another poor month for the territorial offices .
Simon Hart and Alister Jack remain near the bottom of the table , undercut only by Amanda Milling , the new Party Chairman .
Brandon Lewis is not far above them .
• The interregnum is over , and the Scottish Conservatives have a new leader .
Jackson Carlaw is currently less popular than Paul Davies , but has not yet had much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most members continue to take no view on either .

It’s the second Cabinet League Table of the year, and our first look at the new Government after the reshuffle. It hasn’t been the best of months for the Government news-wise, but what impact has this had on the scores?
Members stand by Patel. The Prime Minister has made a point of standing by the Home Secretary, and our respondents appear to have done the same. Her score is down, in line with the overall pattern, but she retains fourth position.
The Prime Minister has made a point of standing by the Home Secretary, and our respondents appear to have done the same. Her score is down, in line with the overall pattern, but she retains fourth position. Overall a slight downward trend. There has been a slight fall in the scores at the top of the table, but the Heathrow defeat and storm over the allegations against Priti Patel hasn’t shown up.
There has been a slight fall in the scores at the top of the table, but the Heathrow defeat and storm over the allegations against Priti Patel hasn’t shown up. Another poor month for the territorial offices. Simon Hart and Alister Jack remain near the bottom of the table, undercut only by Amanda Milling, the new Party Chairman. Brandon Lewis is not far above them.
Simon Hart and Alister Jack remain near the bottom of the table, undercut only by Amanda Milling, the new Party Chairman. Brandon Lewis is not far above them. Enter Carlaw. The interregnum is over, and the Scottish Conservatives have a new leader. Jackson Carlaw is currently less popular than Paul Davies, but has not yet had much of a chance to make an impression. Most members continue to take no view on either.


conservativehome--2020-03-07--Conservatism is dying: the liberals have won

Small Men on the Wrong Side of History : The Decline , Fall and Unlikely Return of Conservatism by Ed West Ed West finds himself in a predicament familiar to many conservatives who live in the trendier parts of London , and in various other places too .
A few months before his 40th birthday , it dawned on him that “ my worldview is dying ” , for no one he knows is “ becoming more conservative ” .
Instead they are becoming more left-wing .
Whole fields , “ among them teaching , academia , journalism and science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically mixed a generation ago to overwhelmingly Left-liberal today ” .
And according to West , “ the Left has also developed a moral monopoly ” , so West ’ s book was written before the Conservatives won the general election of December 2019 .
During that campaign , Labour found itself losing ground with its traditional voters because Jeremy Corbyn was known to be unpatriotic , for he had shown he supported neither the Queen nor the armed forces , but was instead on the side of various vile terrorists .
Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservatism of the working class , something achieved by every successful Conservative leader since Benjamin Disraeli , falls outside the scope of West ’ s book .
He instead offers us a wonderfully pessimistic account of what is happening inside the supposedly educated middle class , where “ Right-wing ” is now “ an irredeemably tarnished identity ” .
Nelson Mandela has a statue in Parliament Square , while Margaret Thatcher does not , for hers would be vandalised .
The eight years from 2009 to 2017 passed , West says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC comedy show about the president of the United States ( unless I missed one ) ” , because Barack Obama was president .
The coverage of politics on Radio 4 has come to seem so “ pointless and idiotic ” , and Brexit has turned so many people in public life “ into fanatics and fantasists ” , West comes to think the fall of the Berlin Wall was a setback not just for hardline Leftists , but for conservatives too : There is an enjoyably throw-away tone to this , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not quite fit the theory .
Like many conservatives , West derives a kind of perverse pleasure from the mishaps in his life , his inability to fit in , his need to keep quiet about his political opinions during social events in Crouch End , where he might all too easily be mistaken for a Nazi if he were to speak out .
I have never met him , but I was lucky enough in the 1980s to see his father , Richard West , a bohemian , not to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duke of York , the pub nearest to the offices of The Spectator in Doughty Street , often back from a journalistic assignment in Africa , Asia or Latin America , full of amusing and penetrating observations which did not fit any political orthodoxy .
For while Richard West had long since become disillusioned by the Left , to which he had given his allegiance in his youth , he was infuriated by Conservatives who , devoid of reverence for the past , promoted the desecration of Britain ’ s town centres at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction of the railways and the untrammelled triumph of the motor car .
Some of the most enjoyable passages in this book are about the author ’ s father .
In the early 1980s , while reporting on the war in Nicaragua between the communist Sandinistas and the American-backed Contras , Richard West and another writer , Peter Kemp , found themselves “ surrounded by an angry mob of Sandinista-supporting men , increasingly looking like they might turn violent against the gringos in their midst.
” West remonstrated in Spanish with the crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ and to think here you are threatening a veteran of the Spanish Civil War ” .
The crowd backed down , “ shame-faced and respectful towards the old English gentleman they had only a minute earlier threatened to pull to pieces ” .
The joke here was that Kemp – a delightful man who in between heroic spells of soldiering sold life insurance , worried about his health and wrote books – was one of the handful of Englishmen who had fought for Franco .
The problem here is that liberals won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Ed West remarks , while the Nationalists didn ’ t have Orwell , Hemingway or Laurie Lee in their army , on the other hand “ they didn ’ t massacre any nuns ” .
How is the conservative case to be made to people who don ’ t already feel the truth of it ?
The task often seems impossible , for by voicing what one takes to be conservative verities , one only creates shock , distress and antagonism .
But anyone who already has conservative sympathies will find wonderful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sketches of many figures who have passed into obscurity , for example Virginia Woolf ’ s uncle , the Victorian High Court judge James Fitzjames Stephen , who Towards the end of the book , West is rung up by Steve Bannon , who talks on and on in a revolutionary tone about how they are going “ to overthrow the tired old Republican establishment and put their own nationalist candidate in the White House ” .
West listens – this is in September 2014 – and thinks to himself : Bannon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK site , which West turns down , for though he reckons he could “ probably handle being a social leper ” , he couldn ’ t bear “ the thought of hating myself ” , because of the tone in which he expected he would find himself writing about immigrants .
And yet cheerfulness keeps breaking in , and an engaging refusal to claim – though he canters though various thinkers , including Augustine , Hobbes and the dreadful Rousseau – that he has discovered an impregnable philosophical case for his beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters more than liberals think it should be allowed to matter .
He contends that In my eagerness to review this book , I find I have jumped the gun : I realise belatedly that it will not be published until 19th March .
But it is worth waiting for , because instead of expounding a system , it describes with tremendous vividness the mentality of a Tory who will not be imprisoned in a system .

