conservativehome--2020-09-18--John Pennington: Labour is punishing motorists in Bradford

Cllr John Pennington is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Bradford Council My Labour-led local authority has announced that it is to use the services of a telephone parking payment provider called RingGo whilst drumming up even more ways to persecute the motorist .
In what is becoming tradition , new schemes are too often ill-conceived and certainly never fully thought through .
I will address parking charges and their effect upon decimated town centres later .
In the meantime , residents will need a permit to park outside their homes – but so too , visitors who must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time along with vehicle registration number and owner ’ s name .
The last two categories can be chosen from an already requested and submitted list ‘ allowing ’ residents to select one from up to a maximum of 10 visitor names .
There is even a suggestion that a tradesperson ’ s permit will be introduced costing £15 per day ; sounds like some very expensive home improvements to me .
Residents are informed all this will be very simple to follow and can be done paperless on line via a computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is suggested they visit their local library ( if still there and open ) .
There is little thought given to the more elderly who may live alone and not be IT savvy .
Of more concern is the elephant in the room , the Labour dictatorship intend to use an outsource partner called “ Imperial ” who specialise in civil enforcement solutions .
Other providers are available , one widely used being Permit-Smarti .
Requesting people to supply personally identifiable information and register movements of visitors is one thing but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party surely contravenes the Human Rights Act and the more recently introduced GDPR which has been the cause of some many problems to businesses .
We are again told not to worry and that everything will be straightforward but such an invasive intrusion into our public and personal privacy must not be tolerated .
The information will only be stored for 12 years and one of the first questions ‘ imperial ’ enforcement ask is for the grant to use cookies .
Thank you if you have stayed so long , I now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Town Centres .
Councils are now experiencing what businesses have for far too long – a shortage of customers , reality has finally hit .
My Council compounded by coronavirus will lose up to £1 million in parking fees and charges , the estimated income across the country in fees alone would have been £885 million before the exodus hit .
Councils now have to make business decisions , foreign though it may be to them .
Do they reapply , even increase , parking charges to protect their own car cash cow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or worse , still lose businesses that bring in rates , jobs , and prosperity ?
No more heads in the sand policies .
Many councils seem hellbent on exterminating the motorist through increased charges and extending hours in to the evenings and Sundays and the removal of 30 minute free periods .
Whilst I salute the request to go green and we rightly look at ways to promote cycling and walking we must also ensure adequate space for motor vehicles .
Huge sums are being spent on cycle lanes and extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures which could be in place for a long period have significantly reduced public transport capacity .
Centres hollowed out even further by businesses now looking to reduce office space after successfully moving to home working will mean even more empty property .
Ground floor offices and shop units should become garages with residential above .
Bold leadership is needed if politicians are to get the respect of the electorate ; they are there to do what is right .
64 per cent of shopping trips are done by car according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons out of town shopping centres have free parking .
My Conservative Group proposal is to remove parking charges both on and off street , but limited to two hours .
We would also remove the costly supervision overhead by introducing a London style vehicle tow-away where anyone who overstays or parks without thought for other road users will have to reclaim their vehicle from a distant compound , pay a hefty fee ( £250 ) , and produce valid driver and vehicle documents .

