conservativehome--2020-07-10--Iain Dale: Beware, Sunak. Australia was promised green jobs, but got greenhorn workers instead. Plus

Iain Dale: Beware, Sunak. Australia was promised green jobs, but got greenhorn workers instead. Plus injuries and deaths.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
The £2 billion scheme to encourage us all to insulate our lofts has received plaudits from many , although of course many in the environmental movement think it doesn ’ t go far enough .
‘ Too little , too late ’ is the constant mantra of Labour politicians to any initiative that the Government launches nowadays .
But this really is the language of the vapid .
In the case of the insulation scheme , it is also totally wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party had a similar scheme in its manifesto which would have cost £60 billion .
They wanted to insulate every home in the country in order to create lots of ‘ green jobs ’ .
Laudable perhaps – but also very dangerous .
Kevin Rudd ’ s Labour government in Australia launched a similar scheme in 2009 .
It led to an explosion of new home insulation companies , run by people who knew nothing at all about how to actually do it .
They hired lots of young lads , gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result was a spate of serious injuries and four deaths .
The outcry from the public was massive , and the Government later abandoned the scheme in great ignominy .
Be warned .
You know public service broadcasting when you see it .
It ’ s obvious .
Any broadcaster covering news and current affairs is certainly carrying out public service broadcasting .
It ’ s a core part of the BBC ’ s remit .
If it doesn ’ t cover politics news and current affairs in a way which commercial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of the Corporation is .
Over recent years , the BBC News and Current Affairs division has been massively impacted by cutbacks , to the extent that several of its political mainstays have been axed .
This Week – axed .
The Daily and Sunday Politics – gone .
Victoria Derbyshire – gone .
It was announced this week that are to be major cutbacks in BBC regional television political coverage , with local radio also cut to be bone .
And then as if this weren ’ t enough , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the chopping block .
The successor to the Daily and Sunday Politics had already been pared back to 45 minutes from an hour , with more chat and fewer films .
But it attracted a bigger audience than the former ever did , and is a programme which is respected by both viewers and politicians .
In these days of niche audiences , it does exactly what it says on the tin – it caters for the political niche in a way that no other BBC show does .
It allows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and covers issues which you don ’ t see covered elsewhere .
If it goes , what is left of the BBC Millbank operation – just political journalists .
And maybe they ’ ll be next for the chop .
There was , we should remember , an attempt to cut the BBC Parliament Channel back to the core , with no original programmes at all , but this came to grief after a predictable outcry .
I hope the same happens with Politics Live .
If this show goes , they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proper public service broadcaster .
Given that it probably costs less to produce annually that the salaries of four of the BBC ’ s top managers combined , it is a bit rich to suggest cutting a show like this only two days after the BBC proudly announced it is spending £100 million on diversity .
You couldn ’ t make it up .
Perhaps I ’ m missing something , but I don ’ t understand the fuss about Dominic Cummings visiting various security establishments .
Surely , as the Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be free , and indeed encouraged , to visit any government organisation he chooses to .
No adviser can be an expert on everything , and by visiting and talking to people you build up your knowledge of areas you many not be too familiar with .
If I had that job , I ’ d make it my business to talk to as wide a range of people as possible .
Advisers who spent twenty hours a day in a Whitehall office are probably not very good advisers .
My life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packing .
My new book Why can ’ t we all just get along : shout less listen more is out on August 6th , but I got my physical copies last Friday .
Since then , I ’ ve been signing like a dervish , and packaging up the more than 300 orders for signed copies I ’ ve received so far via my website online shop .
And I ’ m packing them all myself .
I don ’ t have a crew of flunkies doing my bidding !
Forgive the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve enjoyed my columns here over the last seven years , I hope you might want to read the book .
It has , I think , some important messages about the state of our public discourse , and while it ’ s not an autobiography , there are loads of anecdotes from the world of politics and the media , and a few laughs ( and tears ) along the way too .
You can order the book here .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
The £2 billion scheme to encourage us all to insulate our lofts has received plaudits from many, although of course many in the environmental movement think it doesn’t go far enough.
‘Too little, too late’ is the constant mantra of Labour politicians to any initiative that the Government launches nowadays. But this really is the language of the vapid. In the case of the insulation scheme, it is also totally wrong.
At the last election, the Labour Party had a similar scheme in its manifesto which would have cost £60 billion. They wanted to insulate every home in the country in order to create lots of ‘green jobs’.
Laudable perhaps – but also very dangerous. Kevin Rudd’s Labour government in Australia launched a similar scheme in 2009. It led to an explosion of new home insulation companies, run by people who knew nothing at all about how to actually do it.
They hired lots of young lads, gave them little or no training – and the result was a spate of serious injuries and four deaths. The outcry from the public was massive, and the Government later abandoned the scheme in great ignominy. Be warned.
– – – – – – – – – –
You know public service broadcasting when you see it. It’s obvious. Any broadcaster covering news and current affairs is certainly carrying out public service broadcasting.
It’s a core part of the BBC’s remit. If it doesn’t cover politics news and current affairs in a way which commercial broadcasters never could, you wonder what the point of the Corporation is.
Over recent years, the BBC News and Current Affairs division has been massively impacted by cutbacks, to the extent that several of its political mainstays have been axed. This Week – axed. The Daily and Sunday Politics – gone. Victoria Derbyshire – gone.
It was announced this week that are to be major cutbacks in BBC regional television political coverage, with local radio also cut to be bone. And then as if this weren’t enough, it emerged that Politics Live is also on the chopping block.
The successor to the Daily and Sunday Politics had already been pared back to 45 minutes from an hour, with more chat and fewer films. But it attracted a bigger audience than the former ever did, and is a programme which is respected by both viewers and politicians.
In these days of niche audiences, it does exactly what it says on the tin – it caters for the political niche in a way that no other BBC show does. It allows the voices of backbenchers to be heard, and covers issues which you don’t see covered elsewhere.
If it goes, what is left of the BBC Millbank operation – just political journalists. And maybe they’ll be next for the chop. There was, we should remember, an attempt to cut the BBC Parliament Channel back to the core, with no original programmes at all, but this came to grief after a predictable outcry.
I hope the same happens with Politics Live. If this show goes, they might as well lose any pretence of being a proper public service broadcaster. Given that it probably costs less to produce annually that the salaries of four of the BBC’s top managers combined, it is a bit rich to suggest cutting a show like this only two days after the BBC proudly announced it is spending £100 million on diversity. You couldn’t make it up.
– – – – – – – – – –
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t understand the fuss about Dominic Cummings visiting various security establishments. Surely, as the Prime Minister’s chief strategic adviser he should be free, and indeed encouraged, to visit any government organisation he chooses to.
No adviser can be an expert on everything, and by visiting and talking to people you build up your knowledge of areas you many not be too familiar with. If I had that job, I’d make it my business to talk to as wide a range of people as possible. Advisers who spent twenty hours a day in a Whitehall office are probably not very good advisers.
– – – – – – – – – –
My life this week has been dominated by book packing. My new book Why can’t we all just get along: shout less listen more is out on August 6th, but I got my physical copies last Friday.
Since then, I’ve been signing like a dervish, and packaging up the more than 300 orders for signed copies I’ve received so far via my website online shop. And I’m packing them all myself. I don’t have a crew of flunkies doing my bidding!
Forgive the blatant sales pitch, but if you’ve enjoyed my columns here over the last seven years, I hope you might want to read the book.
It has, I think, some important messages about the state of our public discourse, and while it’s not an autobiography, there are loads of anecdotes from the world of politics and the media, and a few laughs (and tears) along the way too. You can order the book here.


conservativehome--2020-07-10--Peter Golds: I’m delighted that outdated election law is being reviewed