Small Men on the Wrong Side of History: The Decline, Fall and Unlikely Return of Conservatism by Ed West
Ed West finds himself in a predicament familiar to many conservatives who live in the trendier parts of London, and in various other places too. A few months before his 40th birthday, it dawned on him that “my worldview is dying”, for no one he knows is “becoming more conservative”.
Instead they are becoming more left-wing. Whole fields, “among them teaching, academia, journalism and science”, have “gone from being politically mixed a generation ago to overwhelmingly Left-liberal today”.
And according to West, “the Left has also developed a moral monopoly”, so
“those outside of the faith are under an unspoken obligation to prove their moral worth before their views can be considered, just as non-believers in highly religious societies have an air of suspicion hanging over their every word. Because of this, one of the de facto expectations for conservatives in public life is that they must denounce those to the Right of them, and so the boundary of what is acceptable shifts Leftward…”
West’s book was written before the Conservatives won the general election of December 2019. During that campaign, Labour found itself losing ground with its traditional voters because Jeremy Corbyn was known to be unpatriotic, for he had shown he supported neither the Queen nor the armed forces, but was instead on the side of various vile terrorists.
Boris Johnson’s ability to appeal to the conservatism of the working class, something achieved by every successful Conservative leader since Benjamin Disraeli, falls outside the scope of West’s book.
He instead offers us a wonderfully pessimistic account of what is happening inside the supposedly educated middle class, where “Right-wing” is now “an irredeemably tarnished identity”.
Nelson Mandela has a statue in Parliament Square, while Margaret Thatcher does not, for hers would be vandalised.
The eight years from 2009 to 2017 passed, West says, “without a single joke on any BBC comedy show about the president of the United States (unless I missed one)”, because Barack Obama was president.
The coverage of politics on Radio 4 has come to seem so “pointless and idiotic”, and Brexit has turned so many people in public life “into fanatics and fantasists”,
“I just turn on Radio 3 with its nice soothing classical music; occasionally they’ll interrupt the tunes to have something about encouraging diversity in the arts but I imagine it’s just one of those things they have to say, like in communist systems where, whatever your job, you had to repeat some token quote by Marx once in a while so they didn’t hassle you.”
West comes to think the fall of the Berlin Wall was a setback not just for hardline Leftists, but for conservatives too:
“It moved our opponents away from economic arguments, which they’re not very good at winning, towards social ones, which they are…the Right replies with polemics that are shouty and self-satisfied, and too little explore where our arguments have failed to find an audience and why people find us so repulsive. Where did we go wrong? Or as Michael Douglas’s character says in Falling Down, one of the few recent Hollywood films that had a conservative message, ‘I’m the bad guy? How’d that happen?’ (Admittedly he’d shot quite a few people by this stage and was stalking and threatening to kill his ex-wife, so maybe we’ll gloss over that bit.)”
There is an enjoyably throw-away tone to this, and a willingness to admit when the facts do not quite fit the theory. Like many conservatives, West derives a kind of perverse pleasure from the mishaps in his life, his inability to fit in, his need to keep quiet about his political opinions during social events in Crouch End, where he might all too easily be mistaken for a Nazi if he were to speak out.
I have never met him, but I was lucky enough in the 1980s to see his father, Richard West, a bohemian, not to say anarchic figure who would come into the Duke of York, the pub nearest to the offices of The Spectator in Doughty Street, often back from a journalistic assignment in Africa, Asia or Latin America, full of amusing and penetrating observations which did not fit any political orthodoxy.
For while Richard West had long since become disillusioned by the Left, to which he had given his allegiance in his youth, he was infuriated by Conservatives who, devoid of reverence for the past, promoted the desecration of Britain’s town centres at the hands of property developers, the destruction of the railways and the untrammelled triumph of the motor car.
Some of the most enjoyable passages in this book are about the author’s father. In the early 1980s, while reporting on the war in Nicaragua between the communist Sandinistas and the American-backed Contras, Richard West and another writer, Peter Kemp, found themselves “surrounded by an angry mob of Sandinista-supporting men, increasingly looking like they might turn violent against the gringos in their midst.”
West remonstrated in Spanish with the crowd, pointing to Kemp and saying, “and to think here you are threatening a veteran of the Spanish Civil War”.
The crowd backed down, “shame-faced and respectful towards the old English gentleman they had only a minute earlier threatened to pull to pieces”.
The joke here was that Kemp – a delightful man who in between heroic spells of soldiering sold life insurance, worried about his health and wrote books – was one of the handful of Englishmen who had fought for Franco.
The problem here is that liberals won’t find that funny – though as Ed West remarks, while the Nationalists didn’t have Orwell, Hemingway or Laurie Lee in their army, on the other hand “they didn’t massacre any nuns”.
How is the conservative case to be made to people who don’t already feel the truth of it? The task often seems impossible, for by voicing what one takes to be conservative verities, one only creates shock, distress and antagonism.
But anyone who already has conservative sympathies will find wonderful things in West’s book, and sketches of many figures who have passed into obscurity, for example Virginia Woolf’s uncle, the Victorian High Court judge James Fitzjames Stephen, who
“rejected the radical idea of a ‘brotherhood of man’, stating that: ‘It is not love that one wants from the great mass of mankind, but respect and justice.’ Are we brothers? he asked. ‘Are we even fiftieth cousins?’ In his book Liberty, Equality and Fraternity – none of which he entirely approved of – Stephen argued that ‘Humanity is only I writ large, and love for Humanity generally means zeal for MY notions as to what men should be and how they should live.”
Towards the end of the book, West is rung up by Steve Bannon, who talks on and on in a revolutionary tone about how they are going “to overthrow the tired old Republican establishment and put their own nationalist candidate in the White House”.
West listens – this is in September 2014 – and thinks to himself:
“What on earth is he on about? They’ll never get some crazy outsider with no experience elected president on a populist ticket!”
Bannon offers him a job running the Breitbart UK site, which West turns down, for though he reckons he could “probably handle being a social leper”, he couldn’t bear “the thought of hating myself”, because of the tone in which he expected he would find himself writing about immigrants.
And yet cheerfulness keeps breaking in, and an engaging refusal to claim – though he canters though various thinkers, including Augustine, Hobbes and the dreadful Rousseau – that he has discovered an impregnable philosophical case for his beliefs:
“as I got older I came to accept all my political stances are effectively based on irrational feelings of annoyance about smugness and sanctimony.”
West comes to see that heredity matters more than liberals think it should be allowed to matter. He contends that
“Our thirties are the decade we become who we were destined to be, our true selves emerging as the pressure to conform reduces… We are free – to become our parents. Inevitably, much as I resisted it, I was starting to think like my dad, in particular his belief that the Conservatives aren’t actually interested in conserving much. Nor, once they had cut down the state, did they have any ideas about what holds society together.”
In my eagerness to review this book, I find I have jumped the gun: I realise belatedly that it will not be published until 19th March. But it is worth waiting for, because instead of expounding a system, it describes with tremendous vividness the mentality of a Tory who will not be imprisoned in a system.