Cllr John Pennington is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Bradford Council
My Labour-led local authority has announced that it is to use the services of a telephone parking payment provider called RingGo whilst drumming up even more ways to persecute the motorist.
In what is becoming tradition, new schemes are too often ill-conceived and certainly never fully thought through. I will address parking charges and their effect upon decimated town centres later. In the meantime, residents will need a permit to park outside their homes – but so too, visitors who must be pre-booked for a specific date and time along with vehicle registration number and owner’s name. The last two categories can be chosen from an already requested and submitted list ‘allowing’ residents to select one from up to a maximum of 10 visitor names. There is even a suggestion that a tradesperson’s permit will be introduced costing £15 per day; sounds like some very expensive home improvements to me.
Residents are informed all this will be very simple to follow and can be done paperless on line via a computer or smartphone. For those without, it is suggested they visit their local library (if still there and open). There is little thought given to the more elderly who may live alone and not be IT savvy.
Of more concern is the elephant in the room, the Labour dictatorship intend to use an outsource partner called “Imperial” who specialise in civil enforcement solutions. Other providers are available, one widely used being Permit-Smarti. Requesting people to supply personally identifiable information and register movements of visitors is one thing but to then pass it on to a third party surely contravenes the Human Rights Act and the more recently introduced GDPR which has been the cause of some many problems to businesses.
We are again told not to worry and that everything will be straightforward but such an invasive intrusion into our public and personal privacy must not be tolerated. The information will only be stored for 12 years and one of the first questions ‘imperial’ enforcement ask is for the grant to use cookies.
Thank you if you have stayed so long, I now turn to how we can help our Town Centres.
Councils are now experiencing what businesses have for far too long – a shortage of customers, reality has finally hit. My Council compounded by coronavirus will lose up to £1 million in parking fees and charges, the estimated income across the country in fees alone would have been £885 million before the exodus hit. Councils now have to make business decisions, foreign though it may be to them. Do they reapply, even increase, parking charges to protect their own car cash cow income but by doing so risk hurting, or worse, still lose businesses that bring in rates, jobs, and prosperity? No more heads in the sand policies.
Many councils seem hellbent on exterminating the motorist through increased charges and extending hours in to the evenings and Sundays and the removal of 30 minute free periods. Whilst I salute the request to go green and we rightly look at ways to promote cycling and walking we must also ensure adequate space for motor vehicles. Huge sums are being spent on cycle lanes and extended pavements which are empty. Social distancing measures which could be in place for a long period have significantly reduced public transport capacity. Centres hollowed out even further by businesses now looking to reduce office space after successfully moving to home working will mean even more empty property. Ground floor offices and shop units should become garages with residential above.
Bold leadership is needed if politicians are to get the respect of the electorate; they are there to do what is right. 64 per cent of shopping trips are done by car according to a National Travel Survey; one of the reasons out of town shopping centres have free parking. My Conservative Group proposal is to remove parking charges both on and off street, but limited to two hours. We would also remove the costly supervision overhead by introducing a London style vehicle tow-away where anyone who overstays or parks without thought for other road users will have to reclaim their vehicle from a distant compound, pay a hefty fee (£250), and produce valid driver and vehicle documents.


conservativehome--2020-09-18--Curfews will accelerate the decline of the nightlife industry

Over the last week or so , as cases of Coronavirus have begun to rise , a horrible word keeps coming up in the news and elsewhere .
That is : “ curfew ( s ) ” .
Already this term has become a reality for Bolton , and today in parts of Lancashire and Merseyside , where pubs , bars and restaurants are only allowed to open for takeaways until further notice – and must shut altogether between 10pm and 5am .
Newspapers have teased the nation with the prospect of even more closures .
Indeed , Wednesday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curfew alert to prevent a new wave ” , as this is apparently under consideration to “ short-circuit ” the virus .
Worse still , the public seems fine with it .
One YouGov poll indicated that 69 per cent of Brits would support a 9pm ( which no one has even suggested as a time ! )
curfew on pubs and bars .
While one sympathises with the Government – which has to make enormously difficult decisions and whose first priority is to protect people from Coronavirus – the latest curfew measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little Britain values its nightlife industry , which will suffer even more under the new rules .
Although there were some positive developments during Covid-19 – al fresco dining being a fantastic one – nightlife has been under strain for many years , with businesses increasingly stifled by regulatory measures ( such as the Late Night Levy and Public Space Protection Orders , which I have written about before for ConservativeHome ) .
There ’ s also overzealous councils .
In London , one Soho bar owner recently told me he can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space that would attract lots of business – because of one resident who complains about the noise ( who knows why they live in Soho ) .
“ Councils always side with residents ” , he told me .
( Furthermore , he suggested that some residents actively want to drive nightclubs out , as it brings up the price of their properties .
But that ’ s a story for another day ) .
Big names in the sector have already made urgent statements about the threat they face due to Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the band Faithless , recently warned that UK nightclubs had been “ left to rot in a corner ” , and 1,500 artists signed an open letter calling for more support .
While a £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund has been unveiled by the Government , there has been uncertainty about where the money will go .
But given the way clubs have been ignored over the years , I would be surprised if they saw much of it .
It ’ s just not an industry that sparks much of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shame – as it has massive economic potential .
It even has ramifications , believe it or not , for Brexit .
What hope does the country have of being “ Global Britain ” if it ’ s boring for young people to go out in ?
They will head to other parts of Europe , such as Barcelona and Berlin , where the party is getting started at the same time British pubs are closing .
That ’ s why it ’ s so extraordinary to have curfews – as there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place .
Of course , recent rises in cases are troubling , and the Government no doubt sees targeting nightlife as the main way to stop Covid-19 spreading , particularly through young people .
But I fear this will push the sector over the edge , with huge job losses and business closures coming soon , not least because of the uncertainty created by reopening and closing the economy repeatedly .
These new rules should make us seriously question – what will there eventually be to return to ?