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets .
He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association .
In May , Chaudhary Mohammed Iqbal , a Labour councillor for the Loxford ward of the Borough of Redbridge was charged with “ making false statements in candidate nomination papers ” during the 2018 local election .
The Metropolitan Police revealed that the charges “ relate to false declarations by Councillor Iqbal regarding his address.
” From what is so far publicly known , they are very similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Metropolitan Police repeatedly failed to investigate in Tower Hamlets .
Following the 2019 general election , the government announced it was seeking to make changes to election law .
Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament have examined election law and the Law Commission has made 106 recommended changes to existing law in a report that runs to 204 pages .
In the meantime , the Electoral Commission , which receives almost £18 million per year of taxpayer funding stumbles from one crisis to another .
Worryingly , this dangerously flawed body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution .
As I will outline later it should be put out of its misery .
Some of the problems faced by the police , who are responsible for law enforcement , and the taxpayer funded Electoral Commission , which acts as a regulator , may be identified in this observation in the report of the Law Commission : “ The legal framework underpinning our electoral processes is ‘ complex , voluminous and fragmented ’ comprising 55 separate Acts of Parliament and 227 other pieces of legislation relating to elections.
” When one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the words of the Law Commission “ retro-fitted onto rules from earlier centuries.
” Simplifying , updating , modernising , and consolidating electoral law is long overdue .
The last major consolidation of election law was in 1983 , almost four decades ago .
This was at a time when “ fax machines ” were a novelty , mobile phones were unknown , and “ twitter , ” “ facebook , ” “ whats app , ” “ tik tok ” and “ snapchat ” were not even imagined in sci-fi books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who .
The Law Commission itself describes the need for election law to be framed in precise and yet compelling language .
This must be language that can be understood by the regulator , the police , election candidates , election agents , activists , and political parties .
The UK piecemeal approach to reform resulting in far too much diffuse legislation must be avoided .
Currently the law identifies corrupt practices , which are done knowingly and illegal practices which may be done accidentally .
To a contemporary ear the definition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are : Trying to prove to the police , let alone a modern court of law , bribery and undue influence , and treating it is a difficult if not almost impossible task .
That is before we reach practices which the majority of the contemporary population would regard as illegal – and yet it is almost impossible to get these before a court .
Let me take one example .
In 2014 there was much controversy in Tower Hamlets when a car was stopped in a routine police check and over 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which include the applicants signature and date of birth of applicants , were found in the vehicle .
The police faced enormous criticism for not arresting the driver .
However , under existing election law this is neither a corrupt nor illegal practice , notwithstanding that the electors signature and date of birth are the proof required for a valid postal vote to be registered when submitted .
A police officer later told me that had they found 200 applications for credit cards , it would have been a very different story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for imprints , which identify the producer of the material and the cost centre for the posted material , to be included in Twitter and Facebook .
In 2018 , a candidate of Aspire , the latest name of the Tower Hamlets Rahman party , was filmed visiting addresses and pressurising residents to hand over postal votes .
The police passed over a file to the CPS who declined to prosecute .
Amongst the reasons given for not prosecuting was the long standing get out of “ public interest ” and the absence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a candidate from collecting postal votes .
In effect , a defence barrister could have argued that what was taking place was not illegal .
Where do we need change ?
Despite the series of successful election petitions identifying corruption in recent years , the police , Electoral Commission , CPS , and election officials , are constantly playing catch up , particularly with regard to social media and digital campaigning and in some cases interpreting an election process that is dated and often ( wilfully ? )
misunderstood .
Changes made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple process , such as the nomination of candidates and the return of election expenses are increasingly complex , involving not easily understood forms and procedures designed by the Electoral Commission .
This does not assist transparency or assist voluntary election agents .
The Law Commission note this deficiency in their recommendations regarding nomination papers .
The public perception of electoral fraud has increased in recent years .
Voting which was once “ a private act in public ” is now , as a result of postal votes on demand , often seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private.
” Unfortunately , politicians appear to be unwilling to rectify this .
As it stands , the law can do little or nothing even when faced with evidence of dubious practice regarding postal votes .
The Law needs to be strengthened to reduce levels of corruption .
There is overwhelming support for voters to produce a form of ID when voting .
This was introduced in Northern Ireland by the Blair government earlier this century and was one of many changes which added to community cohesion .
When joining the Labour Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address and two items of ID are required to attend a Labour Party selection meeting .
Why Labour has recently become opposed to voter ID in elections is a matter of curiosity ?
In the aftermath of the 2017 General Election , there was a flurry of interest resulting from claims on social media of people boasting how they voted more than once and providing information on this .
Unsurprisingly , there was little or no police action with regard to this easily proven voter fraud .
Why ?
In the modern age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no reason why any person should have dual registration for Parliamentary elections .
If an elector is fortunate to have two or more homes then they are entitled to a local government vote for each different local authority .
In such a case the voter should indicate where they vote for parliamentary elections .
This is not a dramatic change .
Many people are surprised that it is possible for some people to choose in which constituency they vote .
The Law Commission has excellent proposals for streamlining the challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make proposals as to the prohibitive expense and the financial consequences of challenging an election in the Courts , even when successful .
The Tower Hamlets petition was a landmark decision .
However , despite winning the case , the petitioners lost huge sums of money .
In the circumstances where a petition is not vexatious , and the petitioners are successful , then there should be a treasury fund to underwrite costs , or the petition should be taken over by the CPS .
An increasing problem in inner cities is crowding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties .
This was an issue in the 2014 Tower Hamlets petition and the problem has not gone away .
In 2018 the report by Democracy Volunteers in Tower Hamlets noted the numbers of people crowding some polling stations .
Below is a paragraph from the report : “ The most problematic polling station was in Poplar , just off Poplar High Street , which we visited during the afternoon .
There , a group of around fifteen men , not wearing any party identification , had gathered on the pavement opposite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were there for any party , they said they were , but were clearly unhappy to have been asked the question .
They made us feel uncomfortable.
” By the time an elector reaches a polling station they must know for whom they are voting .
There can be no need to canvass them at the entrance , force literature into their hands , and even as I have seen here and unfortunately elsewhere in London , escort them inside .
Legislation should include the uninterrupted passage of voters to polling stations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collecting numbers and increasingly fewer voters are willing to give numbers where telling still takes place .
Democracy volunteers also express concern regarding “ family voting.
” This same survey indicated that in 58 per cent of polling stations they visited they witnessed as many as 19 per cent of voters communally voting .
In most cases this involves a male voting for or supervising a female .
Women have had the parliamentary vote since 1919 in the UK .
The right of women to vote in private must be secured and legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stations should be restricted to voters , officials , those permitted by The Returning Officer to attend the polling station ( candidates , election agents and polling agents ) and anybody escorting a disabled voter .
This should not include journalists seeking stories and there should be restrictions as to filming inside polling stations .
It should be illegal to photograph and publish completed ballot papers .
The reason for the latter point is a dishonest voter can prove to a candidate or political group how they have voted .
The growth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , brutal , and threatening behaviour into the political process .
The threats suffered by women , minority candidates , and political opponents , have scarred elections in recent years .
References to rape and physical violence against women are disgusting , yet are the tip of an iceberg floating in a political sewer .
The situation under Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets where his opponents were routinely described as “ racist ” , “ alcoholic ” , “ unislamic ” and “ zionist ” in social media and spread by his canvassers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements as to a candidate is covered under S106a of the 1983 Act .
This needs to be reviewed and re-introduced with reference to social media and enforced by the law .
The Metropolitan Police excuse of “ having words ” with those who undertake such action is not acceptable .
On one occasion I was told by the police that a Rahman activist who had tweeted “ Let us salute Hitler the Great , ” and a lot worse , was making “ political comment.
” Intimidation must be included as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is considered by the police as a criminal activity relating to an election .
It must be included amongst those offences which can , as a last resort , be included in an election petition .
Commissioner Mawrey QC ruled that Spiritual Influence was a factor in the 2014 Tower Hamlets election .
The evidence was an event at which a gathering of Imans and Scholars stated that it was the “ Islamic duty of Muslim voters ” to support Rahman .
This was published widely in newspapers circulating in Mosques .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court by Judicial Review but he did not proceeded .
This is a problem in which the law needs to be bought up to date and reflect contemporary circumstances to ensure that this does not occur in the future .
Candidates must have recourse to deal with threats and intimidation via social media and the legislative framework should recognise this and cover promotional and negative posts .
There is a difference between saying a political party is incorrect or follows the wrong policies and sending deeply personal and threatening abuse to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of false names to abuse opponents via facebook and twitter .
In Tower Hamlets during the Rahman era there were numerous postings on social media being directed at local people from a long-term local resident and member of the Labour Party .
By mistake the author was identified as a 20-year-old undergraduate , paid by the council to do work for Rahman , using a computer address from his University .
As I completed this article , I read Jon Moynihan ’ s masterful critique of the Electoral Commission .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral Commission makes law when none exists .
In 2019 , whilst researching a potentially fraudulent voter , I was refused permission , for the first time , by the electoral registration officer to examine archive electoral registers .
This change took place without consultation or an alteration to the law .
Adrian Green of the Electoral Commission wrote to all local authorities saying that the law has remained “ silent on what to do with electoral registers ” and this has been unchallenged since 2001 .
He goes on to say : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to what is done with registers that are 2-10 years old .
Because the law is silent on this , the Commission have interpreted that libraries and archive services may provide access to registers between 2 and 10 years old , but there is no duty for them to do so.
” So Adrian Green , whoever he might be , decides to change the law without recourse to parliament or even a consultation exercise .
Needless to say he was supported by Robert Posner .
For two and half years the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second referendum on membership of the EU .
Had such a referendum been called , the Electoral Commission would have played a major part in approving the question , the timetable and deciding who would be the representative body of each campaign .
The decisions on this would have been made by a body chaired by Sir John Holmes , who was a fervent and public supporter of one side of the argument and involved a compliance officer who tweeted support for a political party and managed by the hopelessly compromised Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fortune before the campaign even started .
A few years ago I was approached by colleague outside of London with concerns that there was a Birmingham/Tower Hamlets situation in his area .
I arranged a meeting with the Electoral Commission .
A well presented dossier was handed over but nothing happened .
In the notorious Tower Hamlets election of 2014 , the Electoral Commission were repeatedly warned in writing about fraud , intimidation , false addresses , false returns of expenses and the certainty of a chaotic count due to the unsuitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored every single warning , concentrating on a “ protocol ” which was ignored by everybody concerned including ultimately , the Electoral Commission itself .
After the election they never met the petitioners or made any attempt to attend the council ’ s Overview and Scrutiny Committee for our comments .
The Electoral Commission serves no useful purpose and must go .
I have proposed a reduced , renamed body which should exist only to record and publicise political donations to political parties .
Jon Moynihan suggests Companies House .
That is certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of elections should be in the hands of Returning Officers and supervised by governmental departments which can be bought before select committees .
In line with recommendations by the Law Commission , election forms should be made easier and these should be produced by a government department , in line with legislation , as happened prior to the Electoral Commission .
Finally there should be a dedicated unit of trained officers at the National Crime Agency to investigate electoral fraud .
One of the problems that has affected police investigations from Birmingham to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by police officers as to how elections are conducted .
One officer once wanted to interview me on an election day and could not understand why I would be busy .
When I did meet him ( three months later ) he was more interested as to whether I was legally entitled to a copy of the electoral register than looking into the dubious entries that I had identified .
I am wrestling with three other problems where legislation will be difficult , which will be the basis of my next contribution .