conservativehome--2020-03-08--WATCH: The Chancellor downplays suggestions the coronavirus will postpone Brexit

Asked if coronavirus could delay Brexit , Chancellor Rishi Sunak says : “ Delay doesn ’ t lead to any @ @ @ @ @ s not helpful , and actually having a fixed timetable and delivering on it is @ @ @ @ @ # Marr https : //t.co/oUvtcr5JEU pic.twitter.com/r0Z6RRoH95

Asked if coronavirus could delay Brexit, Chancellor Rishi Sunak says:
“Delay doesn’t lead to any good outcomes, it’s not helpful, and actually having a fixed timetable and delivering on it is the important thing here”#Marr https://t.co/oUvtcr5JEU pic.twitter.com/r0Z6RRoH95
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-08--WATCH: McDonnell – “There’s always a bit of a tussle”, but Labour is not riven by factional warfare

`` That ’ s not my view of what was happening , '' says Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell , responding @ @ @ @ @ comments on Labour ’ s `` factional war '' # Marr https : //t.co/AChIczx1nE pic.twitter.com/tbfeaN18aw

"That’s not my view of what was happening," says Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, responding to Lisa Nandy’s comments on Labour’s "factional war"#Marr https://t.co/AChIczx1nE pic.twitter.com/tbfeaN18aw
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-08--WATCH: “I don’t intend to get into a position of criticising the UK government over this” – Sturgeon

WATCH: “I don’t intend to get into a position of criticising the UK government over this” – Sturgeon on COVID-19

“ I don ’ t intend to get into a position of criticising the UK government over this because I @ @ @ @ @ ” Scottish First Minister @ NicolaSturgeon says governments across the UK are “ all working @ @ @ @ @ ” .

“I don’t intend to get into a position of criticising the UK government over this because I want us to work together”
Scottish First Minister @NicolaSturgeon says governments across the UK are “all working as hard as we can”.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/LYNGMwp38s pic.twitter.com/I88YozhD32
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-08--WATCH: Sunak won’t say whether he intends to raise fuel duty in the Budget

“ Before every budget there is speculation about any number of things ” Chancellor @ RishiSunak won ’ t reveal @ @ @ @ @ duty , saying “ I ’ m not going to be able to go through @ @ @ @ @ the budget ”

“Before every budget there is speculation about any number of things”
Chancellor @RishiSunak won’t reveal whether he will raise fuel duty, saying “I’m not going to be able to go through every measure with you before the budget”
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/LYNGMwp38s pic.twitter.com/rvBiaQihg5
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-08--British politics begins self-isolation

British politics begins self-isolation

Politics became tundra during Brexit .
The coming-together of the biggest electoral event in our history and a Government with no majority in Parliament saw to that .
Debate on leaving the EU consumed the chamber .
There was little other legislation of any note .
Ministerial work continued but activity dropped .
There was little point in pushing for , say , social care reform in the circumstances .
Budgets were necessarily more modest than they would otherwise have been .
The media , both old and new , adjusted accordingly .
Boris Johnson ’ s near-landslide election triumph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first single-party government with a strong majority in 15 years .
For the best part of three months , we have enjoyed something nearer post-war normality – albeit with an Opposition weaker than any since the Conservative one of the late 1990s .
Whatever the prevalance and fatality of the coronavirus may turn to be , it ’ s evident that all this has come to a halt , and that politics in Britain is heading again into the deep freeze .
Perhaps it would be better to say that it is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech from the response to the illness itself .
We don ’ t just refer by this to the possible closure of Parliament to visitors , or even to MPs and peers being barred from the Palace of Westminster for a period .
Rather , we ’ re thinking of the wider effects .
Once again , the media will necessarily focus on a single story .
Downing Street will minimise the number of announcements made by Ministers .
Measures that they want to get a big publicity bang will be delayed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the Government has a big enough majority to push through almost any measure it likes .
The coronavirus will give it the opportunity to slip controversial Bills through the Commons with less public protest than usual .
It will overshadow Keir Starmer ’ s likely election as Labour leader .
That ought to reduce any early bounce that Labour gets in the polls , all other things being equal – and thus hold back that party ’ s performance in the local elections , assuming that these take place at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the top of the civil service in the wake of Philip Rutnam ’ s resignation .
The warmer spring weather ought to see the virus off this summer , but it will back again next winter .
Those of us who survive the coming outbreak , that ’ s to say the vast majority , will literally have to live with it .

Politics became tundra during Brexit. The coming-together of the biggest electoral event in our history and a Government with no majority in Parliament saw to that. Debate on leaving the EU consumed the chamber. There was little other legislation of any note.
Ministerial work continued but activity dropped. There was little point in pushing for, say, social care reform in the circumstances. Budgets were necessarily more modest than they would otherwise have been. The media, both old and new, adjusted accordingly.
Boris Johnson’s near-landslide election triumph ended all that, and returned the first single-party government with a strong majority in 15 years. For the best part of three months, we have enjoyed something nearer post-war normality – albeit with an Opposition weaker than any since the Conservative one of the late 1990s.
Whatever the prevalance and fatality of the coronavirus may turn to be, it’s evident that all this has come to a halt, and that politics in Britain is heading again into the deep freeze.
Perhaps it would be better to say that it is about to self-isolate – borrowing a figure of speech from the response to the illness itself. We don’t just refer by this to the possible closure of Parliament to visitors, or even to MPs and peers being barred from the Palace of Westminster for a period.
Rather, we’re thinking of the wider effects. Once again, the media will necessarily focus on a single story. Downing Street will minimise the number of announcements made by Ministers. Measures that they want to get a big publicity bang will be delayed.
The difference between this year and last is that the Government has a big enough majority to push through almost any measure it likes. The coronavirus will give it the opportunity to slip controversial Bills through the Commons with less public protest than usual. It will overshadow Keir Starmer’s likely election as Labour leader.
That ought to reduce any early bounce that Labour gets in the polls, all other things being equal – and thus hold back that party’s performance in the local elections, assuming that these take place at all.
It should also halt any revolt at the top of the civil service in the wake of Philip Rutnam’s resignation. The warmer spring weather ought to see the virus off this summer, but it will back again next winter. Those of us who survive the coming outbreak, that’s to say the vast majority, will literally have to live with it.


conservativehome--2020-03-09--My row with Gordon Brown.  And what it taught me about the state of the Union.