Over the last week or so, as cases of Coronavirus have begun to rise, a horrible word keeps coming up in the news and elsewhere. That is: “curfew(s)”.
Already this term has become a reality for Bolton, and today in parts of Lancashire and Merseyside, where pubs, bars and restaurants are only allowed to open for takeaways until further notice – and must shut altogether between 10pm and 5am.
Newspapers have teased the nation with the prospect of even more closures. Indeed, Wednesday’s Evening Standard headline was “London curfew alert to prevent a new wave”, as this is apparently under consideration to “short-circuit” the virus.
Worse still, the public seems fine with it. One YouGov poll indicated that 69 per cent of Brits would support a 9pm (which no one has even suggested as a time!) curfew on pubs and bars.
While one sympathises with the Government – which has to make enormously difficult decisions and whose first priority is to protect people from Coronavirus – the latest curfew measures will only convince some businesses of how little Britain values its nightlife industry, which will suffer even more under the new rules.
Although there were some positive developments during Covid-19 – al fresco dining being a fantastic one – nightlife has been under strain for many years, with businesses increasingly stifled by regulatory measures (such as the Late Night Levy and Public Space Protection Orders, which I have written about before for ConservativeHome).
There’s also overzealous councils. In London, one Soho bar owner recently told me he cannot open his roof terrace – a fantastic space that would attract lots of business – because of one resident who complains about the noise (who knows why they live in Soho). “Councils always side with residents”, he told me.
(Furthermore, he suggested that some residents actively want to drive nightclubs out, as it brings up the price of their properties. But that’s a story for another day).
Big names in the sector have already made urgent statements about the threat they face due to Covid-19 measures. Sister Bliss, a musician from the band Faithless, recently warned that UK nightclubs had been “left to rot in a corner”, and 1,500 artists signed an open letter calling for more support.
While a £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund has been unveiled by the Government, there has been uncertainty about where the money will go. But given the way clubs have been ignored over the years, I would be surprised if they saw much of it. It’s just not an industry that sparks much of a concerned response from policymakers, which is a shame – as it has massive economic potential.
It even has ramifications, believe it or not, for Brexit. What hope does the country have of being “Global Britain” if it’s boring for young people to go out in? They will head to other parts of Europe, such as Barcelona and Berlin, where the party is getting started at the same time British pubs are closing. That’s why it’s so extraordinary to have curfews – as there already seem to be de facto ones in place.
Of course, recent rises in cases are troubling, and the Government no doubt sees targeting nightlife as the main way to stop Covid-19 spreading, particularly through young people. But I fear this will push the sector over the edge, with huge job losses and business closures coming soon, not least because of the uncertainty created by reopening and closing the economy repeatedly. These new rules should make us seriously question – what will there eventually be to return to?


conservativehome--2020-09-18--Protecting British troops may be Johnson’s next clash with his ‘rule of law’ opponents

