conservativehome--2020-10-09--Lord Ashcroft: “I think there might be riots whoever wins.” My American election campaign focus grou

Lord Ashcroft: “I think there might be riots whoever wins.” My American election campaign focus groups in Florida and Wisconsin.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman , philanthropist , author and pollster .
For information on Lord Ashcroft ’ s work , visit www.lordashcroft.com .
In the weeks before the United States elected Donald Trump in 2016 , I conducted focus groups to find out what was on people ’ s minds in swing states around the country .
This year , the Ashcroft in America tour is happening via Zoom , but the aim is the same : to hear what voters themselves are thinking as they weigh their decision .
This week , we began in Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed Trump in 2016 , having supported Obama four years earlier , and were having second thoughts , Hispanic voters who had helped elect Trump but were now undecided , and centrist Democrats backing Biden with varying degrees of enthusiasm .
Our 2016 Trump voters had plenty of complaints , often to do with the way he conducts himself : “ We were looking for a complete change and we certainly got that , ” says one .
“ But he fails in my mind with acting the way a President should act.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s not honest , and , you know , he ’ s our leader .
So I just don ’ t feel we have anybody to look up to.
” “ I thought he was a good candidate versus Clinton .
But I also feel like when he got into office , his ego sort of took over .
All the Twitter stuff – if you ’ re the president of a country you don ’ t need to be doing that at three in the morning.
” “ Who says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Were these things not plain to see when you elected him four years ago ?
“ I thought the job would knock a few rough edges off him .
I thought he would take it down a notch ; ” “ I guess I expect the President to have some respect for the job .
It ’ s not a reality TV show .
And it ’ s not good enough to be able to say , well , that ’ s him .
Now you ’ re the President.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and throughout his time in office , many were grudgingly prepared to tolerate Trump ’ s antics as the price of what they regarded as more important things .
“ You have to put aside some of the Twitter stuff and that type of thing .
But the one thing you can not take away from him is that he has done what he said he was going to do.
” “ He ’ s crass , rude , but stands his ground and he does believe in America.
” “ Being President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain level of decorum and he certainly fails on that , and that is bothersome to me .
But you know , you can ’ t argue with the stock market ; ” “ Who says you have to like the President ?
He ’ s an employee for us .
He ’ s done the job , there ’ s no doubt about it.
” “ I don ’ t think he believes enough in science or is intelligent enough to accept when he is wrong.
” Though they praised his record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement and international relations , many previous Trump voters were more doubtful about his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic .
This was not universal – even some opponents said the outcome of such an unprecedented event would probably have been similar whoever was in the White House – but some felt he had taken the wrong attitude and set the wrong tone .
“ I found it very disappointing , as I don ’ t think it was a hoax .
I don ’ t think it ’ s something you drink Clorox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think he believes enough in science or is intelligent enough to accept when he is wrong.
” “ He ’ s been unwilling to back off his initial stance .
I would have liked to see him acknowledge a little bit more that this maybe is a bigger thing than he originally thought.
” These mistakes were not necessarily enough for wavering supporters to write him off , however .
“ I don ’ t judge the entire book on just one page ” , as one put it .
“ People who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just not his personality.
” “ He pretended it wasn ’ t a big deal and then went and caught it.
” But it was notable that Trump ’ s own experience of the virus , rather than prompting an outpouring of sympathy and concern , often produced the usually unspoken reaction that it served him right – both because of his disdain for masks and social distancing , and his wider handling of the crisis .
“ Look where he ’ s sitting today .
That ’ s ironic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but yes , as a leader , he could have done listening to science .
But he totally discarded that aspect and went on with his own ingenuity.
” “ I hate to say I would like to see him suffer a little bit , but in all reality , he ’ s not handling it right .
The reason he has it is because he didn ’ t handle the situation correctly.
” “ With him getting Covid and his blatant disrespect for wearing masks , that ’ s a problem for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House are getting infected .
Against the blatant disrespect for PPE , I don ’ t know , it just seems like he could have avoided that and avoided other people getting it as well .
“ It was kind of a negative for me that he pretended it wasn ’ t a big deal and then went and caught it anyway.
” “ During the debate he said , oh , Biden , you could be 200 feet away and you ’ d wear the biggest , stupidest mask ever .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear a mask , and then he goes and contracts Covid.
” Trump ’ s declaration on leaving hospital that people should not be afraid of the virus was given short shrift by many , including some of his own voters .
“ We all don ’ t have the resources that he has .
How would it affect me or my husband or any of us ?
” “ I ’ m a mother of eight kids , I do have something to be afraid of .
If I get sick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children , if my husband gets sick he can ’ t work .
We can ’ t all afford these Molotov cocktails of medication that he got in hospital to make him feel better.
” “ Singing Kumbaya with everybody is not going to work.
” Even with his more doubtful 2016 voters , Trump was on much firmer ground with his handling of the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer , which many felt had strayed from their original purpose and had been allowed to get out of hand .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t to be negated , but those are extreme outliers .
I don ’ t see a need to say anything about law enforcement in general.
” “ A lot of people in these protests don ’ t even know what they ’ re fighting for .
They ’ re just pissed about being locked down .
People are just acting like assholes , basically.
” “ I feel like a lot of the rioting is staged and it ’ s been organised by some higher power .
When you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a riot happening , readily available for someone to grab a brick , who brought those bricks in ?
Who staged that ?
” “ I don ’ t call these people protesters , they were nothing but thugs and irritants .
Gangs breaking the glass of department stores and stealing the merchandise .
Those are the people that need to be stopped.
” While most previous supporters backed his willingness to deploy the National Guard , some felt the President could have been firmer .
“ It should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Tampa , there ’ s been a lot of violence and people ’ s businesses being burned down and property being destroyed.
” “ It should have been harsher .
This new age is all about getting attention and seeking attention , and rioting is the perfect way to do it.
” At the same time , they doubted that Biden would take a strong enough stance faced with the same situation – a critical distinction between the candidates for some participants .
“ He wasn ’ t really saying anything , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all get along ’ .
” “ One big thing that would affect my family is which side is going to have my [ police officer ] husband ’ s back .
Singing Kumbaya with everybody is not going to work .
There has to be a point where it ’ s gone too far and there needs to be an authority saying , you know , that ’ s it.
” For many , including some of his previous voters , Trump ’ s response to the protests was the latest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflamed racial tensions in America , including his rhetoric on immigration .
“ There have been racial distances all throughout our existence , but nothing has lit the fire like his torch .
He ’ s igniting the fire.
” “ Trump created the monsters in people .
And it ’ s going to take a long time to heal that.
” While most of our Hispanic participants felt that race relations had worsened , there was some debate within the group as to how far Trump could be held responsible “ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were calm for many years in this country .
Now , when he talks , all those racist people say , ‘ all right , this is my time ’ .
I ’ m going to turn 41 in five weeks , and this is the first time in my life living in this country that I feel worried about my safety.
” “ I just think some of the Trump supporters are misinterpreting what he meant on illegal immigration .
They ’ ll look at me and think , oh , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not , I ’ m Puerto Rican and a US citizen .
They ’ re yelling at my mother to go back to Mexico .