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association.
In May, Chaudhary Mohammed Iqbal, a Labour councillor for the Loxford ward of the Borough of Redbridge was charged with “making false statements in candidate nomination papers” during the 2018 local election. The Metropolitan Police revealed that the charges “relate to false declarations by Councillor Iqbal regarding his address.” From what is so far publicly known, they are very similar to numerous circumstances of false statements that the Metropolitan Police repeatedly failed to investigate in Tower Hamlets.
Following the 2019 general election, the government announced it was seeking to make changes to election law. Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament have examined election law and the Law Commission has made 106 recommended changes to existing law in a report that runs to 204 pages.
In the meantime, the Electoral Commission, which receives almost £18 million per year of taxpayer funding stumbles from one crisis to another. Worryingly, this dangerously flawed body is seeking to have enhanced powers of prosecution. As I will outline later it should be put out of its misery.
Some of the problems faced by the police, who are responsible for law enforcement, and the taxpayer funded Electoral Commission, which acts as a regulator, may be identified in this observation in the report of the Law Commission:
“The legal framework underpinning our electoral processes is ‘complex, voluminous and fragmented’ comprising 55 separate Acts of Parliament and 227 other pieces of legislation relating to elections.”
When one considers that these numerous changes have, in the words of the Law Commission “retro-fitted onto rules from earlier centuries.” Simplifying, updating, modernising, and consolidating electoral law is long overdue.
The last major consolidation of election law was in 1983, almost four decades ago. This was at a time when “fax machines” were a novelty, mobile phones were unknown, and “twitter,” “facebook,” “whats app,” “tik tok”and “snapchat” were not even imagined in sci-fi books, films, or episodes of Doctor Who.
The Law Commission itself describes the need for election law to be framed in precise and yet compelling language. This must be language that can be understood by the regulator, the police, election candidates, election agents, activists, and political parties.
The UK piecemeal approach to reform resulting in far too much diffuse legislation must be avoided. Currently the law identifies corrupt practices, which are done knowingly and illegal practices which may be done accidentally. To a contemporary ear the definition of corrupt practices may seem arcane. They are:
“Bribery, undue influence, treating, personation, unauthorised expenditure and falsification of accounts.”
Trying to prove to the police, let alone a modern court of law, bribery and undue influence, and treating it is a difficult if not almost impossible task. That is before we reach practices which the majority of the contemporary population would regard as illegal – and yet it is almost impossible to get these before a court.
Let me take one example. In 2014 there was much controversy in Tower Hamlets when a car was stopped in a routine police check and over 200 photocopies of completed postal vote applications, which include the applicants signature and date of birth of applicants, were found in the vehicle. The police faced enormous criticism for not arresting the driver. However, under existing election law this is neither a corrupt nor illegal practice, notwithstanding that the electors signature and date of birth are the proof required for a valid postal vote to be registered when submitted. A police officer later told me that had they found 200 applications for credit cards, it would have been a very different story.
Equally, there is no legal requirement for imprints, which identify the producer of the material and the cost centre for the posted material, to be included in Twitter and Facebook.
In 2018, a candidate of Aspire, the latest name of the Tower Hamlets Rahman party, was filmed visiting addresses and pressurising residents to hand over postal votes. The police passed over a file to the CPS who declined to prosecute. Amongst the reasons given for not prosecuting was the long standing get out of “public interest” and the absence of legislation preventing a candidate or agent of a candidate from collecting postal votes. In effect, a defence barrister could have argued that what was taking place was not illegal.
Where do we need change?
Despite the series of successful election petitions identifying corruption in recent years, the police, Electoral Commission, CPS, and election officials, are constantly playing catch up, particularly with regard to social media and digital campaigning and in some cases interpreting an election process that is dated and often (wilfully?) misunderstood.
Changes made by the Electoral Commission to the once simple process, such as the nomination of candidates and the return of election expenses are increasingly complex, involving not easily understood forms and procedures designed by the Electoral Commission. This does not assist transparency or assist voluntary election agents. The Law Commission note this deficiency in their recommendations regarding nomination papers.
The public perception of electoral fraud has increased in recent years. Voting which was once “ a private act in public” is now, as a result of postal votes on demand, often seen to be “a public act in private.” Unfortunately, politicians appear to be unwilling to rectify this. As it stands, the law can do little or nothing even when faced with evidence of dubious practice regarding postal votes. The Law needs to be strengthened to reduce levels of corruption.
There is overwhelming support for voters to produce a form of ID when voting. This was introduced in Northern Ireland by the Blair government earlier this century and was one of many changes which added to community cohesion. When joining the Labour Party, ID is required for proof of address and two items of ID are required to attend a Labour Party selection meeting. Why Labour has recently become opposed to voter ID in elections is a matter of curiosity?
In the aftermath of the 2017 General Election, there was a flurry of interest resulting from claims on social media of people boasting how they voted more than once and providing information on this. Unsurprisingly, there was little or no police action with regard to this easily proven voter fraud. Why?
In the modern age, with extensive postal voting on demand, there is no reason why any person should have dual registration for Parliamentary elections. If an elector is fortunate to have two or more homes then they are entitled to a local government vote for each different local authority. In such a case the voter should indicate where they vote for parliamentary elections. This is not a dramatic change. Many people are surprised that it is possible for some people to choose in which constituency they vote.
The Law Commission has excellent proposals for streamlining the challenging of an election. They do not make proposals as to the prohibitive expense and the financial consequences of challenging an election in the Courts, even when successful. The Tower Hamlets petition was a landmark decision. However, despite winning the case, the petitioners lost huge sums of money. In the circumstances where a petition is not vexatious, and the petitioners are successful, then there should be a treasury fund to underwrite costs, or the petition should be taken over by the CPS.
An increasing problem in inner cities is crowding polling stations by supporters of candidates and parties. This was an issue in the 2014 Tower Hamlets petition and the problem has not gone away. In 2018 the report by Democracy Volunteers in Tower Hamlets noted the numbers of people crowding some polling stations. Below is a paragraph from the report:
“The most problematic polling station was in Poplar, just off Poplar High Street, which we visited during the afternoon. There, a group of around fifteen men, not wearing any party identification, had gathered on the pavement opposite the school entrance. When asked whether they were there for any party, they said they were, but were clearly unhappy to have been asked the question. They made us feel uncomfortable.”
By the time an elector reaches a polling station they must know for whom they are voting. There can be no need to canvass them at the entrance, force literature into their hands, and even as I have seen here and unfortunately elsewhere in London, escort them inside. Legislation should include the uninterrupted passage of voters to polling stations. Nowadays, fewer political parties have tellers collecting numbers and increasingly fewer voters are willing to give numbers where telling still takes place.
Democracy volunteers also express concern regarding “family voting.” This same survey indicated that in 58 per cent of polling stations they visited they witnessed as many as 19 per cent of voters communally voting. In most cases this involves a male voting for or supervising a female. Women have had the parliamentary vote since 1919 in the UK. The right of women to vote in private must be secured and legislation must reflect this.
Entry to polling stations should be restricted to voters, officials, those permitted by The Returning Officer to attend the polling station (candidates, election agents and polling agents) and anybody escorting a disabled voter. This should not include journalists seeking stories and there should be restrictions as to filming inside polling stations.
It should be illegal to photograph and publish completed ballot papers. The reason for the latter point is a dishonest voter can prove to a candidate or political group how they have voted.
The growth of “social media” has introduced unregulated, brutal, and threatening behaviour into the political process. The threats suffered by women, minority candidates, and political opponents, have scarred elections in recent years. References to rape and physical violence against women are disgusting, yet are the tip of an iceberg floating in a political sewer.
The situation under Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets where his opponents were routinely described as “racist”, “alcoholic”, “unislamic” and “zionist” in social media and spread by his canvassers was an ongoing problem.
Making false statements as to a candidate is covered under S106a of the 1983 Act. This needs to be reviewed and re-introduced with reference to social media and enforced by the law. The Metropolitan Police excuse of “having words” with those who undertake such action is not acceptable. On one occasion I was told by the police that a Rahman activist who had tweeted “Let us salute Hitler the Great,” and a lot worse, was making “political comment.”
Intimidation must be included as an election offence to ensure when reported that it is considered by the police as a criminal activity relating to an election. It must be included amongst those offences which can, as a last resort, be included in an election petition.
Commissioner Mawrey QC ruled that Spiritual Influence was a factor in the 2014 Tower Hamlets election. The evidence was an event at which a gathering of Imans and Scholars stated that it was the “Islamic duty of Muslim voters” to support Rahman. This was published widely in newspapers circulating in Mosques.
Rahman sought to contest this decision of the Court by Judicial Review but he did not proceeded.
This is a problem in which the law needs to be bought up to date and reflect contemporary circumstances to ensure that this does not occur in the future.
Candidates must have recourse to deal with threats and intimidation via social media and the legislative framework should recognise this and cover promotional and negative posts. There is a difference between saying a political party is incorrect or follows the wrong policies and sending deeply personal and threatening abuse to an individual candidate.
Finally, there is the use of false names to abuse opponents via facebook and twitter. In Tower Hamlets during the Rahman era there were numerous postings on social media being directed at local people from a long-term local resident and member of the Labour Party. By mistake the author was identified as a 20-year-old undergraduate, paid by the council to do work for Rahman, using a computer address from his University.
As I completed this article, I read Jon Moynihan’s masterful critique of the Electoral Commission. He is absolutely correct in identifying how the Electoral Commission makes law when none exists.
In 2019, whilst researching a potentially fraudulent voter, I was refused permission, for the first time, by the electoral registration officer to examine archive electoral registers. This change took place without consultation or an alteration to the law. Adrian Green of the Electoral Commission wrote to all local authorities saying that the law has remained “silent on what to do with electoral registers” and this has been unchallenged since 2001. He goes on to say:
“Unfortunately, the law is silent as to what is done with registers that are 2-10 years old. Because the law is silent on this, the Commission have interpreted that libraries and archive services may provide access to registers between 2 and 10 years old, but there is no duty for them to do so.”
So Adrian Green, whoever he might be, decides to change the law without recourse to parliament or even a consultation exercise. Needless to say he was supported by Robert Posner.
For two and half years the country was convulsed over the possibility of a second referendum on membership of the EU. Had such a referendum been called, the Electoral Commission would have played a major part in approving the question, the timetable and deciding who would be the representative body of each campaign. The decisions on this would have been made by a body chaired by Sir John Holmes, who was a fervent and public supporter of one side of the argument and involved a compliance officer who tweeted support for a political party and managed by the hopelessly compromised Robert Posner.
The lawyers would have made a fortune before the campaign even started.
A few years ago I was approached by colleague outside of London with concerns that there was a Birmingham/Tower Hamlets situation in his area. I arranged a meeting with the Electoral Commission. A well presented dossier was handed over but nothing happened.
In the notorious Tower Hamlets election of 2014, the Electoral Commission were repeatedly warned in writing about fraud, intimidation, false addresses, false returns of expenses and the certainty of a chaotic count due to the unsuitable venues and unique counting process. They ignored every single warning, concentrating on a “protocol” which was ignored by everybody concerned including ultimately, the Electoral Commission itself. After the election they never met the petitioners or made any attempt to attend the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee for our comments.
The Electoral Commission serves no useful purpose and must go.
I have proposed a reduced, renamed body which should exist only to record and publicise political donations to political parties. Jon Moynihan suggests Companies House. That is certainly a possibility.
The process of management of elections should be in the hands of Returning Officers and supervised by governmental departments which can be bought before select committees.
In line with recommendations by the Law Commission, election forms should be made easier and these should be produced by a government department, in line with legislation, as happened prior to the Electoral Commission.
Finally there should be a dedicated unit of trained officers at the National Crime Agency to investigate electoral fraud. One of the problems that has affected police investigations from Birmingham to Tower Hamlets is the lack of understanding by police officers as to how elections are conducted. One officer once wanted to interview me on an election day and could not understand why I would be busy. When I did meet him (three months later) he was more interested as to whether I was legally entitled to a copy of the electoral register than looking into the dubious entries that I had identified.
I am wrestling with three other problems where legislation will be difficult, which will be the basis of my next contribution.