For a politician whose career reached its apex during the era of New Labour hyper-professionalism , Gordon Brown never developed the knack of it himself .
Whilst he can be a stand-out performer in a set-piece setting , he struggles with his critics .
Like a writer who can ’ t resist wading in below the line to pick fights in the comments , he is wont to get drawn in to firefights which are seldom in his interest .
A recent conference in Newcastle organised by These Islands , a pro-UK group , offered me an unexpected opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my surprise , the person exchanging fire with him ended up being me .
Brown was opening the conference , and whatever his faults he is remains a powerful public speaker .
This won ’ t surprise anyone familiar with his stand-out address at the climax of the 2014 referendum campaign , but it was nonetheless impressive to see him set out a multi-faceted , statistic-heavy argument , over at least 40 minutes , without notes .
Beneath this surface polish , however , there was a gaping void at the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former Chancellor and Prime Minister is one of the principal architects of our current constitutional arrangements .
Given the apparently parlous state of the Union , he must at least have a case to answer .
Yet there was little evidence of any such self-criticism , and what there was fell firmly into what one writer described ( perhaps aptly , in this case ? )
as the ‘ More Stalin ’ school .
As Scott Alexander puts it : “ If you “ criticise ” society by telling it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing only much much more so , society recognizes you as an ally and rewards you for being a “ bold iconoclast ” or “ having brave and revolutionary new ideas ” or whatever .
It ’ s only when you tell them something they actually don ’ t want to hear that you get in trouble.
” There can be few paragraphs which so perfectly sum up the state of the debate on devolution , but it was especially true here .
Where Brown admitted fault , it was in not grasping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been , and now strong a dose of his preferred medicine the nation really needed .
His every proposal , however radical-seeming , was rooted in the same intellectual soil .
Even where he didn ’ t wish to give the devolved institutions more powers , he still called for them to be given more power relative to the British Government .
Critical scrutiny of what has already been done was confined to claims that it had not been done enough .
In the rare instance that he dwelt on shortcomings of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the implications for the stand-off between the British and Scottish governments over the COP26 summit for models based on an ‘ inter-governmental ’ approach to UK-wide policymaking – he then declined to draw the obvious conclusion , instead simply saying that we simply must make such arrangements work .
Perhaps in an effort to mask this void , Brown attempted a little illusion in which he held up Michael Forsyth ’ s vain efforts to salvage Tory unionism in the 1990s as a counter-example to his own ideas .
After painting an entertaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , painfully vivid ) portrait of the then-Scottish Secretary ’ s stunt with the Stone of Destiny , Brown drove the point home by emphasising that the plan ended with the Tories losing all their Scottish MPs and the SNP being stronger than ever .
It was on this point that we quarrelled .
Beyond being a gratuitous piece of partisan score-settling with an administration which has been out of office for almost a quarter-century , this passage struck me as both misleading and unfair .
Misleading because it invited the audience to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wrong , Brown ’ s must be right .
Unfair because assessed with the benefit of hindsight , it is at all clear that Brown ’ s strategy was not , in fact , the bigger failure .
After all , Forsyth became Scottish Secretary only in 1995 .
His party ’ s position in Scotland had deteriorated and he had scant time or resources with which to try and compensate for Thatcherism ’ s lack of a unionist strategy .
His position was so bad that one commentator vividly remembers him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the helm of a satanically unpopular party ” .
By contrast , Brown , as half of New Labour ’ s dysfunctional diarchy , was able to push forward his constitutional vision in full during a 13-year period in office , and with the full support of a hegemonic Scottish Labour Party .
If both strategies ended with their respective parties wiped out , and their former position ceded to the SNP , Labour ’ s was by some distance the more catastrophic failure – precisely because of how strong their former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown in the Q & A after this speech was twofold .
First , did he recognise that , considered over a twenty-year stretch from when they took office , New Labour ’ s constitutional strategy had delivered precisely the outcome he had so mocked Forsyth for ?
Second , and in light of this , did he not think that those who advocated devolution ought to have a proper intellectual reckoning with the failure of their programme to deliver a stronger , more stable UK before they presumed to know how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice amounted to a fresh prescription of the same medicine ?
Another politician might have brushed this off , or affected an easy pivot to more comfortable ground .
But despite having reached the height of his powers in the era of New Labour spin , Brown can ’ t or won ’ t do that .
Instead , clearly riled , he decided that the best form of defence was attack .
At one point he even started firing questions back at me from the stage , putting paid to the moderators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A .
One of those questions , though , was the closest he got to answering mine : when he asked me if I accepted that ‘ devo-max ’ would have got 80 per cent or more had it been on the ballot paper during the 2014 referendum .
This , which due to the circumstances I wasn ’ t able to answer on the day , is a telling insight into the shortcomings of Brown ’ s constitutional thinking .
Setting aside the fact that you can not unilaterally decide the terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union , so having ‘ devo-max ’ as a question to be decided by Scots alone was always nonsense , it betrays a fundamental failure to recognise that it is possible to win battles in a manner which loses wars .
A larger margin of victory in a referendum has some value , but it must be weighed against the danger posed by winning with promises to restructure the UK in a way that will fundamentally weakening it .
Buying off the separatists with such concessions is , in terms a former Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling assets to cover costs .
That way lies bankruptcy .
When someone betrays so clear a fear of looking backwards as Brown evinced that Friday morning , one must wonder what horrors they think lurk in their wake .
As the Government prepares to launch its constitutional review and take the fight to the SNP , it must not be led astray by those whose first priority appears to be safeguarding their reputations .