So I don ’ t think it ’ s so much Trump , I think it ’ s the way people interpret things.
” “ I would say no .
If you ’ re a racist you ’ re a racist , you don ’ t need a president to pull that out .
I have a hard time seeing how the actions of one man or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with a president.
” With one exception ( “ I thought it was extremely entertaining ” ) , our former Trump voters found his first TV debate against Biden extremely unedifying .
“ Oh it was embarrassing .
We are such a joke.
” “ When he was talking about Biden ’ s son , that was just disgusting , really below the belt.
” “ I was on track to vote for him until that debate , and then I was ‘ not so much ’ .
Now I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself was a moderate , many felt that as President he would be dominated by more left-wing forces .
“ I think there are a significant amount of radical people behind him , very liberal individuals ; ” “ He ’ s kind of a puppet for Nancy Pelosi and everyone else behind them .
He ’ s pretty old .
I don ’ t see him really standing up for anything except what the Democrats want him to say.
” “ You either vote for Trump as the Republican or you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I feel like with Biden we ’ d be more like a socialist country under that kind of leadership .
I ’ m thinking more about the small business and less government Republican side , even though I don ’ t like Trump as a person.
” This was seen as particularly worrying given concerns about Biden ’ s age and health , shared by some registered Democrats as well as wavering former Trump supporters .
More specifically , they feared he would not last a full term as president , clearing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It looks like he ’ s probably got dementia .
You ’ ll be having President Harris… He ’ s the transition-in-chief.
” At best , Harris was an unknown quantity , and at worst a much less moderate Democrat than Biden .
“ Even just a few months ago she was calling him a racist .
It seems like this Trojan horse play .
They ’ re going to get him into office as president , and then due to his dementia , Alzheimer ’ s , whatever he has , Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick someone who ’ s even more radical to be the VP.
” Biden and Kamala didn ’ t get along , but then he needed someone who was going to bring in the woman vote and the black vote .
And that ’ s what I hate about politics.
” “ My personal issue is that coming from Cuban parents , I can not stand someone who appreciated Fidel Castro .
There were quotes from her saying she lamented the loss of a great leader like Castro , and I would say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m about eight out of ten for Trump , primarily because I see Biden as a kind of transition to Kalama Harris and I have a lot of concerns with her.
” Nevertheless , several of our Hispanic and former Trump supporting participants said they would vote for Biden if only he could convince them : “ I ’ m 51 per cent for Trump , but I pray Biden will show me something that will please make me change that .
I don ’ t want a TV show running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no sir.
” “ He ’ s kind of a puppet .
If he showed me he could really stand up for himself , I would probably change .
But he hasn ’ t. ” Whatever happens on 3 November , few expected the election to be over on the night .
Many shared President Trump ’ s professed concerns about the security of mail-in ballots , but most of these were worried about straightforward chaos rather than foul play .
“ If you think about how mail gets lost all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing up in December .
Is there going to be a scandal like the hanging chads we had in Florida ?
” “ My father has been dead for 10 years , my mother has been dead for five years , and I got applications for their ballots .
That ’ s not right .
If it happens to me , it ’ s happening everywhere.
” In the event of a defeat , Trump in particular “ will just use that as an excuse .
He ’ s going to say ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not fair .
So this election is not fair ’ .
” Biden was thought more likely to accept defeat , though most thought he would still contest a small Trump victory – although “ I don ’ t think Biden would put up the same exact stink as Trump .
He would be quieter about it , more respectful .
I don ’ t think he would sit there and say ‘ boo-hoo , poor me ’ , and make the spectacle that Trump is going to make if the roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s former voters said they would support him challenging a narrow result : “ If it ’ s a blowout , a landslide , then suck it up and take the loss .
But if it ’ s close , why did they give Gore a recount back then and not him ?
” Even so , they wondered where it might all end .
“ He ’ s going to want to contest it , and I think he would be right to if it was close .
But I could see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It could be a very tumultuous time .
We probably won ’ t know who ’ s president until late December or even early January.
” “ In the present situation with all the protests we have , it could easily come to riots .
I think there might be riots no matter who wins.
” I don ’ t think the unrest would just disappear .
‘ OK guys , we lost , let ’ s go home and find a job ’ .
I don ’ t think that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For information on Lord Ashcroft’s work, visit www.lordashcroft.com.
In the weeks before the United States elected Donald Trump in 2016, I conducted focus groups to find out what was on people’s minds in swing states around the country.
This year, the Ashcroft in America tour is happening via Zoom, but the aim is the same: to hear what voters themselves are thinking as they weigh their decision.
This week, we began in Florida and Wisconsin, speaking to voters who backed Trump in 2016, having supported Obama four years earlier, and were having second thoughts, Hispanic voters who had helped elect Trump but were now undecided, and centrist Democrats backing Biden with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
Our 2016 Trump voters had plenty of complaints, often to do with the way he conducts himself: “We were looking for a complete change and we certainly got that,” says one. “But he fails in my mind with acting the way a President should act.”
“He’s arrogant, he’s not honest, and, you know, he’s our leader. So I just don’t feel we have anybody to look up to.”
“I thought he was a good candidate versus Clinton. But I also feel like when he got into office, his ego sort of took over. All the Twitter stuff – if you’re the president of a country you don’t need to be doing that at three in the morning.”
“Who says you have to like the President?”
Were these things not plain to see when you elected him four years ago?
“I thought the job would knock a few rough edges off him. I thought he would take it down a notch;”
“I guess I expect the President to have some respect for the job. It’s not a reality TV show. And it’s not good enough to be able to say, well, that’s him. Now you’re the President.”
But as we saw during the last campaign and throughout his time in office, many were grudgingly prepared to tolerate Trump’s antics as the price of what they regarded as more important things.
“You have to put aside some of the Twitter stuff and that type of thing. But the one thing you cannot take away from him is that he has done what he said he was going to do.”
“He’s crass, rude, but stands his ground and he does believe in America.”
“Being President of the United States calls for a certain level of decorum and he certainly fails on that, and that is bothersome to me. But you know, you can’t argue with the stock market;”
“Who says you have to like the President? He’s an employee for us. He’s done the job, there’s no doubt about it.”
“I don’t think he believes enough in science or is intelligent enough to accept when he is wrong.”
Though they praised his record on the economy, trade, law enforcement and international relations, many previous Trump voters were more doubtful about his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was not universal – even some opponents said the outcome of such an unprecedented event would probably have been similar whoever was in the White House – but some felt he had taken the wrong attitude and set the wrong tone.
“I found it very disappointing, as I don’t think it was a hoax. I don’t think it’s something you drink Clorox bleach for. I don’t think he believes enough in science or is intelligent enough to accept when he is wrong.”
“He’s been unwilling to back off his initial stance. I would have liked to see him acknowledge a little bit more that this maybe is a bigger thing than he originally thought.”
These mistakes were not necessarily enough for wavering supporters to write him off, however.
“I don’t judge the entire book on just one page”, as one put it. “People who are looking for a consoler-in-chief, that’s just not his personality.”
“He pretended it wasn’t a big deal and then went and caught it.”
But it was notable that Trump’s own experience of the virus, rather than prompting an outpouring of sympathy and concern, often produced the usually unspoken reaction that it served him right – both because of his disdain for masks and social distancing, and his wider handling of the crisis.
“Look where he’s sitting today. That’s ironic. Nobody could have done anything about it but yes, as a leader, he could have done listening to science. But he totally discarded that aspect and went on with his own ingenuity.”