conservativehome--2020-07-10--Research suggests lockdown came after the peak. But that doesn’t make the armchair epidemiologists r

Research suggests lockdown came after the peak. But that doesn’t make the armchair epidemiologists right.

From the very initial stages of the Coronavirus crisis , the nation has had its eyes glued to the Government ’ s health charts , looking out for when the “ peak ” arrives .
This term can mean a number of things , such as death rates , a rise in new infections and the number of active cases , but is often used to describe an increase in new infections .
The Government and its advisers have made various estimations about when the peak occurred .
Matt Hancock , for instance , said that the UK was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on April 22 ; three days later Professor Stephen Powis , National Medical Director for England , said the number of new cases was “ fairly stable ” , and on April 30 Boris Johnson declared that the nation had “ come through the peak ” .
The reality of the matter , however , is that the peak , like many areas of Coronavirus , is the subject of considerable academic debate , along with the question of whether lockdown was timed correctly .
For one , it ’ s not obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , per se – in other words , a definitive rise across Covid-19 rates .
Deaths in all settings , as one example , has fluctuated quite clearly on Government graphs – take April 30 , for instance ( when the UK was supposed to be over the peak ) , hence why Government advisers have also plotted a seven-day moving average .
Some university scientists have tried to plot the peak , and there have been conflicting estimates of when this came .
Researchers from the University of Oxford , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hospital deaths on April 8 in London , four days ahead of the rest of the country .
The University of Bristol , too , has studied Coronavirus death rates and estimated that the most fatalities occurred on April 8 , and that the victims would have been first infected around March 18-19 .
This was four days before the UK lockdown was launched .
Professor Simon Wood , who ran the study , said that : “ the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added complication to all this is – as an aside – is that Covid-19 data is harder to compile than the public is led to believe .
Countries have measured Coronavirus rates in different ways – from how deaths are recorded to the inclusion of care home data – and they will also have had lags in when the death occurred , versus when it was recorded .
This makes every estimation tricky , and could mean we see data changing over time , as it is updated and differences in recordings across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scientists are able to make fairly reasonable estimates from the data of when cases and death rates shot up , and how that timing related to lockdown , and Bristol and Oxford ’ s reports will add to concerns that the UK did not intercept the peak .
It is worth saying at this point that this will not be a UK-limited issue ; given how many unknowns there are about the virus , plotting the “ correct ” lockdown date was almost impossible for all governments , which also had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-isolation .
The countries that locked down before their peak look ostensibly better prepared , but could suffer worse recurrences of the virus and/ or tougher economic consequences .
No one knows what will happen over the next few years .
ConservativeHome has never taken any strong views on “ the best ” way to manage Coronavirus , nor tried to forecast how it will play out , as even the finest scientists in the world have conflicting opinions and admit the limits of their knowledge .
Governmental decisions have to be understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
What has astonished this site , however , is the absolute certainty some members of the media have had in deciding what course of action the UK should have taken .
A quick lockdown has always been put forward as the right – and moral – thing to do .
Lockdown seems , of course , the most obvious way to stop Coronavirus .
Occam ’ s razor tells us if you stop people interacting , they will not give each other the virus , and it looks at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( although the aforementioned point around recurrence still stands ) .
But only complex analyses will unravel its effectiveness as an intervention .
For one , some scientists have said that Coronavirus has a natural peak and decline , regardless of whether a government imposes a lockdown – hence why Sweden , which avoided the intervention , has shown the same shape in Covid-19 rates that we have seen everywhere ( albeit at different levels and speeds ) .
People often believe lockdown causes the decline – the Government has repeatedly told UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curve ” – but it may be a case of attribution bias .
Scientists need to examine the evidence fully .
When they do this , they will be trying to answer questions like : how much of the drop in Covid-19 cases would have come down on their own ?
How did the timing of lockdown effect Coronavirus rates ?
And is some of the drop in cases actually a result of people ’ s natural tendency to socially distance , as opposed to lockdown ?
The list of considerations is quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask if lockdown facilitated infection rates .
This seems a controversial idea , but let ’ s play devil ’ s advocate .
Imagine the activity that would have taken place when governments asked their citizens to quickly find somewhere to lockdown .
This no doubt created a flurry of panicked movement , and a fair few people in cities bolted for their country homes .
What if this moved the virus about ?
In essence , there is still much to know about Coronavirus , in every respect .
We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked at the inquiry expected to take place one day , when the pandemic seems to be over .
They could look radically different from the loudest question currently – “ why didn ’ t you lockdown earlier ?
” Who knows ; perhaps with more research , the chorus of “ why did you lockdown at all ?
” will grow louder .