For a politician whose career reached its apex during the era of New Labour hyper-professionalism, Gordon Brown never developed the knack of it himself.
Whilst he can be a stand-out performer in a set-piece setting, he struggles with his critics. Like a writer who can’t resist wading in below the line to pick fights in the comments, he is wont to get drawn in to firefights which are seldom in his interest.
A recent conference in Newcastle organised by These Islands, a pro-UK group, offered me an unexpected opportunity to witness this first-hand when, slightly to my surprise, the person exchanging fire with him ended up being me.
Brown was opening the conference, and whatever his faults he is remains a powerful public speaker. This won’t surprise anyone familiar with his stand-out address at the climax of the 2014 referendum campaign, but it was nonetheless impressive to see him set out a multi-faceted, statistic-heavy argument, over at least 40 minutes, without notes.
Beneath this surface polish, however, there was a gaping void at the heart of the speech. Like it or not, the former Chancellor and Prime Minister is one of the principal architects of our current constitutional arrangements. Given the apparently parlous state of the Union, he must at least have a case to answer.
Yet there was little evidence of any such self-criticism, and what there was fell firmly into what one writer described (perhaps aptly, in this case?) as the ‘More Stalin’ school. As Scott Alexander puts it:
“If you “criticise” society by telling it to keep doing exactly what it’s doing only much much more so, society recognizes you as an ally and rewards you for being a “bold iconoclast” or “having brave and revolutionary new ideas” or whatever. It’s only when you tell them something they actually don’t want to hear that you get in trouble.”
There can be few paragraphs which so perfectly sum up the state of the debate on devolution, but it was especially true here. Where Brown admitted fault, it was in not grasping back then how right he had truly been, and now strong a dose of his preferred medicine the nation really needed. His every proposal, however radical-seeming, was rooted in the same intellectual soil. Even where he didn’t wish to give the devolved institutions more powers, he still called for them to be given more power relative to the British Government.
Critical scrutiny of what has already been done was confined to claims that it had not been done enough. In the rare instance that he dwelt on shortcomings of one of his preferred approaches – such as the implications for the stand-off between the British and Scottish governments over the COP26 summit for models based on an ‘inter-governmental’ approach to UK-wide policymaking – he then declined to draw the obvious conclusion, instead simply saying that we simply must make such arrangements work.
Perhaps in an effort to mask this void, Brown attempted a little illusion in which he held up Michael Forsyth’s vain efforts to salvage Tory unionism in the 1990s as a counter-example to his own ideas. After painting an entertaining (and for Conservatives, at least, painfully vivid) portrait of the then-Scottish Secretary’s stunt with the Stone of Destiny, Brown drove the point home by emphasising that the plan ended with the Tories losing all their Scottish MPs and the SNP being stronger than ever.
It was on this point that we quarrelled.
Beyond being a gratuitous piece of partisan score-settling with an administration which has been out of office for almost a quarter-century, this passage struck me as both misleading and unfair. Misleading because it invited the audience to believe that if Forsyth’s strategy was wrong, Brown’s must be right. Unfair because assessed with the benefit of hindsight, it is at all clear that Brown’s strategy was not, in fact, the bigger failure.
After all, Forsyth became Scottish Secretary only in 1995. His party’s position in Scotland had deteriorated and he had scant time or resources with which to try and compensate for Thatcherism’s lack of a unionist strategy. His position was so bad that one commentator vividly remembers him as “standing like a pirate captain at the helm of a satanically unpopular party”.
By contrast, Brown, as half of New Labour’s dysfunctional diarchy, was able to push forward his constitutional vision in full during a 13-year period in office, and with the full support of a hegemonic Scottish Labour Party.
If both strategies ended with their respective parties wiped out, and their former position ceded to the SNP, Labour’s was by some distance the more catastrophic failure – precisely because of how strong their former position had been.
My question to Brown in the Q&A after this speech was twofold.
First, did he recognise that, considered over a twenty-year stretch from when they took office, New Labour’s constitutional strategy had delivered precisely the outcome he had so mocked Forsyth for?
Second, and in light of this, did he not think that those who advocated devolution ought to have a proper intellectual reckoning with the failure of their programme to deliver a stronger, more stable UK before they presumed to know how to achieve one now, especially if their advice amounted to a fresh prescription of the same medicine?
Another politician might have brushed this off, or affected an easy pivot to more comfortable ground. But despite having reached the height of his powers in the era of New Labour spin, Brown can’t or won’t do that. Instead, clearly riled, he decided that the best form of defence was attack. At one point he even started firing questions back at me from the stage, putting paid to the moderators’ hopes of continuing the Q&A.
One of those questions, though, was the closest he got to answering mine: when he asked me if I accepted that ‘devo-max’ would have got 80 per cent or more had it been on the ballot paper during the 2014 referendum.
This, which due to the circumstances I wasn’t able to answer on the day, is a telling insight into the shortcomings of Brown’s constitutional thinking. Setting aside the fact that you cannot unilaterally decide the terms of a multi-lateral arrangement such as the Union, so having ‘devo-max’ as a question to be decided by Scots alone was always nonsense, it betrays a fundamental failure to recognise that it is possible to win battles in a manner which loses wars.
A larger margin of victory in a referendum has some value, but it must be weighed against the danger posed by winning with promises to restructure the UK in a way that will fundamentally weakening it. Buying off the separatists with such concessions is, in terms a former Chancellor should understand, the constitutional equivalent of selling assets to cover costs. That way lies bankruptcy.
When someone betrays so clear a fear of looking backwards as Brown evinced that Friday morning, one must wonder what horrors they think lurk in their wake. As the Government prepares to launch its constitutional review and take the fight to the SNP, it must not be led astray by those whose first priority appears to be safeguarding their reputations.


Coronavirus Count

From the Government ’ s webpage Coronavirus ( COVID-19 : latest information and advice . )
Number of people tested in the UK : 23,513 .
Number of people tested positive who have since died : two .
“ The UK Chief Medical Officers have raised the risk to the public from low to moderate ” – from the Government ’ s NHS website overview .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus • In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see our coronavirus advice for travellers • You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus • In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview 1 ) Avoid contact with those returning from the following countries : 2 ) Self-isolate if you ’ ve travelled from the following places during the last 14 days and have a cough , temperature or shortness of breath – even if your symptoms are mild : • Italy outside of the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the special care zones .

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


conservativehome--2020-03-09--Neil O’Brien: The balance of power between economic and social conservatives may be shifting to the

Neil O’Brien: The balance of power between economic and social conservatives may be shifting to the latter