“I hate to say I would like to see him suffer a little bit, but in all reality, he’s not handling it right. The reason he has it is because he didn’t handle the situation correctly.”
“With him getting Covid and his blatant disrespect for wearing masks, that’s a problem for me. More people in the White House are getting infected. Against the blatant disrespect for PPE, I don’t know, it just seems like he could have avoided that and avoided other people getting it as well.
“It was kind of a negative for me that he pretended it wasn’t a big deal and then went and caught it anyway.”
“During the debate he said, oh, Biden, you could be 200 feet away and you’d wear the biggest, stupidest mask ever. He made it kind of an insult to wear a mask, and then he goes and contracts Covid.”
Trump’s declaration on leaving hospital that people should not be afraid of the virus was given short shrift by many, including some of his own voters.
“We all don’t have the resources that he has. How would it affect me or my husband or any of us?”
“I’m a mother of eight kids, I do have something to be afraid of. If I get sick, I can’t care for my children, if my husband gets sick he can’t work. We can’t all afford these Molotov cocktails of medication that he got in hospital to make him feel better.”
“Singing Kumbaya with everybody is not going to work.”
Even with his more doubtful 2016 voters, Trump was on much firmer ground with his handling of the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer, which many felt had strayed from their original purpose and had been allowed to get out of hand.
“Those crimes committed by those police officers aren’t to be negated, but those are extreme outliers. I don’t see a need to say anything about law enforcement in general.”
“A lot of people in these protests don’t even know what they’re fighting for. They’re just pissed about being locked down. People are just acting like assholes, basically.”
“I feel like a lot of the rioting is staged and it’s been organised by some higher power. When you see pallets of bricks being brought in where there’s a riot happening, readily available for someone to grab a brick, who brought those bricks in? Who staged that?”
“I don’t call these people protesters, they were nothing but thugs and irritants. Gangs breaking the glass of department stores and stealing the merchandise. Those are the people that need to be stopped.”
While most previous supporters backed his willingness to deploy the National Guard, some felt the President could have been firmer.
“It should have been shut down, the violence. In Tampa, there’s been a lot of violence and people’s businesses being burned down and property being destroyed.”
“It should have been harsher. This new age is all about getting attention and seeking attention, and rioting is the perfect way to do it.”
At the same time, they doubted that Biden would take a strong enough stance faced with the same situation – a critical distinction between the candidates for some participants.
“He wasn’t really saying anything, other than ‘let’s just all get along’.”
“One big thing that would affect my family is which side is going to have my [police officer] husband’s back. Singing Kumbaya with everybody is not going to work. There has to be a point where it’s gone too far and there needs to be an authority saying, you know, that’s it.”
“Trump created the monsters in people.”
For many, including some of his previous voters, Trump’s response to the protests was the latest in a long line of actions that had inflamed racial tensions in America, including his rhetoric on immigration.
“There have been racial distances all throughout our existence, but nothing has lit the fire like his torch. He’s igniting the fire.”
“Trump created the monsters in people. And it’s going to take a long time to heal that.”
While most of our Hispanic participants felt that race relations had worsened, there was some debate within the group as to how far Trump could be held responsible
“He’s bringing out the racists that were calm for many years in this country. Now, when he talks, all those racist people say, ‘all right, this is my time’. I’m going to turn 41 in five weeks, and this is the first time in my life living in this country that I feel worried about my safety.”
“I just think some of the Trump supporters are misinterpreting what he meant on illegal immigration. They’ll look at me and think, oh, she’s Mexican, but I’m not, I’m Puerto Rican and a US citizen. They’re yelling at my mother to go back to Mexico. So I don’t think it’s so much Trump, I think it’s the way people interpret things.”
“I would say no. If you’re a racist you’re a racist, you don’t need a president to pull that out. I have a hard time seeing how the actions of one man or a group of men has anything to do with a president.”
With one exception (“I thought it was extremely entertaining”), our former Trump voters found his first TV debate against Biden extremely unedifying.
“Oh it was embarrassing. We are such a joke.”
“When he was talking about Biden’s son, that was just disgusting, really below the belt.”
“I was on track to vote for him until that debate, and then I was ‘not so much’. Now I’m torn.”
While most agreed that Biden himself was a moderate, many felt that as President he would be dominated by more left-wing forces.
“I think there are a significant amount of radical people behind him, very liberal individuals;” “He’s kind of a puppet for Nancy Pelosi and everyone else behind them. He’s pretty old. I don’t see him really standing up for anything except what the Democrats want him to say.”
“You either vote for Trump as the Republican or you get a Democrat, right?”
“I feel like with Biden we’d be more like a socialist country under that kind of leadership. I’m thinking more about the small business and less government Republican side, even though I don’t like Trump as a person.”
This was seen as particularly worrying given concerns about Biden’s age and health, shared by some registered Democrats as well as wavering former Trump supporters. More specifically, they feared he would not last a full term as president, clearing the way for his running mate.
“It looks like he’s probably got dementia. You’ll be having President Harris… He’s the transition-in-chief.”
At best, Harris was an unknown quantity, and at worst a much less moderate Democrat than Biden.
“Even just a few months ago she was calling him a racist. It seems like this Trojan horse play. They’re going to get him into office as president, and then due to his dementia, Alzheimer’s, whatever he has, Kamala will be promoted and they’ll pick someone who’s even more radical to be the VP.”
Biden and Kamala didn’t get along, but then he needed someone who was going to bring in the woman vote and the black vote. And that’s what I hate about politics.”
“My personal issue is that coming from Cuban parents, I cannot stand someone who appreciated Fidel Castro. There were quotes from her saying she lamented the loss of a great leader like Castro, and I would say he is certainly not beloved.”
“I’m about eight out of ten for Trump, primarily because I see Biden as a kind of transition to Kalama Harris and I have a lot of concerns with her.”
Nevertheless, several of our Hispanic and former Trump supporting participants said they would vote for Biden if only he could convince them: “I’m 51 per cent for Trump, but I pray Biden will show me something that will please make me change that. I don’t want a TV show running for another four years in my life, no sir.”
“He’s kind of a puppet. If he showed me he could really stand up for himself, I would probably change. But he hasn’t.”
Whatever happens on 3 November, few expected the election to be over on the night. Many shared President Trump’s professed concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, but most of these were worried about straightforward chaos rather than foul play.
“If you think about how mail gets lost all the time, votes are going to be showing up in December. Is there going to be a scandal like the hanging chads we had in Florida?”
“My father has been dead for 10 years, my mother has been dead for five years, and I got applications for their ballots. That’s not right. If it happens to me, it’s happening everywhere.”
In the event of a defeat, Trump in particular “will just use that as an excuse. He’s going to say ‘all these mail-in votes, they’re not fair. So this election is not fair’.”
Biden was thought more likely to accept defeat, though most thought he would still contest a small Trump victory – although “I don’t think Biden would put up the same exact stink as Trump. He would be quieter about it, more respectful. I don’t think he would sit there and say ‘boo-hoo, poor me’, and make the spectacle that Trump is going to make if the roles are reversed.”
Most of Trump’s former voters said they would support him challenging a narrow result: “If it’s a blowout, a landslide, then suck it up and take the loss. But if it’s close, why did they give Gore a recount back then and not him?”
Even so, they wondered where it might all end.
“He’s going to want to contest it, and I think he would be right to if it was close. But I could see this dragging out for weeks and weeks. It could be a very tumultuous time. We probably won’t know who’s president until late December or even early January.”
“In the present situation with all the protests we have, it could easily come to riots. I think there might be riots no matter who wins.”
I don’t think the unrest would just disappear. ‘OK guys, we lost, let’s go home and find a job’. I don’t think that’s going to happen.”