From the very initial stages of the Coronavirus crisis, the nation has had its eyes glued to the Government’s health charts, looking out for when the “peak” arrives. This term can mean a number of things, such as death rates, a rise in new infections and the number of active cases, but is often used to describe an increase in new infections.
The Government and its advisers have made various estimations about when the peak occurred. Matt Hancock, for instance, said that the UK was “at the peak” of the outbreak on April 22; three days later Professor Stephen Powis, National Medical Director for England, said the number of new cases was “fairly stable”, and on April 30 Boris Johnson declared that the nation had “come through the peak”.
The reality of the matter, however, is that the peak, like many areas of Coronavirus, is the subject of considerable academic debate, along with the question of whether lockdown was timed correctly.
For one, it’s not obvious if there is a “peak”, per se – in other words, a definitive rise across Covid-19 rates. Deaths in all settings, as one example, has fluctuated quite clearly on Government graphs – take April 30, for instance (when the UK was supposed to be over the peak), hence why Government advisers have also plotted a seven-day moving average.
Some university scientists have tried to plot the peak, and there have been conflicting estimates of when this came. Researchers from the University of Oxford, for instance, concluded that Britain passed the peak in hospital deaths on April 8 in London, four days ahead of the rest of the country.
The University of Bristol, too, has studied Coronavirus death rates and estimated that the most fatalities occurred on April 8, and that the victims would have been first infected around March 18-19. This was four days before the UK lockdown was launched. Professor Simon Wood, who ran the study, said that: “the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before lockdown.”
The added complication to all this is – as an aside – is that Covid-19 data is harder to compile than the public is led to believe. Countries have measured Coronavirus rates in different ways – from how deaths are recorded to the inclusion of care home data – and they will also have had lags in when the death occurred, versus when it was recorded. This makes every estimation tricky, and could mean we see data changing over time, as it is updated and differences in recordings across countries are smoothed over.
Even so, scientists are able to make fairly reasonable estimates from the data of when cases and death rates shot up, and how that timing related to lockdown, and Bristol and Oxford’s reports will add to concerns that the UK did not intercept the peak.
It is worth saying at this point that this will not be a UK-limited issue; given how many unknowns there are about the virus, plotting the “correct” lockdown date was almost impossible for all governments, which also had to factor in how long people could handle self-isolation. The countries that locked down before their peak look ostensibly better prepared, but could suffer worse recurrences of the virus and/ or tougher economic consequences. No one knows what will happen over the next few years.
ConservativeHome has never taken any strong views on “the best” way to manage Coronavirus, nor tried to forecast how it will play out, as even the finest scientists in the world have conflicting opinions and admit the limits of their knowledge. Governmental decisions have to be understood in the context of what advisers knew at the time.
What has astonished this site, however, is the absolute certainty some members of the media have had in deciding what course of action the UK should have taken. A quick lockdown has always been put forward as the right – and moral – thing to do.
Lockdown seems, of course, the most obvious way to stop Coronavirus. Occam’s razor tells us if you stop people interacting, they will not give each other the virus, and it looks at least to have worked in some countries (although the aforementioned point around recurrence still stands). But only complex analyses will unravel its effectiveness as an intervention.
For one, some scientists have said that Coronavirus has a natural peak and decline, regardless of whether a government imposes a lockdown – hence why Sweden, which avoided the intervention, has shown the same shape in Covid-19 rates that we have seen everywhere (albeit at different levels and speeds).
People often believe lockdown causes the decline – the Government has repeatedly told UK citizens that we are “flattening the curve” – but it may be a case of attribution bias. Scientists need to examine the evidence fully.
When they do this, they will be trying to answer questions like: how much of the drop in Covid-19 cases would have come down on their own? How did the timing of lockdown effect Coronavirus rates? And is some of the drop in cases actually a result of people’s natural tendency to socially distance, as opposed to lockdown? The list of considerations is quite long.
Moreover, scientists could even ask if lockdown facilitated infection rates. This seems a controversial idea, but let’s play devil’s advocate. Imagine the activity that would have taken place when governments asked their citizens to quickly find somewhere to lockdown. This no doubt created a flurry of panicked movement, and a fair few people in cities bolted for their country homes. What if this moved the virus about?
In essence, there is still much to know about Coronavirus, in every respect. We do not even really know what questions will be asked at the inquiry expected to take place one day, when the pandemic seems to be over. They could look radically different from the loudest question currently – “why didn’t you lockdown earlier?” Who knows; perhaps with more research, the chorus of “why did you lockdown at all?” will grow louder.


conservativehome--2020-07-11--The “equalities” industry has entrenched division. It must be swept away.

“ I have a dream , ” declared Martin Luther King on August 28 , 1963 , “ that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
” That inspirational cry for justice – for a colour blind society of individual opportunity and responsibility – has been betrayed .
Those thwarting that dream are not the white supremacists , but the supposed “ anti-racists ” in the equalities industry .
This bitter irony will not have escaped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current affairs .
Outfits such as “ Black Lives Matter ” have not been championing cohesion , harmony , and equal treatment .
They have been dedicated to division , discrimination , and separatism .
We have seen ethnic minorities being targeted for abuse for exercising dissentient thought .
As Kemi Badenoch , the Treasury and Equalities Minister , said : “ Sadly , some are willing to casually dismiss the contribution of people who don ’ t conform to their expectation of how ethnic minorities should think and behave .
This , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not an accident .
BLM is a revolutionary group – with the usual demands about overthrowing capitalism , defunding the police , generally smashing the system , and so on .
From their perspective , generating a race war makes perfect sense .
They will be delighted if white people are antagonised and start unfurling “ white lives matter ” banners .
Enoch Powell gave a speech in 1968 quoting a constituent warning that the “ black man will have the whip hand over the white man ” .
Fair-minded people would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century that followed , Powell ’ s lurid warnings of conflict have been proved wrong .
We have remained an island of great tolerance .
But police officers getting down on their knees to atone for their collective guilt in being white will not help race relations .
Provoking thoughts that , “ maybe Enoch was right after all , ” is , of course , exactly what many BLM militants hope white people will think .
What should the Government ’ s response be ?
It should pass a Non-Discrimination Act ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true equality .
That doctrine genuinely is and should be colour blind .
We should not “ positively ” discriminate based on colour , or on sex or sexuality : this discrimination is exactly the evil our credo is meant to be fighting .
When I became a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham in 2006 I proposed that we should treat people on merit and regard their colour as irrelevant – and so cut back to a minimum , all the box-ticking , form filling , creepy ethnic monitoring , and the legion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At one of the first presentations I went to , the Regeneration Director talked about the Council ’ s programme to ‘ help black and ethnic minorities into employment.
’ The justification was that unemployment was disproportionately high among this – intrinsically artificial – category .
But my point was that any help to unemployed people should be provided on an equal basis – that the ethnicity of an unemployed person is irrelevant and assistance should be purely determined by their individual need .
They are people , they are not categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colour blind ” law would prohibit any part of the public sector ( or any organisation funded by the public sector ) asking anyone questions about their ethnicity , religion , or sexual orientation .
There is lots of doublespeak in the law .
Talk of “ positive action ” rather than “ positive discrimination ” , of “ targets ” rather than “ quotas ” abounds .
Mike O ’ Brien , the Home Office Minister in the Labour Government , defended the introduction of ‘ targets ’ for ethnic minority recruitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are illegal , ” he said .
“ Targets are about fairness , rewarding talent and putting an end to glass ceilings .
Managers will have to deliver their targets.
” The reality is that discrimination is required .
As the sociologist , Peter Saunders , wrote in his excellent Civitas paper , The Rise of the Equalities Industry : “ This means that it is not unfair to discriminate against somebody provided you are helping someone else who belongs to a group which the government favours.
’ Once such privileging would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing public policy would set out to do .
Now it is such a commonplace that we struggle to even notice it being done.
” We even saw the Association of Chief Police Officers declare : ‘ ” Colour-blind‛ policing means policing that purports to treat everyone in the same way .
Such an approach is flawed and unjust … This is not enough .
In a passively non-racist environment , racists can still thrive , discriminatory organisational structures and practices can still persist , and racism in the broader community can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ equalities ” agenda has harmed the interests of those it is supposed to help is for children in care .
Social workers now seek , not a willing home , but an “ ethnic match ” .
The upshot is that many black children are stuck in the care system , if only white prospective adopters are available .
Thus those children are denied a permanent loving family and their life prospects are greatly harmed .
A colour-blind law would make such discriminatory behaviour by the police and social workers illegal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly break the consensus .
One example will give a perspective on the parameters in which current policy operates .
In 2011 , David Cameron attacked Oxford University saying it was “ disgraceful ” it admitted so few black students .
The university responded with statistics showing that it had 12,671 white students , 1,477 Asian students , 1,098 Chinese , 838 mixed-race , 254 ‘ other ethnicity ’ and 253 describing themselves as ‘ black ’ .
If the Chinese and Indians are ‘ over-represented ’ , as they do well at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to make space for white children with lower grades ?
With a colour-blind law , this pernicious exchange would not even be possible .
Oxford would be prohibited from even asking their students such questions .
Would such a change be impossible ?
There is an analogy with Brexit .
Initially only a handful of MPs would be expected to back such a demand openly .
Just as only a handful of them backed Better Off Out when it was launched in 2006 .
However , there would be significant support in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just among Conservatives .
In the film , Guess Who ’ s Coming to Dinner , Dr. John Prentice , played by Sidney Poitier , a black man is cautioned by his father against marrying a white woman .
John tells his father : “ You think of yourself as a coloured man .
I think of myself as a man.
” That encapsulates the issue we face .
A clean break is needed .
Just lifting requirements on the public sector is not enough .
All the equalities paraphernalia must be banished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swept away , to allow a true end to discrimination , with the rights of each individual valued and respected .
All the quotas , targets , monitoring , thought policing , impact assessing , “ Women ’ s Studies ” , “ Black Studies ” , “ Black History Month ” , need to be not just pruned , but pulled up by the roots .
Then put down plenty of salt to stop it all growing back .
Then we can be – as the tennis player Serena Williams tweeted – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A longer version of this piece has appeared in The Critic .