Are free markets and social conservatism friends , or enemies ?
For most of the 20th century it seemed obvious : the two were allies , up against the same common foes .
The Soviet Union and China were command economies but also command societies .
They attacked private property , but also religion and tradition .
If you didn ’ t starve in the Great Leap Forward , you could be shot in the Cultural Revolution .
By contrast , the good guys were fighting on both fronts : Solidarity trade unionists pinned to the gates of Gdansk shipyard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pictures of the Pope .
Later that decade , the Berlin wall fell and Stalin ’ s mocking question about how many divisions the Pope had was answered definitively : “ more than you , mate ” .
Today , although the Conservative Party remains the home of both social and economic conservatism , the two can have a somewhat scratchy relationship .
Most Conservatives are a bit of both , though of course there are libertarian types who want to legalise drugs and tear up red tape on the one hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post liberal ” types , more interested in fighting social breakdown than shrinking the state .
Where do social conservatives differ from free marketeers ?
They want to reduce immigration , not have free movement .
They worry that other aspects of globalisation undermine the nation state , democracy and even our security .
They worry that market forces are taking their toll on family life .
People work so hard they don ’ t see their kids , and work email intrudes at home .
That in the name of social mobility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living a long way from their family .
They hate Treasury attempts to force up the number of double earner households at the expense of individual choice – whether it is the UK ’ s highly individualistic tax system , or childcare vouchers that don ’ t help stay at home parents .
They hate unbridled commercial culture .
Why so many adverts pushing gambling at us ?
Wasn ’ t sport better before it go so commercial ?
Can ’ t we stop big tech firms trying to hook our kids ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate the BBC ’ s left-wing bias , in theory they quite like the idea of a non-commercial British broadcaster if it could be made more neutral .
What to make of these arguments ?
On migration there is some tension .
My view is that we can have a lively free market with a lower level of migration .
Yes , we need some people coming in and out , but the levels we have been running at really are unprecedented , and we had higher rates of growth in periods when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have to be super socially conservative to think that 642,000 people a year arriving over the last year ( 240,000 more than left ) is really quite a lot .
On globalisation and trade , discovering that we have to rely on Huawei for 5G technology has spooked many people .
On that very specific argument , I ’ m prepared to trust the Prime Minister and the security services when they say they can control any risk .
But more generally , I think we need to retain certain national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we now live in a country that has to beg the French , Chinese or Koreans to build us a nuclear power station : Gordon Brown was wrong to sell off Westinghouse .
But we need to be clear about what capabilities we need to hold onto as a nation without falling into the French trap of declaring a “ strategic yoghurt policy ” and intervening all over the place .
On family life , I ’ m not so sure of the social conservative argument .
The average employee works substantially fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s more scope for family life , albeit that work does intrude at home more for professionals .
Though family life has changed a lot , it ’ s not obvious that free market economics is mainly responsible .
There ’ s no doubt that more secure work and higher employment is generally good for family life : its easier not to fall out with your husband/wife/children if you are not desperately stressed .
I also want more secure work , but the balancing act is to avoid regulating the labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fewer jobs and less security .
When it comes to vouchers and other tied support for childcare , I actually see both libertarians and social conservatives making the case for just putting the money in people ’ s hands : having a tax allowance for children rather than support tied to formal childcare ( the 30 free hours , tax free childcare ) would give people more freedom to arrange their own affairs .
Yes , there would be “ deadweight ” , and pound for pound the response in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with policies which incentivise dual earning .
But if you choose to stay home , or use the money to pay for granny ’ s petrol so that she can pop over , then why should the state object ?
Perhaps both libertarians and social conservatives are really fighting fiscal conservatives here .
Some similar arguments might apply to individual versus family taxation .
Just the other day CARE published a report pointing out that one-earner couples face much higher marginal tax rates in the UK than most other developed countries because our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s a political choice , not the free market .
On the argument about market forces taking children away from parents – well , much of that is not about the free market , but about the UK state funding a huge expansion of residential higher education .
Thanks to Tony Blair nearly half of young people move away at 18 , and lots won ’ t ever go back .
Other countries have local community colleges and put more emphasis on technical education .
Courtesy of the Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that for nearly half of university students taxpayer subsidy for their course will be a net negative for the exchequer .
If we rebalance resources towards technical education that would make sense in itself , but also level up poorer places and also keep extended families together more .
When it comes to the commercialisation of culture , my sympathies are with social conservatives .
And I ’ ve met too many young people who have been sucked into problem gambling .
If there is one good thing the BBC does , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids ’ TV that has some sort of values , and doesn ’ t overtly or covertly try to turn your children into agents of “ pester power ” .
Against that , free marketeers might reply that a big state , institutions like the BBC and public sector trade unions tend to be the bulwarks of social liberalism : and state employees are more likely to get sent on hopelessly flawed schemes like “ unconscious bias ” training than people who work in your local chippy .
Does reducing state power help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one hand , where the state has loosened the leash a bit in schools with academy schools , it has generally allowed ( more effective ) small-c conservative methods to come back .
On the other hand , the US has private universities , and despite being free of the state they are hardly hotbeds of conservatism .
Across the world , there ’ s been a shift in the voters who support parties of the Right .
In general , the balance of the Republican and Conservative voter coalitions has shifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We lost Putney , but gained loads of poorer seats in the north and midlands .
That ’ s highlighted the tensions .
For me , social and economic conservatism still mainly belong together .
But where the two do conflict , the balance of power may be shifting .
In the years since 1979 , economic conservatism has more progress while for much of the time social conservatives have been fighting a rearguard action .
Could a revitalised social conservatism finally be coming off the back foot ?
Only time will @ @ @