conservativehome--2020-10-09--London councils are still sitting on empty garages that could be replaced with new homes

Politicians are often keen to identify bold dramatic solutions to problems .
More mundane remedies tend to get less attention .
For instance , I have been intrigued by the evidence that taking Vitamin D pills halves the death rate from coronavirus .
To respond that its “ not a silver bullet ” – more tests are needed to be sure it cuts the death rate that much , many people would still have died even if they had taken vitamin D pills , etc – misses the point .
The probability is that it ’ s a highly cost-effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involve any further economic and social disruption or restriction on individual liberty .
I think if I was a council leader I would use a big chunk of the Public Health budget to buy thousands of jars of the pills and send out some staff from the town hall to knock on doors handing over a jar to every pensioner in the borough .
Claudia Martinez gave us another good example in a piece for this site in February .
She said that upgrding GPs surgeries would be more cost effective than building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of patients who attend A & E do so for non-urgent , minor injuries .
Sometimes they do so due to the difficulty in getting a GP appointment .
But building shiny new hospitals gets more headlines – so that it the politically tempting option .
That same “ think big ” mentality results in missed opportunities for housing development .
I have written before about the number of surplus garages owned by Councils .
Around 100,000 are empty .
But I would put the “ surplus ” figure as much higher as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parking but are used for storage – often rented out privately to those who are not residents of the council estate concerned .
Often it would be quite viable for these garages to be demolished and replaced with ( attractive ) rows of cottages .
As the state owns the land the councils should be able to make a profit – even with a mix of social housing and new homes for sale on the open market .
Some of the proceeds could be used to clear a backlog of repairs and carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing residents .
Garages on council estates are just an example – the scope for “ infill development ” on public sector sites is huge .
But the snag is that it would only be huge in a cumulative sense : a dozen homes here , another half a dozen there .
There isn ’ t the same ego trip for planners , architects , developers and politicians of a Brave New World multi million-pound scheme that they can point to as an important legacy – albeit a hideous one .
Thus we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage – behaving in a passive way , passing motions blaming central Government .
Yet they ignore the opportunities they have to do something about it .
So far as the garages are concerned , some councils don ’ t even keep proper records of what they own .
For instance , Ealing Council informed me they own 1,401 garages but they don ’ t know how many are empty .
When I asked a couple of years ago they told me they had 975 empty garages .
Newham Council didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they told Property Partner they had 1,119 .
Though Croydon Council didn ’ t reply this time , when I asked in 2019 they gave me a figure of 782 empty garages .
But I have managed to gather the following figures from councils in London – via Freedom of Information requests : So that total comes to 18,083 .
If we had the figures from Ealing , Croydon , and Newham it would be likely to be over 20,000 .
In any case , it is an increase on the total identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t apply to housing associations , so we don ’ t know about Bromley , which transferred its stock to one .
I suspect that there is equivalent wasted potential on the housing association estates dotted across the capital .
Taxpayers subsidies should be conditional on them doing better .
The Mayor of London has significant responsibility for housing and has done nothing – with either incentives or penalties – to encourage the councils to act .
Central Government has a responsibility too .
Greater transparency requirements for local authorities and housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go far enough .
Rules need to be applied with a presumption for housing development where there is a row of empty garages .
Also that when garages are vacated , priority is given to demolishing them to be replaced with housing – reletting as garages should only take place when housing on the site is not viable .
There should also be a presumption that garages currently let out to non estate residents should instead be replaced with new homes .
Though this particular research exercise concerns London the same shameful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
It is a great pity that councils and housing associations will not take the initiative to provide the new homes we need .
However , given the housing shortage is so severe , the Government must force them to end this scandal .
Bringing in some rigour to ensure proper asset management and increase the housing supply might not generate much excitement in the media .
But it would give a lot more families the chance to get on the housing ladder .

Politicians are often keen to identify bold dramatic solutions to problems. More mundane remedies tend to get less attention. For instance, I have been intrigued by the evidence that taking Vitamin D pills halves the death rate from coronavirus. To respond that its “not a silver bullet” – more tests are needed to be sure it cuts the death rate that much, many people would still have died even if they had taken vitamin D pills, etc – misses the point. The probability is that it’s a highly cost-effective way to save lives which does not involve any further economic and social disruption or restriction on individual liberty. I think if I was a council leader I would use a big chunk of the Public Health budget to buy thousands of jars of the pills and send out some staff from the town hall to knock on doors handing over a jar to every pensioner in the borough.
Claudia Martinez gave us another good example in a piece for this site in February. She said that upgrding GPs surgeries would be more cost effective than building new hospitals – as over a third of patients who attend A&E do so for non-urgent, minor injuries. Sometimes they do so due to the difficulty in getting a GP appointment. But building shiny new hospitals gets more headlines – so that it the politically tempting option.
That same “think big” mentality results in missed opportunities for housing development. I have written before about the number of surplus garages owned by Councils. Around 100,000 are empty. But I would put the “surplus” figure as much higher as many others are not really needed for parking but are used for storage – often rented out privately to those who are not residents of the council estate concerned. Often it would be quite viable for these garages to be demolished and replaced with (attractive) rows of cottages. As the state owns the land the councils should be able to make a profit – even with a mix of social housing and new homes for sale on the open market. Some of the proceeds could be used to clear a backlog of repairs and carry out estate improvements to the benefit of existing residents. Garages on council estates are just an example – the scope for “infill development” on public sector sites is huge. But the snag is that it would only be huge in a cumulative sense: a dozen homes here, another half a dozen there. There isn’t the same ego trip for planners, architects, developers and politicians of a Brave New World multi million-pound scheme that they can point to as an important legacy – albeit a hideous one.
Thus we still have councils complaining about the housing shortage – behaving in a passive way, passing motions blaming central Government. Yet they ignore the opportunities they have to do something about it. So far as the garages are concerned, some councils don’t even keep proper records of what they own. For instance, Ealing Council informed me they own 1,401 garages but they don’t know how many are empty. When I asked a couple of years ago they told me they had 975 empty garages. Newham Council didn’t respond to me, though in 2017 they told Property Partner they had 1,119. Though Croydon Council didn’t reply this time, when I asked in 2019 they gave me a figure of 782 empty garages.
But I have managed to gather the following figures from councils in London – via Freedom of Information requests:
Barking and Dagenham Council owns 935 empty garages
Barnet Council owns 1,047 empty garages.
Brent Council owns 655 empty garages.
Camden Council owns 901 empty garages.
Enfield Council owns 1,358 empty garages.
Greenwich owns 2,303 empty garages.
Hackney Council owns 520 empty garages.
Hammersmith and Fulham Council owns 293 empty garages.
Haringey Council owns 689 empty garages.
Harrow Council owns 379 empty garages.
Havering Council owns 653 empty garages.
Hillingdon Council owns 466 empty garages.
Hounslow Council owns 1,636 empty garages.
Islington Council owns 1,230 empty garages.
Kingston Council owns 478 empty garages.
Kensington and Chelsea Council owns 61 empty garages.
Lambeth Council owns 507 empty garages.
Lewisham Council owns 181 empty garages.
Southwark Council owns 1,685 empty garages
Sutton Council owns 225 empty garages.
Tower Hamlets Council owns 153 empty garages.
Waltham Forest Council owns 1,005 empty garages.
Wandsworth Council owns 431 empty garages.
Westminster Council owns 310 empty garages.
So that total comes to 18,083. If we had the figures from Ealing, Croydon, and Newham it would be likely to be over 20,000. In any case, it is an increase on the total identified last time of 15,875.
FOI doesn’t apply to housing associations, so we don’t know about Bromley, which transferred its stock to one. I suspect that there is equivalent wasted potential on the housing association estates dotted across the capital. Taxpayers subsidies should be conditional on them doing better.
The Mayor of London has significant responsibility for housing and has done nothing – with either incentives or penalties – to encourage the councils to act. Central Government has a responsibility too. Greater transparency requirements for local authorities and housing associations would help. But that would not go far enough. Rules need to be applied with a presumption for housing development where there is a row of empty garages. Also that when garages are vacated, priority is given to demolishing them to be replaced with housing – reletting as garages should only take place when housing on the site is not viable. There should also be a presumption that garages currently let out to non estate residents should instead be replaced with new homes.
Though this particular research exercise concerns London the same shameful phenomenon applies in the rest of of the country.
It is a great pity that councils and housing associations will not take the initiative to provide the new homes we need. However, given the housing shortage is so severe, the Government must force them to end this scandal. Bringing in some rigour to ensure proper asset management and increase the housing supply might not generate much excitement in the media. But it would give a lot more families the chance to get on the housing ladder.