“I have a dream,” declared Martin Luther King on August 28, 1963, “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” That inspirational cry for justice – for a colour blind society of individual opportunity and responsibility – has been betrayed. Those thwarting that dream are not the white supremacists, but the supposed “anti-racists” in the equalities industry.
This bitter irony will not have escaped the notice of the more assiduous followers of current affairs. Outfits such as “Black Lives Matter” have not been championing cohesion, harmony, and equal treatment. They have been dedicated to division, discrimination, and separatism.
We have seen ethnic minorities being targeted for abuse for exercising dissentient thought. As Kemi Badenoch, the Treasury and Equalities Minister, said:
“Sadly, some are willing to casually dismiss the contribution of people who don’t conform to their expectation of how ethnic minorities should think and behave. This, in itself, is racist.”
This is not an accident. BLM is a revolutionary group – with the usual demands about overthrowing capitalism, defunding the police, generally smashing the system, and so on. From their perspective, generating a race war makes perfect sense. They will be delighted if white people are antagonised and start unfurling “white lives matter” banners.
Enoch Powell gave a speech in 1968 quoting a constituent warning that the “black man will have the whip hand over the white man”. Fair-minded people would have to say that in the half century that followed, Powell’s lurid warnings of conflict have been proved wrong. We have remained an island of great tolerance. But police officers getting down on their knees to atone for their collective guilt in being white will not help race relations. Provoking thoughts that, “maybe Enoch was right after all,” is, of course, exactly what many BLM militants hope white people will think.
What should the Government’s response be? It should pass a Non-Discrimination Act ensuring the public sector follows the principle of true equality. That doctrine genuinely is and should be colour blind. We should not “positively” discriminate based on colour, or on sex or sexuality: this discrimination is exactly the evil our credo is meant to be fighting.
When I became a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham in 2006 I proposed that we should treat people on merit and regard their colour as irrelevant – and so cut back to a minimum, all the box-ticking, form filling, creepy ethnic monitoring, and the legion of staff required to undertake all this. At one of the first presentations I went to, the Regeneration Director talked about the Council’s programme to ‘help black and ethnic minorities into employment.’ The justification was that unemployment was disproportionately high among this – intrinsically artificial – category. But my point was that any help to unemployed people should be provided on an equal basis – that the ethnicity of an unemployed person is irrelevant and assistance should be purely determined by their individual need. They are people, they are not categories.
It would follow that a “colour blind” law would prohibit any part of the public sector (or any organisation funded by the public sector) asking anyone questions about their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
There is lots of doublespeak in the law. Talk of “positive action” rather than “positive discrimination”, of “targets” rather than “quotas” abounds. Mike O’Brien, the Home Office Minister in the Labour Government, defended the introduction of ‘targets’ for ethnic minority recruitment into the police force. “Quotas are illegal,” he said. “Targets are about fairness, rewarding talent and putting an end to glass ceilings. Managers will have to deliver their targets.” The reality is that discrimination is required.
As the sociologist, Peter Saunders, wrote in his excellent Civitas paper, The Rise of the Equalities Industry:
“This means that it is not unfair to discriminate against somebody provided you are helping someone else who belongs to a group which the government favours.’ Once such privileging would have been seen as abhorrent and the last thing public policy would set out to do. Now it is such a commonplace that we struggle to even notice it being done.”
We even saw the Association of Chief Police Officers declare:
‘”Colour-blind‛ policing means policing that purports to treat everyone in the same way. Such an approach is flawed and unjust … This is not enough. In a passively non-racist environment, racists can still thrive, discriminatory organisational structures and practices can still persist, and racism in the broader community can go largely unchallenged.”
Another way that the “equalities” agenda has harmed the interests of those it is supposed to help is for children in care. Social workers now seek, not a willing home, but an “ethnic match”. The upshot is that many black children are stuck in the care system, if only white prospective adopters are available. Thus those children are denied a permanent loving family and their life prospects are greatly harmed. A colour-blind law would make such discriminatory behaviour by the police and social workers illegal.
Could it be done? It would certainly break the consensus. One example will give a perspective on the parameters in which current policy operates. In 2011, David Cameron attacked Oxford University saying it was “disgraceful” it admitted so few black students. The university responded with statistics showing that it had 12,671 white students, 1,477 Asian students, 1,098 Chinese, 838 mixed-race, 254 ‘other ethnicity’ and 253 describing themselves as ‘black’. If the Chinese and Indians are ‘over-represented’, as they do well at A-level grades, should they be turned down to make space for white children with lower grades? With a colour-blind law, this pernicious exchange would not even be possible. Oxford would be prohibited from even asking their students such questions.
Would such a change be impossible? There is an analogy with Brexit. Initially only a handful of MPs would be expected to back such a demand openly. Just as only a handful of them backed Better Off Out when it was launched in 2006. However, there would be significant support in terms of public opinion, and not just among Conservatives.
In the film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Dr. John Prentice, played by Sidney Poitier, a black man is cautioned by his father against marrying a white woman. John tells his father:
“You think of yourself as a coloured man. I think of myself as a man.”
That encapsulates the issue we face.
A clean break is needed. Just lifting requirements on the public sector is not enough. All the equalities paraphernalia must be banished. All the grievance-mongering for collective groups swept away, to allow a true end to discrimination, with the rights of each individual valued and respected. All the quotas, targets, monitoring, thought policing, impact assessing, “Women’s Studies”, “Black Studies”, “Black History Month”, need to be not just pruned, but pulled up by the roots. Then put down plenty of salt to stop it all growing back. Then we can be – as the tennis player Serena Williams tweeted – “one race, the human race.”
A longer version of this piece has appeared in The Critic.


conservativehome--2020-07-11--Bevin, the working-class John Bull who stood up to Stalin and has no successors in today’s Labour Pa

Bevin, the working-class John Bull who stood up to Stalin and has no successors in today’s Labour Party