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
Are free markets and social conservatism friends, or enemies? For most of the 20th century it seemed obvious: the two were allies, up against the same common foes.
The Soviet Union and China were command economies but also command societies. They attacked private property, but also religion and tradition. If you didn’t starve in the Great Leap Forward, you could be shot in the Cultural Revolution.
By contrast, the good guys were fighting on both fronts: Solidarity trade unionists pinned to the gates of Gdansk shipyard not just their industrial demands, but pictures of the Pope. Later that decade, the Berlin wall fell and Stalin’s mocking question about how many divisions the Pope had was answered definitively: “more than you, mate”.
Today, although the Conservative Party remains the home of both social and economic conservatism, the two can have a somewhat scratchy relationship. Most Conservatives are a bit of both, though of course there are libertarian types who want to legalise drugs and tear up red tape on the one hand, and on the other there are “post liberal” types, more interested in fighting social breakdown than shrinking the state.
Where do social conservatives differ from free marketeers? They want to reduce immigration, not have free movement.
They worry that other aspects of globalisation undermine the nation state, democracy and even our security.
They worry that market forces are taking their toll on family life. People work so hard they don’t see their kids, and work email intrudes at home. That in the name of social mobility and a dynamic economy kids end up living a long way from their family.
They hate Treasury attempts to force up the number of double earner households at the expense of individual choice – whether it is the UK’s highly individualistic tax system, or childcare vouchers that don’t help stay at home parents.
They hate unbridled commercial culture. Why so many adverts pushing gambling at us? Wasn’t sport better before it go so commercial? Can’t we stop big tech firms trying to hook our kids’ eyeballs all the time? Although they hate the BBC’s left-wing bias, in theory they quite like the idea of a non-commercial British broadcaster if it could be made more neutral.
What to make of these arguments?
On migration there is some tension. My view is that we can have a lively free market with a lower level of migration. Yes, we need some people coming in and out, but the levels we have been running at really are unprecedented, and we had higher rates of growth in periods when it was much lower.
You don’t have to be super socially conservative to think that 642,000 people a year arriving over the last year (240,000 more than left) is really quite a lot.
On globalisation and trade, discovering that we have to rely on Huawei for 5G technology has spooked many people. On that very specific argument, I’m prepared to trust the Prime Minister and the security services when they say they can control any risk.
But more generally, I think we need to retain certain national capabilities: I’m concerned that we now live in a country that has to beg the French, Chinese or Koreans to build us a nuclear power station: Gordon Brown was wrong to sell off Westinghouse.
But we need to be clear about what capabilities we need to hold onto as a nation without falling into the French trap of declaring a “strategic yoghurt policy” and intervening all over the place.
On family life, I’m not so sure of the social conservative argument. The average employee works substantially fewer hours than we used to, so there’s more scope for family life, albeit that work does intrude at home more for professionals.
Though family life has changed a lot, it’s not obvious that free market economics is mainly responsible.
There’s no doubt that more secure work and higher employment is generally good for family life: its easier not to fall out with your husband/wife/children if you are not desperately stressed. I also want more secure work, but the balancing act is to avoid regulating the labour market so much that you end up with fewer jobs and less security.
When it comes to vouchers and other tied support for childcare, I actually see both libertarians and social conservatives making the case for just putting the money in people’s hands: having a tax allowance for children rather than support tied to formal childcare (the 30 free hours, tax free childcare) would give people more freedom to arrange their own affairs.
Yes, there would be “deadweight”, and pound for pound the response in terms of employment and GDP would be lower than with policies which incentivise dual earning. But if you choose to stay home, or use the money to pay for granny’s petrol so that she can pop over, then why should the state object? Perhaps both libertarians and social conservatives are really fighting fiscal conservatives here.
Some similar arguments might apply to individual versus family taxation. Just the other day CARE published a report pointing out that one-earner couples face much higher marginal tax rates in the UK than most other developed countries because our tax system doesn’t recognise children. But that’s a political choice, not the free market.
On the argument about market forces taking children away from parents – well, much of that is not about the free market, but about the UK state funding a huge expansion of residential higher education. Thanks to Tony Blair nearly half of young people move away at 18, and lots won’t ever go back. Other countries have local community colleges and put more emphasis on technical education.
Courtesy of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we now know that for nearly half of university students taxpayer subsidy for their course will be a net negative for the exchequer. If we rebalance resources towards technical education that would make sense in itself, but also level up poorer places and also keep extended families together more.
When it comes to the commercialisation of culture, my sympathies are with social conservatives. And I’ve met too many young people who have been sucked into problem gambling. If there is one good thing the BBC does, it is CBeebies, the one part of kids’ TV that has some sort of values, and doesn’t overtly or covertly try to turn your children into agents of “pester power”.
Against that, free marketeers might reply that a big state, institutions like the BBC and public sector trade unions tend to be the bulwarks of social liberalism: and state employees are more likely to get sent on hopelessly flawed schemes like “unconscious bias” training than people who work in your local chippy.
Does reducing state power help social conservatism? It depends. On the one hand, where the state has loosened the leash a bit in schools with academy schools, it has generally allowed (more effective) small-c conservative methods to come back. On the other hand, the US has private universities, and despite being free of the state they are hardly hotbeds of conservatism.
Across the world, there’s been a shift in the voters who support parties of the Right. In general, the balance of the Republican and Conservative voter coalitions has shifted a little from economic to social conservatives. We lost Putney, but gained loads of poorer seats in the north and midlands.
That’s highlighted the tensions. For me, social and economic conservatism still mainly belong together. But where the two do conflict, the balance of power may be shifting. In the years since 1979, economic conservatism has more progress while for much of the time social conservatives have been fighting a rearguard action. Could a revitalised social conservatism finally be coming off the back foot? Only time will really tell.


conservativehome--2020-03-09--Local elections: The greatest threat to the Conservatives comes from the Lib Dems

These are uncertain times .
The elections previewed in this series are still nearly two months away .
We still have the Labour leadership contest to be concluded .
But Labour is doing so badly at present that it would be a great surprise if they make overall gains when the votes are counted on the night of May 7th and over the following day .
It is a more a question of whether they do badly or very badly .
Sometimes a game of expectation management is involved when political parties give the media gloomy prognostications .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sincere .
At the General Election , the main source of bad news for the Conservatives came from Scotland , courtesy of the Scottish Nationalists .
But we have no Scottish elections this year .
So does that mean all will be fine ?
Not necessarily .
In last year ’ s local elections , Labour did badly .
But that did not mean the Conservatives did well .
On the contrary .
We lost 1,330 seats .
Labour made modest net losses .
The gains were made by the Lib Dems – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tally .
The Green Party were up 194 .
Another huge factor , which got less attention in the national media , was that independents – from an array of different residents associations – made sweeping gains , even in supposedly “ safe ” Conservative areas .
There ended up being 604 more independent councillors overall .
Dismay with Theresa May and the paralysis over Brexit were huge factors that meant – quite unfairly – many Conservative councillors were defeated .
There was a lot of reference to them being “ hard-working ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bone idle .
Either way , the message from the doorstep was that many of their residents were fed up with voting Conservative , purely due to events taking place nationally .
At that time , the Lib Dems secured a “ projected national vote share ” of 19 per cent .
Recent opinion polling has the Lib Dems on about half that .
By contrast , keen followers of the weekly Council by-election that I list on this site will have noticed the Lib Dems generally doing well .
However , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at development schemes .
Some of us feel it is not inevitable for new housing to be unpopular .
If it is well located , backed up with good infrastructure , and , most important of all , attractive , then it could win widespread approval .
Others suggest that so much development has been awful that there is bound to be automatic suspicion .
This largely remains theoretical .
The routine is still that most development proposals that meet with approval from planning officers are hideous – regardless of which party happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not changed , the impulse of angry residents to make some sort of protest seems likely to be repeated where relevant .
In fairness , changing planning policy is a cumbersome business – and planning officers will be obstructive towards any “ interference ” by councillors seeking a shift away from modernism and towards beauty .
One ’ s instinct is that the Lib Dems are adept at exploiting such grievances – though rather less so at satisfactorily resolving them in the event that they win power .
Among the district councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats up for election .
The following have half their seats up for election this year : These district councils have a third of their seats up for election : Of course , it is not entirely a Conservative / Lib Dem battleground .
Last year Labour gained Amber Valley .
Could the Conservatives take back control ?
Labour lost control in Burnley but it was the independents who picked up seats .
Can the Conservatives do so this time ?
Cannock Chase was lost by Labour last time but not won by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal ?
Carlisle is another hung council that will be a key test .
So is Pendle .
Labour held onto Harlow last time .
But will they win again this year ?
Cambridge is among the areas where it is a predominantly Labour/Lib Dem contest .
There are some places where Labour is in such a strong position – Exeter , Norwich , and Stevenage are examples – that it would be mathematically impossible for them to lose with only a third of the seats being up for election .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dems might be vulnerable .
What about Cheltenham ?
They run the Council with a big majority .
Half the seats are up for election .
At the General Election they lost that constituency result .
Or “ Three Rivers ” ( Rickmansworth to you and me ) ?
There are lots of wards with Lib Dem councillors but Conservative MPs .
Most of these seats were last contested in 2016 .
At that stage , the Lib Dems vote share was 15 per cent .
The Conservatives were hit by a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps the Yellow Peril can be contained – there could even be a Lib Dem retreat .
A wide fluctuation in fortunes is likely and would indicate local democracy is in robust health .
Certainly , if there are particular local authorities where the Conservatives do badly it will harder to shrug that off as something to blame on national factors , if the results are good overall .
It would be surprising if we see the sort of Lib Dem rejoicing witnessed last year .
It is just that they offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour are likely to in these elections .
I feel confident in predicting a drubbing for Labour – more nervous about making any prediction at all , when it comes to those cunning Lib Dems .