conservativehome--2020-10-09--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Coal Authority – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Independent Office for Police Conduct ( IOPC ) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales .
It also oversees the police complaints system , and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints .
The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These include investigations into : deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody ; police shootings ; allegations of use of excessive force .
The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members , including one Senior Independent Director .
The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation ; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC ; providing support , advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions ; and monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Annual Report.
” “ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) , and the precious resources within it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations ?
Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line , providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills , experience and outlook ; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
The Board is specifically responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales. It also oversees the police complaints system, and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints. The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and allegations involving the police each year. These include investigations into: deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody; police shootings; allegations of use of excessive force. The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members, including one Senior Independent Director. The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC; providing support, advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions; and monitoring and reviewing organisational performance and contributing to the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November


conservativehome--2020-10-10--Discrimination in the Conservative Party – a call for evidence

The independent investigation into discrimination within the Conservative Party , led by Professor Swaran Preet Singh , has reached its @ @ @ @ @ it is calling for new information .
He says : “ We are now calling @ @ @ @ @ may not already have seen to ensure that we are aware , as far as @ @ @ @ @ evidence relating to alleged discrimination within the Party .
We need to determine whether all @ @ @ @ @ been considered in the framework of the Party ’ s existing complaints process.
” Here @ @ @ @ @ the call for evidence and a submission form .
The deadline for submissions is a @ @ @ @ @ 17 , at 16.00 .
For further information , please contact contact @ singhinvestigation.co.uk .

The independent investigation into discrimination within the Conservative Party, led by Professor Swaran Preet Singh, has reached its second phrase, in which it is calling for new information. He says:
“We are now calling for further evidence that we may not already have seen to ensure that we are aware, as far as realistically possible, of all evidence relating to alleged discrimination within the Party. We need to determine whether all important evidence of discrimination has been considered in the framework of the Party’s existing complaints process.”
Here’s a link to the call for evidence and a submission form. The deadline for submissions is a week today, Saturday October 17, at 16.00. For further information, please contact contact@singhinvestigation.co.uk.


conservativehome--2020-10-10--Our survey. Just over half of members anticipate a Tory majority after the next election.

Over the past few months , we have tracked the waning confidence of party members in the Cabinet ’ s performance ( bar a handful of exceptions ) in our monthly League Table .
Another question we always ask is what our respondents think will be the outcome of the next general election – and here too , grassroots optimism has waned over the summer .
More than half ( 54.5 per cent ) still expect a Conservative majority .
This is not unreasonable , given that the Government is still holding up pretty well in the polls and Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if Sir Keir Starmer can ’ t make some progress in Scotland .
But this is down from almost three quarters when we last checked in on this question in August .
The two options in second and third place are respectively a Labour majority ( 13.5 per cent ) and a Labour-led coalition ( 11 per cent ) .
For the present , this is a somewhat academic question .
Unless the Government gets around to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act ( and references to 2024 on the latest merchandise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forefront of CCHQ ’ s mind ) , the next election is years off .
If the last few years have taught us anything , it ’ s that a quite extraordinary amount of politics can happen in that time .
But it does illustrate once again that the mounting apprehension which has been so often reported on amongst Tory MPs is shared by their activists .
Will the Prime Minister ’ s conference performance have lifted their spirits ?

Over the past few months, we have tracked the waning confidence of party members in the Cabinet’s performance (bar a handful of exceptions) in our monthly League Table.
Another question we always ask is what our respondents think will be the outcome of the next general election – and here too, grassroots optimism has waned over the summer.
More than half (54.5 per cent) still expect a Conservative majority. This is not unreasonable, given that the Government is still holding up pretty well in the polls and Labour have a big electoral mountain to climb, especially if Sir Keir Starmer can’t make some progress in Scotland.
But this is down from almost three quarters when we last checked in on this question in August. The two options in second and third place are respectively a Labour majority (13.5 per cent) and a Labour-led coalition (11 per cent).
For the present, this is a somewhat academic question. Unless the Government gets around to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (and references to 2024 on the latest merchandise suggests this might not be at the forefront of CCHQ’s mind), the next election is years off. If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that a quite extraordinary amount of politics can happen in that time.
But it does illustrate once again that the mounting apprehension which has been so often reported on amongst Tory MPs is shared by their activists. Will the Prime Minister’s conference performance have lifted their spirits?


conservativehome--2020-10-10--David Gauke: Covid-19. Conservative MPs should fear for their seats if they push for a Sweden-style

David Gauke: Covid-19. Conservative MPs should fear for their seats if they push for a Sweden-style policy – just as deaths are rising