Andrew Adonis has chosen a magnificent subject .
Ernest Bevin was recognised by everyone he met in the 30 years before his death in 1951 as a tremendous figure , a man of power who invigorated any transaction in which he took part , “ a working-class John Bull ” , as Winston Churchill put it , who did not allow anyone , Stalin included , to push him around .
From 1945-51 Bevin served as one of the great Foreign Secretaries .
The brilliant young men who worked for him at the Foreign Office respected and adored him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one could wish had been reproduced larger , of the last of his private secretaries , Roddy Barclay – tall , thin , alert , languid , deferential , wearing an elegant double-breasted suit , a grave demeanour and a moustache , “ a clever man who chose not to seem clever ” as his obituarist in The Independent put it – holding a paper for the Foreign Secretary and indicating on it some matter of importance .
Bevin is sitting at an ornate desk , a massive figure , head on one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mouth , pen held , as Adonis points out , like a chisel , giving the paper his undivided attention and probably about to deliver a brutally funny retort .
In Adonis ’ s best chapter , entitled “ Ernie ” , we get Bevin at the height of his powers , with Barclay and Nico Henderson preserving some of the best things they heard him say : Or of a speech by Nye Bevan : One of the reasons why Bevin has faded from the public mind is that his name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eclipsed all others to carry off the glory of founding the National Health Service .
Unless one is an expert , one has to make an effort to remember which Labour politician is which , and although Bevin was a big figure for a longer period , and had greater achievements to his name , none of those achievements is so easy to explain or to approve of as the NHS .
He was born into rural poverty in Winsford , a remote village in Somerset where another Foreign Secretary , Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childhood .
Bevin ’ s mother , Mercy , whose photograph he kept all his life on his desk , was single , and died when he was eight .
He left school at the age of 11 and became a farm labourer , which he called “ a form of slavery ” .
His favourite poem was “ The Deserted Village ” by Oliver Goldsmith : At the age of 13 , Bevin managed to join two of his older brothers in Bristol , where he became a drayman , a Baptist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union organiser , and before the First World War made common cause between the Bristol carters and dockers .
He was an organiser and negotiator of genius and in 1922 founded the Transport and General Workers ’ Union , which he built into the biggest union in the world , all the time fighting off attempts by Communists to take control .
This was his school of politics .
He saw that Churchill ’ s decision to go back on the gold standard in 1925 had “ pushed us over the cliff ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would have to be cut if British industries were to survive .
Hence the General Strike of 1926 , precipitated by proposed cuts in miners ’ wages .
It is good to be reminded of the remark by Lord Birkenhead , who as F.E.Smith had won a name as one of the most brilliant Conservatives of that or any other generation : Adonis calls F.E.Smith “ the Boris Johnson-esque Tory extrovert of the day ” .
One sees what he means , but the description isn ’ t quite right .
Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more cutting wit .
If Bevin had been able to take charge of the union side of the talks with the Government , the General Strike might have been averted .
He was not dominant enough at the start of the crisis to do that , but had emerged by the end of it as a “ leader of leaders ” .
Men of imagination and intellect – David Lloyd George , John Maynard Keynes – recognised Bevin as a kindred spirit , more Keynesian than Keynes , someone who saw without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one answer to mass unemployment must be to leave the gold standard , while another must be to institute programmes of public works .
Men devoid of imagination – Stanley Baldwin , the Conservative leader , and Ramsay MacDonald , the Labour leader – formed a coalition to uphold economic orthodoxy and keep Lloyd George , who championed Keynes ’ s ideas , out of power .
In 1935 , Bevin was instrumental in getting rid of George Lansbury , described by Adonis as “ a 1930s Jeremy Corbyn ” , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to death , ” as their Labour colleague Hugh Dalton put it .
When reproached for brutality , Bevin said , Bevin supported Clement Attlee as the new leader , and in the years to come upheld him through numerous attempts by Labour colleagues to overthrow him .
In 1940 , when Labour joined Churchill ’ s wartime coalition , Bevin came in as Minister of Labour and a member of the War Cabinet , and with characteristic dynamism set about mobilising the work force .
In 1945 , as the new Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s side into hard bargaining with Stalin at the Potsdam Conference , and saw at once – much quicker than the Americans – that here was a Communist who was trying to take control of Western Europe , and must be resisted .
There was no false modesty about Bevin .
He knew what he could do .
He worked incredibly hard , without showing off about it , and “ used alcohol like a car uses petrol ” .
On the plane back from Potsdam , he told Nico Henderson : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repetitive way , how crucial Bevin was in resisting Stalin ’ s attempts to neutralise or take over the whole of occupied Germany .
This is not really why we are interested in Bevin .
He is a fascinating political personality .
We want to read about Churchill whether or not it can be proved he stopped Hitler , and about Bevin whether or not it can be proved he stopped Stalin .
In each case , the more stridently one advances the claim , the more insecure one is liable to sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what became West Germany was a triumph of British statecraft for which Bevin deserves credit .
Every so often , when I was a correspondent in Berlin in the 1990s , I was reminded of this , but found it hard to dramatise events which had happened 50 years before .
And after all , the success of West Germany had an awful lot to do with the Germans .
Bevin did not get pious about the postwar settlement .
He said of the Germans to General Brian Robertson , Governor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ ard , Brian , but I ‘ ates them.
” This book is dedicated to Roy Jenkins , “ friend , mentor , inspiration ” .
Unfortunately , the disciple was in too much of a rush to maintain the high standards of eloquence and wit set by his master .
There are sentences in Adonis ’ s book which are too clumsy ever to have been written , let alone allowed to pass into print , by Jenkins .
But there is also a love of anecdote , and an understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are worthy of Jenkins .
This book can be recommended to anyone interested in Bevin who lacks the time or will to read Alan Bullock ’ s three-volume biography , on which Adonis acknowledges his reliance .
Another reason why Bevin has faded from public view is that it is impossible to say who his successors were .
The unions became a source of trouble more than of statesmen .
Alan Johnson is the last major figure to have come up through one .
The mighty T & G merged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union , led by Len McCluskey .
What a falling off .
Adonis concludes of Bevin ,

Ernest Bevin: Labour’s Churchill by Andrew Adonis
Andrew Adonis has chosen a magnificent subject. Ernest Bevin was recognised by everyone he met in the 30 years before his death in 1951 as a tremendous figure, a man of power who invigorated any transaction in which he took part, “a working-class John Bull”, as Winston Churchill put it, who did not allow anyone, Stalin included, to push him around.
From 1945-51 Bevin served as one of the great Foreign Secretaries. The brilliant young men who worked for him at the Foreign Office respected and adored him.
This book carries a photograph, which one could wish had been reproduced larger, of the last of his private secretaries, Roddy Barclay – tall, thin, alert, languid, deferential, wearing an elegant double-breasted suit, a grave demeanour and a moustache, “a clever man who chose not to seem clever” as his obituarist in The Independent put it – holding a paper for the Foreign Secretary and indicating on it some matter of importance.
Bevin is sitting at an ornate desk, a massive figure, head on one side, cigarette in the corner of his mouth, pen held, as Adonis points out, like a chisel, giving the paper his undivided attention and probably about to deliver a brutally funny retort.
In Adonis’s best chapter, entitled “Ernie”, we get Bevin at the height of his powers, with Barclay and Nico Henderson preserving some of the best things they heard him say:
“If you open that Pandora’s Box you never know what Trojan ‘orses will jump out.”
Or of a speech by Nye Bevan:
“It sounded as if he’d swallowed a dictionary. ‘E used a lot of words but ‘e didn’t know what they all meant.”
One of the reasons why Bevin has faded from the public mind is that his name is so similar to Bevan, who eclipsed all others to carry off the glory of founding the National Health Service.
Unless one is an expert, one has to make an effort to remember which Labour politician is which, and although Bevin was a big figure for a longer period, and had greater achievements to his name, none of those achievements is so easy to explain or to approve of as the NHS.
He was born into rural poverty in Winsford, a remote village in Somerset where another Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was to spend part of his childhood.
Bevin’s mother, Mercy, whose photograph he kept all his life on his desk, was single, and died when he was eight. He left school at the age of 11 and became a farm labourer, which he called “a form of slavery”. His favourite poem was “The Deserted Village” by Oliver Goldsmith:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.
At the age of 13, Bevin managed to join two of his older brothers in Bristol, where he became a drayman, a Baptist preacher, a socialist and a trade union organiser, and before the First World War made common cause between the Bristol carters and dockers.
He was an organiser and negotiator of genius and in 1922 founded the Transport and General Workers’ Union, which he built into the biggest union in the world, all the time fighting off attempts by Communists to take control.
This was his school of politics. He saw that Churchill’s decision to go back on the gold standard in 1925 had “pushed us over the cliff” and was a disaster for wages, which would have to be cut if British industries were to survive.
Hence the General Strike of 1926, precipitated by proposed cuts in miners’ wages. It is good to be reminded of the remark by Lord Birkenhead, who as F.E.Smith had won a name as one of the most brilliant Conservatives of that or any other generation:
“It would be possible to say without exaggeration of the miners’ leaders that they were the stupidest men in England if we had not had frequent occasion to meet the owners.”
Adonis calls F.E.Smith “the Boris Johnson-esque Tory extrovert of the day”. One sees what he means, but the description isn’t quite right. Smith was harsher than Johnson, and had a more cutting wit.
If Bevin had been able to take charge of the union side of the talks with the Government, the General Strike might have been averted. He was not dominant enough at the start of the crisis to do that, but had emerged by the end of it as a “leader of leaders”.
Men of imagination and intellect – David Lloyd George, John Maynard Keynes – recognised Bevin as a kindred spirit, more Keynesian than Keynes, someone who saw without needing to work out the theory that one answer to mass unemployment must be to leave the gold standard, while another must be to institute programmes of public works.
Men devoid of imagination – Stanley Baldwin, the Conservative leader, and Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour leader – formed a coalition to uphold economic orthodoxy and keep Lloyd George, who championed Keynes’s ideas, out of power.
In 1935, Bevin was instrumental in getting rid of George Lansbury, described by Adonis as “a 1930s Jeremy Corbyn”, from the Labour leadership. “Bevin hammered Lansbury to death,” as their Labour colleague Hugh Dalton put it. When reproached for brutality, Bevin said,
“Lansbury had been going about dressed in saint’s clothes for years waiting for martyrdom: I set fire to the faggots.”
Bevin supported Clement Attlee as the new leader, and in the years to come upheld him through numerous attempts by Labour colleagues to overthrow him.
In 1940, when Labour joined Churchill’s wartime coalition, Bevin came in as Minister of Labour and a member of the War Cabinet, and with characteristic dynamism set about mobilising the work force.
In 1945, as the new Foreign Secretary, Bevin was plunged at Attlee’s side into hard bargaining with Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, and saw at once – much quicker than the Americans – that here was a Communist who was trying to take control of Western Europe, and must be resisted.
There was no false modesty about Bevin. He knew what he could do. He worked incredibly hard, without showing off about it, and “used alcohol like a car uses petrol”. On the plane back from Potsdam, he told Nico Henderson:
“You see, I’ve had a good deal of experience with foreigners. Before the last war I had to do a good deal of negotiation with ships’ captains of all nationalities. These people, Stalin and Truman, are just the same as all Russians and Americans; and dealing with them over foreign affairs is just the same as trying to come to a settlement about unloading a ship. Oh yes, I can handle them.”
Adonis keeps saying, in a somewhat repetitive way, how crucial Bevin was in resisting Stalin’s attempts to neutralise or take over the whole of occupied Germany.
This is not really why we are interested in Bevin. He is a fascinating political personality. We want to read about Churchill whether or not it can be proved he stopped Hitler, and about Bevin whether or not it can be proved he stopped Stalin.
In each case, the more stridently one advances the claim, the more insecure one is liable to sound.
It is true that the creation of what became West Germany was a triumph of British statecraft for which Bevin deserves credit.
Every so often, when I was a correspondent in Berlin in the 1990s, I was reminded of this, but found it hard to dramatise events which had happened 50 years before.
And after all, the success of West Germany had an awful lot to do with the Germans.
Bevin did not get pious about the postwar settlement. He said of the Germans to General Brian Robertson, Governor of the British zone: “I tries ‘ard, Brian, but I ‘ates them.”
This book is dedicated to Roy Jenkins, “friend, mentor, inspiration”. Unfortunately, the disciple was in too much of a rush to maintain the high standards of eloquence and wit set by his master.
There are sentences in Adonis’s book which are too clumsy ever to have been written, let alone allowed to pass into print, by Jenkins.
But there is also a love of anecdote, and an understanding of the way it can illuminate history, which are worthy of Jenkins.
This book can be recommended to anyone interested in Bevin who lacks the time or will to read Alan Bullock’s three-volume biography, on which Adonis acknowledges his reliance.
Another reason why Bevin has faded from public view is that it is impossible to say who his successors were. The unions became a source of trouble more than of statesmen. Alan Johnson is the last major figure to have come up through one.
The mighty T & G merged in 2007 with Amicus and was renamed Unite the Union, led by Len McCluskey. What a falling off. Adonis concludes of Bevin,