These are uncertain times. The elections previewed in this series are still nearly two months away. We still have the Labour leadership contest to be concluded. But Labour is doing so badly at present that it would be a great surprise if they make overall gains when the votes are counted on the night of May 7th and over the following day. It is a more a question of whether they do badly or very badly. Sometimes a game of expectation management is involved when political parties give the media gloomy prognostications. But I think the leaked assessment from Labour is sincere.
At the General Election, the main source of bad news for the Conservatives came from Scotland, courtesy of the Scottish Nationalists. But we have no Scottish elections this year.
So does that mean all will be fine? Not necessarily. In last year’s local elections, Labour did badly. But that did not mean the Conservatives did well. On the contrary. We lost 1,330 seats. Labour made modest net losses. The gains were made by the Lib Dems – ahead by 706 overalls on their previous tally. The Green Party were up 194. Another huge factor, which got less attention in the national media, was that independents – from an array of different residents associations – made sweeping gains, even in supposedly “safe” Conservative areas. There ended up being 604 more independent councillors overall.
Dismay with Theresa May and the paralysis over Brexit were huge factors that meant – quite unfairly – many Conservative councillors were defeated. There was a lot of reference to them being “hard-working”. Many were. Many others were bone idle. Either way, the message from the doorstep was that many of their residents were fed up with voting Conservative, purely due to events taking place nationally. At that time, the Lib Dems secured a “projected national vote share” of 19 per cent. Recent opinion polling has the Lib Dems on about half that. By contrast, keen followers of the weekly Council by-election that I list on this site will have noticed the Lib Dems generally doing well.
However, there is often a local element – resentment at development schemes. Some of us feel it is not inevitable for new housing to be unpopular. If it is well located, backed up with good infrastructure, and, most important of all, attractive, then it could win widespread approval. Others suggest that so much development has been awful that there is bound to be automatic suspicion. This largely remains theoretical. The routine is still that most development proposals that meet with approval from planning officers are hideous – regardless of which party happens to control the Council. Given that has not changed, the impulse of angry residents to make some sort of protest seems likely to be repeated where relevant. In fairness, changing planning policy is a cumbersome business – and planning officers will be obstructive towards any “interference” by councillors seeking a shift away from modernism and towards beauty. One’s instinct is that the Lib Dems are adept at exploiting such grievances – though rather less so at satisfactorily resolving them in the event that they win power.
Among the district councils, Gloucester and Stroud have all their seats up for election.
The following have half their seats up for election this year:
Adur
Cheltenham
Fareham
Gosport
Hastings
Nuneaton and Bedworth
Oxford
These district councils have a third of their seats up for election:
Amber Valley
Basildon
Basingstoke and Deane
Brentwood
Broxbourne
Burnley
Cambridge
Cannock Chase
Carlisle
Castle Point
Cherwell
Chorley
Colchester
Craven
Crawley
Daventry (postponed in 2019 pending reorganisation in Northamptonshire)
Eastleigh
Elmbridge
Epping Forest
Exeter
Harlow
Hart
Havant
Hyndburn
Ipswich
Lincoln
Maidstone
Mole Valley
North Hertfordshire
Norwich
Pendle
Preston
Redditch
Reigate and Banstead
Rochford
Rossendale
Rugby
Runnymede
Rushmoor
South Lakeland
St Albans
Stevenage
Tamworth
Tandridge
Three Rivers
Tunbridge Wells
Watford
Welwyn Hatfield
West Lancashire
West Oxfordshire
Winchester
Woking
Worcester
Worthing
Of course, it is not entirely a Conservative / Lib Dem battleground. Last year Labour gained Amber Valley. Could the Conservatives take back control? Labour lost control in Burnley but it was the independents who picked up seats. Can the Conservatives do so this time? Cannock Chase was lost by Labour last time but not won by the Conservatives – could they now seal the deal? Carlisle is another hung council that will be a key test. So is Pendle. Labour held onto Harlow last time. But will they win again this year?
Cambridge is among the areas where it is a predominantly Labour/Lib Dem contest. There are some places where Labour is in such a strong position – Exeter, Norwich, and Stevenage are examples – that it would be mathematically impossible for them to lose with only a third of the seats being up for election.
There are a few places where the Lib Dems might be vulnerable. What about Cheltenham? They run the Council with a big majority. Half the seats are up for election. At the General Election they lost that constituency result. Or “Three Rivers” (Rickmansworth to you and me)? There are lots of wards with Lib Dem councillors but Conservative MPs.
Most of these seats were last contested in 2016. At that stage, the Lib Dems vote share was 15 per cent. The Conservatives were hit by a strong showing by UKIP. Against that context, perhaps the Yellow Peril can be contained – there could even be a Lib Dem retreat. A wide fluctuation in fortunes is likely and would indicate local democracy is in robust health. Certainly, if there are particular local authorities where the Conservatives do badly it will harder to shrug that off as something to blame on national factors, if the results are good overall.
It would be surprising if we see the sort of Lib Dem rejoicing witnessed last year. It is just that they offer a greater threat to Conservatives success than Labour are likely to in these elections. I feel confident in predicting a drubbing for Labour – more nervous about making any prediction at all, when it comes to those cunning Lib Dems.