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Conservative MPs are restless .
There is widespread disappointment with the Prime Minister , it is reported , with senior members of the 1922 Committee not just rebelling , but leading rebellions .
There are two sets of concerns about Boris Johnson .
The first is that he is displaying insufficient grip , that he is a bumbling , incompetent figure unsuited to the role of Prime Minister at a time such as this .
The second is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that he should be pursuing one that is based on living with the virus and allowing the economy to grow .
It would be fair to say that I am not a natural cheerleader for the Prime Minister but , on this occasion , I have limited sympathy for these MPs .
First , when it comes to competence , what exactly did they expect ?
I had plenty of discussions with my then colleagues about the attributes of the leadership candidates last summer .
I do not recall anyone making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mastery of detail , or a command of the administrative challenges with which any Prime Minister has to deal .
They knew his limitations and were content to foist him upon the British people as their head of Government ( a decision with which the British people were sufficiently content to give the Conservatives a big majority ) .
I happen to think that Tory MPs and members should value competence in their leaders , but it is a bit late for that now .
If competence was essential , there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint – that his Covid-19 strategy is too restrictive – there is a much stronger case to be made that this is not the Prime Minister for whom many voted .
I touched on this in my last column on this site and it is true to say that he has not approached the Coronavirus with his characteristic carefree joie de vivre .
But let us put ourselves in Johnson ’ s shoes .
He was widely criticised for locking down too late in March , with the consequence that , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of excess deaths .
He is being advised that we are heading for a second wave of hospitalisations and deaths .
The majority of scientists in this field , including his Chief Medical Officer , Chief Scientific Officer and SAGE , are calling for tighter restrictions .
The devolved administrations are also going in that direction , and England taking a radically different position would put a strain on the union .
Yes , deaths remain low but they are rising .
Let us not forget that on 23 March there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , 940 people died from it in the UK on a single day .
An exact repetition is unlikely – treatment has resulted in lower mortality rates and cases are now disproportionately amongst the young – but , in all likelihood , we are going to see a substantial rise in deaths in the next few weeks .
It is true to say that the existing restrictions – let alone the new ones that will be announced shortly – severely diminish many people ’ s quality of life .
It is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are alternative strategies put forward by a small number of reputable scientists .
Serious people are making the case for the ‘ Swedish approach ’ and , for what it is worth , although very sceptical about this being the right answer , I happen to think that the Swedes got it right on schools .
However , I really do have to question their political sense of those Conservative MPs calling for the adoption of the Swedish approach , The polling shows that further restrictions are popular – and that is before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be callous to think about such matters in crude party political terms , but it is part of the job of a Party leader to calculate the implications of any policy .
It is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister will have reached the conclusion that maintaining a relatively light-touch regime would leave him and the Conservative Party extremely vulnerable .
The recent collapse in polling support for Donald Trump – especially amongst the elderly – should be a warning .
Just imagine the situation if , in a month ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred a day after the Government had announced that , contrary to the advice of its scientists , it had decided to pursue a strategy of relaxing restrictions for England at the very point at which every other comparable country ( and , indeed , every other nation in the UK ) had tightened them .
It is hard to see how any Government , if it could survive , would come back from an approach that would be so spectacularly unpopular .
Of course , the Prime Minister is not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this point , I think that he will quickly see off his critics .
I can hear the counter-argument .
“ Lock down restrictions might be popular but they are economically disastrous .
It is causing enormous damage to business which will soon feed through into people ’ s livelihoods .
Conservatives should be prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to ensure we create wealth – even if unpopular .
Without that wealth creation , everyone will suffer.
” By and large , I am usually sympathetic to arguments that put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pre-requisite to raising living standards ( especially for the poor ) and delivering high quality public services .
And sometimes you have to take unpopular decisions – getting the public finances on a sound footing whilst maintaining a competitive business tax system , for example – in order to deliver that economic growth .
But there are a couple of problems with this argument .
First , if the virus takes hold , it will not matter whether pubs have to close at 10pm , 11pm or 12pm .
People will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant , cinema , shop or office .
Most of the economic damage caused by a virus is driven by people voluntarily changing their behaviour .
Second , if Conservative MPs are worried about the economy and business-damaging policies that will damage the UK ’ s capacity to create wealth , some of them might want to have a think about what they have been doing for the past four or more years in terms of our relationship with the European Union .
They might also consider that , when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , ensuring that the UK has a sensible deal in place before the end of the transitional period would be a better focus for their energies .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Conservative MPs are restless. There is widespread disappointment with the Prime Minister, it is reported, with senior members of the 1922 Committee not just rebelling, but leading rebellions.
There are two sets of concerns about Boris Johnson. The first is that he is displaying insufficient grip, that he is a bumbling, incompetent figure unsuited to the role of Prime Minister at a time such as this.
The second is that his strategy on Covid-19 is wrong, and that he should be pursuing one that is based on living with the virus and allowing the economy to grow.
It would be fair to say that I am not a natural cheerleader for the Prime Minister but, on this occasion, I have limited sympathy for these MPs.
First, when it comes to competence, what exactly did they expect? I had plenty of discussions with my then colleagues about the attributes of the leadership candidates last summer. I do not recall anyone making the case that Boris Johnson would have a mastery of detail, or a command of the administrative challenges with which any Prime Minister has to deal.
They knew his limitations and were content to foist him upon the British people as their head of Government (a decision with which the British people were sufficiently content to give the Conservatives a big majority). I happen to think that Tory MPs and members should value competence in their leaders, but it is a bit late for that now. If competence was essential, there were always better options.
On the second complaint – that his Covid-19 strategy is too restrictive – there is a much stronger case to be made that this is not the Prime Minister for whom many voted. I touched on this in my last column on this site and it is true to say that he has not approached the Coronavirus with his characteristic carefree joie de vivre. But let us put ourselves in Johnson’s shoes.
He was widely criticised for locking down too late in March, with the consequence that, for a time, the UK was an outlier in terms of excess deaths. He is being advised that we are heading for a second wave of hospitalisations and deaths. The majority of scientists in this field, including his Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer and SAGE, are calling for tighter restrictions. The devolved administrations are also going in that direction, and England taking a radically different position would put a strain on the union.
Yes, deaths remain low but they are rising. Let us not forget that on 23 March there were 48 Covid-19 deaths. Eighteen days later, 940 people died from it in the UK on a single day. An exact repetition is unlikely – treatment has resulted in lower mortality rates and cases are now disproportionately amongst the young – but, in all likelihood, we are going to see a substantial rise in deaths in the next few weeks.
It is true to say that the existing restrictions – let alone the new ones that will be announced shortly – severely diminish many people’s quality of life. It is very far from being cost-free. And there are alternative strategies put forward by a small number of reputable scientists. Serious people are making the case for the ‘Swedish approach’ and, for what it is worth, although very sceptical about this being the right answer, I happen to think that the Swedes got it right on schools.
However, I really do have to question their political sense of those Conservative MPs calling for the adoption of the Swedish approach, The polling shows that further restrictions are popular – and that is before the death-rate starts to climb.
It might be callous to think about such matters in crude party political terms, but it is part of the job of a Party leader to calculate the implications of any policy. It is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister will have reached the conclusion that maintaining a relatively light-touch regime would leave him and the Conservative Party extremely vulnerable. The recent collapse in polling support for Donald Trump – especially amongst the elderly – should be a warning.
Just imagine the situation if, in a month’s time, deaths are running at several hundred a day after the Government had announced that, contrary to the advice of its scientists, it had decided to pursue a strategy of relaxing restrictions for England at the very point at which every other comparable country (and, indeed, every other nation in the UK) had tightened them.
It is hard to see how any Government, if it could survive, would come back from an approach that would be so spectacularly unpopular. Of course, the Prime Minister is not going to adopt such a strategy. And, on this point, I think that he will quickly see off his critics.
I can hear the counter-argument. “Lock down restrictions might be popular but they are economically disastrous. It is causing enormous damage to business which will soon feed through into people’s livelihoods. Conservatives should be prepared to take the tough decisions necessary to ensure we create wealth – even if unpopular. Without that wealth creation, everyone will suffer.”
By and large, I am usually sympathetic to arguments that put the economy first. Creating wealth is a pre-requisite to raising living standards (especially for the poor) and delivering high quality public services. And sometimes you have to take unpopular decisions – getting the public finances on a sound footing whilst maintaining a competitive business tax system, for example – in order to deliver that economic growth.
But there are a couple of problems with this argument. First, if the virus takes hold, it will not matter whether pubs have to close at 10pm, 11pm or 12pm. People will not want to go to the pub or restaurant, cinema, shop or office. Most of the economic damage caused by a virus is driven by people voluntarily changing their behaviour.
Second, if Conservative MPs are worried about the economy and business-damaging policies that will damage the UK’s capacity to create wealth, some of them might want to have a think about what they have been doing for the past four or more years in terms of our relationship with the European Union. They might also consider that, when it comes to the long term health of the UK economy, ensuring that the UK has a sensible deal in place before the end of the transitional period would be a better focus for their energies.


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: “Why should the North be treated any differently?” asks Greenhalgh

“ Why should the north of England be treated any differently ?
” Conservative Cllr David Greenhalgh tells # Marr @ @ @ @ @ continue restricting northern England without an exit package # Covid_19 https : //t.co/JYYPxtoIYk pic.twitter.com/mDGEnZ8ARn

“Why should the north of England be treated any differently?”
Conservative Cllr David Greenhalgh tells #Marr the government can’t continue restricting northern England without an exit package
#Covid_19 https://t.co/JYYPxtoIYk pic.twitter.com/mDGEnZ8ARn
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: Jenrick claims: “Getting young people back to university was the right decision”

.
@ SophyRidgeSky : A lot of the areas with rising numbers of # coronavirus cases have two universities – @ @ @ @ @ allow students to return ?
@ RobertJenrick says ‘ the PM chose to prioritise education @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
# Ridge : https : //t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/0IKs205mAH

.@SophyRidgeSky: A lot of the areas with rising numbers of #coronavirus cases have two universities – was it a mistake to allow students to return?@RobertJenrick says ‘the PM chose to prioritise education and employment wherever we can’.#Ridge: https://t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/0IKs205mAH
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: “I still hope Ferrier will do the right thing,” says Sturgeon

.
@ NicolaSturgeon has been critical of Margaret Ferrier for travelling between London and Glasgow after testing positive for # @ @ @ @ @ ‘ If she ’ s not fit to be an MP , why has she @ @ @ @ @ SNP ?
’ # Ridge : https : //t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/H2GTz9S1fo