conservativehome--2020-07-12--WATCH: Gove – ‘I trust people’s good sense’. Why he doesn’t think face coverings should be mandatory

WATCH: Gove – ‘I trust people’s good sense’. Why he doesn’t think face coverings should be mandatory.

I don ’ t think face masks should be mandatory in England says Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove # Marr @ @ @ @ @ pic.twitter.com/5O6qpZdnWg

I don’t think face masks should be mandatory in England says Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove#Marr #Covid_19 https://t.co/yo0vxOfWRt pic.twitter.com/5O6qpZdnWg
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 12, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-12--WATCH: ‘I regret and apologise for every death’, says Sturgeon

“ I regret and apologise for every death ” caused by # Covid_19 “ but what I absolutely refute is @ @ @ @ @ problem in Scotland or that we didn ’ t take great care ” in care @ @ @ @ @ Sturgeon # Marr https : //t.co/vv3xj42BOm pic.twitter.com/ouy56GRKPB

“I regret and apologise for every death” caused by #Covid_19 “but what I absolutely refute is that there was some particular problem in Scotland or that we didn’t take great care” in care homes says First Minister Nicola Sturgeon#Marr https://t.co/vv3xj42BOm pic.twitter.com/ouy56GRKPB
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 12, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-12--WATCH: Taoiseach – more clarity needed on plans for Irish border

We need more detail and precision on arrangements for the Northern Ireland protocol , which aims to avoid a hard @ @ @ @ @ Ireland says Irish PM Micheal Martin # Marr https : //t.co/kzT0uWXfss pic.twitter.com/VgAVCJnp0T

We need more detail and precision on arrangements for the Northern Ireland protocol, which aims to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland says Irish PM Micheal Martin#Marr https://t.co/kzT0uWXfss pic.twitter.com/VgAVCJnp0T
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 12, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-12--WATCH: Gove says Covid-19 technology will be used to spread jobs across the UK

“ Within the civil service ” the government will use technology to enable people to work from home and out @ @ @ @ @ “ more equitably ” across the UK , says @ michaelgove.
# Ridge

“Within the civil service” the government will use technology to enable people to work from home and out of London – distributing jobs “more equitably” across the UK, says @michaelgove.#Ridge
Follow live: https://t.co/h0gbPJfUZi pic.twitter.com/VyLjk3gzVm
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) July 12, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-12--Polling snapshot. How Johnson reinvented the Conservatives after they had recently formed government

Polling snapshot. How Johnson reinvented the Conservatives after they had recently formed governments three times

Begin by looking at the Politico poll of polls graph above , which we like to use on ConservativeHome from time and time , and which today we present in its two year-version .
The Conservative Party begins two summers ago on the 40 per cent or so that represents its floor , following the EU referendum of 2016 and Theresa May ’ s election as the Tory leader .
Even the disaster of the 2017 general election does nothing to push support below this total .
The slide in the Tory rating from it begins on March 2 last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Withdrawal Agreement is defeated for a second time , and as the prospect of a Brexit extension begins to loom .
Down , down , down it falls through the Withdrawal Agreement ’ s third defeat and a second Brexit extension , reaching a low of 20 per cent on May 30 , after the European elections on May 24 , which saw the Conservatives reduced to nine per cent of the vote , coming fifth behind the Green Party , and returning only four MEPs .
Now look at that blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Tory leadership contest gathers pace , Boris Johnson wins it , and survives defeats in the Supreme Court , resignations , and more defeats in Commons before winning last year ’ s election .
It begins to drop , with Coronavirus fatigue , economic hardship , Keir Starmer ’ s election and Government errors doubtless the main reasons , hitting 43 per cent on June 2 .
Since then , it has held steady , rising on June 9 to 44 per cent .
YouGov on Friday found it at 46 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wrote that the Black Lives Matter fracas may have played well for Labour ’ s core constituency in the belt of seats that runs south from Enfield to the Thames , but badly in England ’ s provinces and the Red Wall .
We stick to that view .
Johnson may also have been helped by the impact of Government error over the virus petering out ; by Rishi Sunak ’ s activity ; and by policies likely to go down well outside that Labour London base , such as the amalgamation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insofar as they have cut through ) .
We expect Labour to take the poll lead at some point within the next year .
And next year ’ s local elections look to be very messy , assuming they happen .
But it ’ s worth chewing over the Prime Minister ’ s achievement in first putting the Conservative pro-Brexit electoral coalition together again , and then presenting it to voters last December as a new force – after no fewer than three elections since 2010 in which the Tories had led the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It endures still .

Source: Politico
Begin by looking at the Politico poll of polls graph above, which we like to use on ConservativeHome from time and time, and which today we present in its two year-version.
The Conservative Party begins two summers ago on the 40 per cent or so that represents its floor, following the EU referendum of 2016 and Theresa May’s election as the Tory leader. Even the disaster of the 2017 general election does nothing to push support below this total.
The slide in the Tory rating from it begins on March 2 last year, shortly before Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement is defeated for a second time, and as the prospect of a Brexit extension begins to loom.
Down, down, down it falls through the Withdrawal Agreement’s third defeat and a second Brexit extension, reaching a low of 20 per cent on May 30, after the European elections on May 24, which saw the Conservatives reduced to nine per cent of the vote, coming fifth behind the Green Party, and returning only four MEPs.
Now look at that blue line rise up, up, up as the Tory leadership contest gathers pace, Boris Johnson wins it, and survives defeats in the Supreme Court, resignations, and more defeats in Commons before winning last year’s election.
It begins to drop, with Coronavirus fatigue, economic hardship, Keir Starmer’s election and Government errors doubtless the main reasons, hitting 43 per cent on June 2. Since then, it has held steady, rising on June 9 to 44 per cent. YouGov on Friday found it at 46 per cent.
Last time round, we wrote that the Black Lives Matter fracas may have played well for Labour’s core constituency in the belt of seats that runs south from Enfield to the Thames, but badly in England’s provinces and the Red Wall.
We stick to that view. Johnson may also have been helped by the impact of Government error over the virus petering out; by Rishi Sunak’s activity; and by policies likely to go down well outside that Labour London base, such as the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and Dfid (insofar as they have cut through).
We expect Labour to take the poll lead at some point within the next year. And next year’s local elections look to be very messy, assuming they happen.
But it’s worth chewing over the Prime Minister’s achievement in first putting the Conservative pro-Brexit electoral coalition together again, and then presenting it to voters last December as a new force – after no fewer than three elections since 2010 in which the Tories had led the government, winning one of them outright. It endures still.