.@NicolaSturgeon has been critical of Margaret Ferrier for travelling between London and Glasgow after testing positive for #COVID19.@SophyRidgeSky: ‘If she’s not fit to be an MP, why has she not been expelled from the SNP?’#Ridge: https://t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/H2GTz9S1fo
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: Reynolds – “The Government has lost control of Covid-19”

“ The government has lost control of the messaging , they ’ ve lost control of Test and Trace and @ @ @ @ @ of # COVID19.
” @ jreynoldsMP says tougher # coronavirus restrictions ‘ were not inevitable @ @ @ @ @ government failing.
# Ridge : https : //t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/Z0zIUDWAGI

“The government has lost control of the messaging, they’ve lost control of Test and Trace and they’ve lost control of #COVID19.”@jreynoldsMP says tougher #coronavirus restrictions ‘were not inevitable’ and are due to government failing.#Ridge: https://t.co/pCgCjM7pvx pic.twitter.com/Z0zIUDWAGI
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: Jenrick defends allocation to his constituency from regeneration fund

# Marr asks Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick how money from the new Towns Fund was allocated to his constituencyhttps : @ @

#Marr asks Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick how money from the new Towns Fund was allocated to his constituencyhttps://t.co/udG3lvymxW pic.twitter.com/uRVoF02EkX
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: “I haven’t felt anger like this towards the Government since the 80s” – Nandy

WATCH : “ I haven ’ t felt anger like this towards the Government since the 80s ” – Nandy

People feel the government is actively working against parts of northern England says Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy
#Marr #Covid_19 https://t.co/JYYPxtoIYk pic.twitter.com/0h5zeldyAW
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 11, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-11--Fight crimes not Grimes

Fight crimes not Grimes

The Metropolitan Police are doubtless pursuing Darren Grimes as the publisher of the David Starkey interview as well as the interviewer .
That doesn ’ t make the decision any less sinister .
Such non-Conservatives as Tim Farron and Nick Cohen suggest that the Met ’ s decision to interview Grimes under caution is wrong .
Our readers are likely to agree .
So we won ’ t waste words attempting to talk them into a view they hold already .
Instead , we ask for the Met to be held to account for its push to curb free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If she did , she needs to explain why it doesn ’ t represent a vendetta by the force against an innocent man who won in court against the established might of the Electoral Commission .
If she didn ’ t , and the officers have never heard of Grimes ( or the Commission either ) , she should make it clear why they are pursuing him .
It will be claimed that this decision is an operational rather than a strategic matter , but there comes a point when the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now Met policy to muzzle free speech , and intimidate journalists in this way .
There are three potential sources of accountability : the Mayor of London , the Home Secretary , and the Home Affairs Select Committee .
Sadiq Khan will do nothing .
Priti Patel has tweeted for freedom of speech , but has fallen into the trap of seeing this incident as an operational matter only .
She should haul in Dick for an interview without coffee , and get the bottom of who in the Met made this decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tim Loughton , a member of the Select Committee , intends to raise the case when it meets this week .
Good for him .
Meanwhile , Karl Turner , Labour ’ s Shadow Minister for Legal Aid , tweeted : “ Freedom of speech Darren doesn ’ t afford people the freedom to make racist remarks or generally offend ” .
But its inherent to free speech that it will sometimes offend , and it ’ s important to note that at least one member of Keir Starmer ’ s front bench @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , don ’ t understand it , or don ’ t care .
The tweet has since been deleted .
The last word on the Met ’ s decision belongs to Kristian Niemietz of the Institute of Economic Affairs , who tweeted the following yesterday : - “ Hello ?
Police ?
I think there ’ s a burglar in my house… ” …and the burglar just muttered something that sounded a bit like “ All lives matter .
” ”

The Metropolitan Police are doubtless pursuing Darren Grimes as the publisher of the David Starkey interview as well as the interviewer. That doesn’t make the decision any less sinister.
Such non-Conservatives as Tim Farron and Nick Cohen suggest that the Met’s decision to interview Grimes under caution is wrong. Our readers are likely to agree. So we won’t waste words attempting to talk them into a view they hold already.
Instead, we ask for the Met to be held to account for its push to curb free speech. Did Cressida Dick approve the decision?
If she did, she needs to explain why it doesn’t represent a vendetta by the force against an innocent man who won in court against the established might of the Electoral Commission. If she didn’t, and the officers have never heard of Grimes (or the Commission either), she should make it clear why they are pursuing him.
It will be claimed that this decision is an operational rather than a strategic matter, but there comes a point when the first blurs into the second.
Is it now Met policy to muzzle free speech, and intimidate journalists in this way. There are three potential sources of accountability: the Mayor of London, the Home Secretary, and the Home Affairs Select Committee. Sadiq Khan will do nothing.
Priti Patel has tweeted for freedom of speech, but has fallen into the trap of seeing this incident as an operational matter only.
She should haul in Dick for an interview without coffee, and get the bottom of who in the Met made this decision, and why. We gather that Tim Loughton, a member of the Select Committee, intends to raise the case when it meets this week. Good for him.
Meanwhile, Karl Turner, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Legal Aid, tweeted: “Freedom of speech Darren doesn’t afford people the freedom to make racist remarks or generally offend”.
But its inherent to free speech that it will sometimes offend, and it’s important to note that at least one member of Keir Starmer’s front bench either doesn’t get the point, don’t understand it, or don’t care. The tweet has since been deleted.
The last word on the Met’s decision belongs to Kristian Niemietz of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who tweeted the following yesterday:
-“Hello? Police? I think there’s a burglar in my house…”
-“Sorry, we’re a little busy right now.” -“
…and the burglar just muttered something that sounded a bit like “All lives matter.””
-“We’re on our way.”


conservativehome--2020-10-11--WATCH: Jenrick claims that “getting young people back to university was the right decision”


conservativehome--2020-10-12--Matthew Oakley: Levelling up.  We need to measure it in order to deliver it – and know that it’s wor

Matthew Oakley: Levelling up.  We need to measure it in order to deliver it – and know that it’s worked

Matthew Oakley is the Director of WPI Economics and a former Treasury economist .
Aside from Getting Brexit Done , the promise to strengthen and level up every part of the country was perhaps the most salient part of the Prime Minister ’ s 2019 general election manifesto .
The nine months since then have changed many things , but the need to level up is still just as strong .
Yet despite this need , we are no still no clearer on what levelling up actually means , how we will know if the Government has been successful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK might actually benefit .
Today ’ s report from the Covid Recovery Commission , tackles this question ; showing why levelling up is needed , how the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted on this , and how the Government must frame this issue as they seek to tackle it .
The first thing to consider is why some sort of levelling up is needed .
Many reports , over many years , have focussed on headline estimates of output and productivity across the UK ’ s four nations and England ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given that some measures of productivity put output per head in the North East at less than half of that in London .
Of course , output , productivity and the jobs and opportunities which they are related to , are of prime importance in understanding the relative success of different areas .
However , focusing on such broad economic concepts , misses two important points .
First , that levelling up should be about more than just broad economic concepts and second that inequalities and the need to level up are just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towns as they are between them .
This is the main finding from the Covid Recovery Commission ’ s first report , published today .
It shows that , up and down the country , there are individuals , families and communities that are struggling .
Most striking here are findings from the Social Metrics Commission that poverty rates in London are ten percentage points higher than in some parts of the North of England .
More broadly , whilst the North of England is host to many of the most deprived neighbourhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people living in the ten per cent most deprived neighbourhoods are found in other parts of the county ( 36 per cent in the rest of England , 15 per cent in Scotland , Wales or Northern Ireland ) .
The links between the economic success of regions and local authorities and deprivation is also not clear cut , with some of the highest levels of deprivation being found in some of the wealthiest areas of the country ( 18 per cent of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods – 1.15 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in local authorities with the highest economic output ) .
Broader research shows that inequalities , or the need to level up , are not just about finances and economics .
In fact , across the UK there are huge disparities in outcomes including life satisfaction , happiness and mental and physical ill health .
Most concerningly , it is those struggling financially who are often the hardest hit .
For example , people from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to have long-termhealth conditions , and the King ’ s Fund highlights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas spend around a third of their lives living in poor health ; twice the level of those in the least deprived areas .
Concerningly , these inequalities have been seen for decades and under Governments of all colours .
And they are also about to get a lot worse .
In this respect , the Covid Recovery Commission ’ s report also shows emerging findings of where the health , social and economic fall out from the Covidpandemic have hit hardest .
Amongst other findings it highlights that mortality rates from Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK .
Even after controlling for a range of other factors , in the 20 per cent most deprived neighbourhoods there has been an average of 21 more Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 population compared to the least deprived neighbourhoods .
Unemployment benefit claims have also risen most in those areas that were already suffering from high rates of claims .
Those neighbourhoods in the highest 10 per cent of unemployment benefit claims prior to Covid-19 have seen a 5.4 percentage point increase in claims , compared to a 2.3 percentage point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent with the lowest claim rate prior to Covid-19 .
So what can be done ?
At the start , recognise that the Government has set off in the right direction ; levelling up and promoting opportunity for people right across the country is exactly what needs to happen .
Putting this front and centre of a strategy to drive the economy and strengthen society post-Covid is a clear priority .
But for this to be a success the Government now needs to do three things .
First , it needs to recognise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a success if it delivers better outcomes for left behind people , families and communities in central London as much as it improves productivity and the economic success of towns and cities in the North of England .
This leads to the second point : that it must define what it wants to achieve in levelling up and set out a range of metrics with which that can be judged .
Without this , it will be impossible to track progress or to design and implement effective policies .
Our work has shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible ( ideally evaluating impacts and progress at a neighbourhood level ) and consider measures beyond economic fortunes to focus on underlying issues like mental and physical health and family and community resilience .
In turn , this leads to the third point , that central Government is too far removed from much of what will drive progress in these areas .
As such , politicians and policymakers in councils , mayoral combined authorities and the UK ’ s devolved nations have a key role to play in driving forward this agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the remit to focus and report on levelling up and the policy and financial tools they need to tackle inequalities .
A future Devolution White Paper is a prime opportunity to start to take that forward .
To many in Government , setting out a clear way of measuring success against a key manifesto commitment and devolving more power and funding away from Whitehall might sound like a risky agenda .
But it is also a significant opportunity .
It would show that the Government is committed to making the UK work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could provide the electorate clear evidence of impact that Government has had on the lives of people and communities across the UK .
In a UK faced with continued health and economic struggles , that evidence might be just what the Government needs in the next election .

Matthew Oakley is the Director of WPI Economics and a former Treasury economist.
Aside from Getting Brexit Done, the promise to strengthen and level up every part of the country was perhaps the most salient part of the Prime Minister’s 2019 general election manifesto.
The nine months since then have changed many things, but the need to level up is still just as strong. Yet despite this need, we are no still no clearer on what levelling up actually means, how we will know if the Government has been successful and how people, families and communities across the UK might actually benefit.
Today’s report from the Covid Recovery Commission, tackles this question; showing why levelling up is needed, how the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted on this, and how the Government must frame this issue as they seek to tackle it.
The first thing to consider is why some sort of levelling up is needed. Many reports, over many years, have focussed on headline estimates of output and productivity across the UK’s four nations and England’s regions. This comes as little surprise given that some measures of productivity put output per head in the North East at less than half of that in London.
Of course, output, productivity and the jobs and opportunities which they are related to, are of prime importance in understanding the relative success of different areas. However, focusing on such broad economic concepts, misses two important points.
First, that levelling up should be about more than just broad economic concepts and second that inequalities and the need to level up are just as apparent within regions, cities and towns as they are between them.
This is the main finding from the Covid Recovery Commission’s first report, published today. It shows that, up and down the country, there are individuals, families and communities that are struggling. Most striking here are findings from the Social Metrics Commission that poverty rates in London are ten percentage points higher than in some parts of the North of England.
More broadly, whilst the North of England is host to many of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, more than half of people living in the ten per cent most deprived neighbourhoods are found in other parts of the county (36 per cent in the rest of England, 15 per cent in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland).
The links between the economic success of regions and local authorities and deprivation is also not clear cut, with some of the highest levels of deprivation being found in some of the wealthiest areas of the country (18 per cent of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods – 1.15 million people – in the UK are living in local authorities with the highest economic output).
Broader research shows that inequalities, or the need to level up, are not just about finances and economics. In fact, across the UK there are huge disparities in outcomes including life satisfaction, happiness and mental and physical ill health. Most concerningly, it is those struggling financially who are often the hardest hit.
For example, people from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to have long-termhealth conditions, and the King’s Fund highlights that those living in the most deprived areas spend around a third of their lives living in poor health; twice the level of those in the least deprived areas.
Concerningly, these inequalities have been seen for decades and under Governments of all colours. And they are also about to get a lot worse.
In this respect, the Covid Recovery Commission’s report also shows emerging findings of where the health, social and economic fall out from the Covidpandemic have hit hardest.
Amongst other findings it highlights that mortality rates from Covid-19 are highest in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK. Even after controlling for a range of other factors, in the 20 per cent most deprived neighbourhoods there has been an average of 21 more Covid-19 deaths per 100,000 population compared to the least deprived neighbourhoods. Unemployment benefit claims have also risen most in those areas that were already suffering from high rates of claims.
Those neighbourhoods in the highest 10 per cent of unemployment benefit claims prior to Covid-19 have seen a 5.4 percentage point increase in claims, compared to a 2.3 percentage point increase for those in the 10 per cent with the lowest claim rate prior to Covid-19.
So what can be done? At the start, recognise that the Government has set off in the right direction; levelling up and promoting opportunity for people right across the country is exactly what needs to happen. Putting this front and centre of a strategy to drive the economy and strengthen society post-Covid is a clear priority.
But for this to be a success the Government now needs to do three things.
First, it needs to recognise that levelling up can only truly be a success if it delivers better outcomes for left behind people, families and communities in central London as much as it improves productivity and the economic success of towns and cities in the North of England.
This leads to the second point: that it must define what it wants to achieve in levelling up and set out a range of metrics with which that can be judged. Without this, it will be impossible to track progress or to design and implement effective policies.
Our work has shown that these metrics should be as local as possible (ideally evaluating impacts and progress at a neighbourhood level) and consider measures beyond economic fortunes to focus on underlying issues like mental and physical health and family and community resilience.
In turn, this leads to the third point, that central Government is too far removed from much of what will drive progress in these areas. As such, politicians and policymakers in councils, mayoral combined authorities and the UK’s devolved nations have a key role to play in driving forward this agenda. The Government must provide these areas with the remit to focus and report on levelling up and the policy and financial tools they need to tackle inequalities. A future Devolution White Paper is a prime opportunity to start to take that forward.
To many in Government, setting out a clear way of measuring success against a key manifesto commitment and devolving more power and funding away from Whitehall might sound like a risky agenda. But it is also a significant opportunity. It would show that the Government is committed to making the UK work for everyone and, if successful, could provide the electorate clear evidence of impact that Government has had on the lives of people and communities across the UK.
In a UK faced with continued health and economic struggles, that evidence might be just what the Government needs in the next election.