Perhaps sensing weakness on the question of the ‘ rule of law ’ , opponents of the Government ’ s proposals to protect British troops from ‘ vexatious ’ prosecutions have launched another salvo this morning .
Several former senior military figures and Conservative politicians , including Dominic Grieve and Sir Malcolm Rifkind , have written to the Prime Minister to claim that the Overseas Operations ( Service Personnel and Veterans ) Bill is “ ill-conceived ” .
They add that : “ This bill would be a stain on the country ’ s reputation .
It would increase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived as reluctant to act in accordance with long-established international law.
” This follows concerns raised earlier in the summer by Jeffrey Blackett , “ Britain ’ s most senior military judge ” , that the Bill will encourage prosecutors to pursue the Armed Forces on international war-crimes charges because it only offers protections against domestic prosecutions .
( It also excludes , for now , the campaign in Northern Ireland . )
Now , it seems unlikely that this Government is going to concern itself very much with what Dominic Grieve thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highlight just how complex the task of rolling back the growing role of the courts in the military , as in other areas of public life , will prove to be .
It seems quite plausible , for example , that a Bill which limits protection to domestic law does risk a ‘ waterbed effect ’ , with prosecutors simply shifting their efforts to the avenues which remain open to them .
But that leaves ministers with an unenviable choice : leave soldiers exposed to vexatious suits here in Britain as a lesser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps intended in pulling the UK out of the broader international system .
Yet it may be that , in the longer term , such a choice can ’ t be avoided .
The system of “ long-established international law ” referred to by Rifkind et al is not in fact so very old , and there may be no way to find a sustainable equilibrium between the invariable tendency of lawyers to seek to expand their reach and the understandable desire of political governments to limit it .
As international law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections against the worst abuses into an increasingly comprehensive system , the more conflict there will be .
As for the alleged threat to the reputation of the Armed Forces ( amongst the lawyers ) , ministers must balance this against the need to maintain their efficacy , especially in theatres involving complex , asymmetrical warfare against insurgencies or terrorists .
One doesn ’ t have to be Roger Trinquier to recognise how such adversaries might exploit British troops ’ exposure to so-called ‘ tank chasing ’ lawyers .
Perhaps this time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down .
Boris Johnson generally gives the impression of a man who has found himself at the head of such forces more by accident than design .
But if so it will only be a battle postponed .
Tennyson ’ s vision of a slumbering world , “ lapt in universal law ” , is falling out of favour on the Right .

Perhaps sensing weakness on the question of the ‘rule of law’, opponents of the Government’s proposals to protect British troops from ‘vexatious’ prosecutions have launched another salvo this morning.
Several former senior military figures and Conservative politicians, including Dominic Grieve and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, have written to the Prime Minister to claim that the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill is “ill-conceived”. They add that:
“This bill would be a stain on the country’s reputation. It would increase the danger to British soldiers if Britain is perceived as reluctant to act in accordance with long-established international law.”
This follows concerns raised earlier in the summer by Jeffrey Blackett, “Britain’s most senior military judge”, that the Bill will encourage prosecutors to pursue the Armed Forces on international war-crimes charges because it only offers protections against domestic prosecutions. (It also excludes, for now, the campaign in Northern Ireland.)
Now, it seems unlikely that this Government is going to concern itself very much with what Dominic Grieve thinks about anything. But this intervention does highlight just how complex the task of rolling back the growing role of the courts in the military, as in other areas of public life, will prove to be.
It seems quite plausible, for example, that a Bill which limits protection to domestic law does risk a ‘waterbed effect’, with prosecutors simply shifting their efforts to the avenues which remain open to them. But that leaves ministers with an unenviable choice: leave soldiers exposed to vexatious suits here in Britain as a lesser evil, or go further than they perhaps intended in pulling the UK out of the broader international system.
Yet it may be that, in the longer term, such a choice can’t be avoided. The system of “long-established international law” referred to by Rifkind et al is not in fact so very old, and there may be no way to find a sustainable equilibrium between the invariable tendency of lawyers to seek to expand their reach and the understandable desire of political governments to limit it. As international law and the human rights system metastasises from limited protections against the worst abuses into an increasingly comprehensive system, the more conflict there will be.
As for the alleged threat to the reputation of the Armed Forces (amongst the lawyers), ministers must balance this against the need to maintain their efficacy, especially in theatres involving complex, asymmetrical warfare against insurgencies or terrorists. One doesn’t have to be Roger Trinquier to recognise how such adversaries might exploit British troops’ exposure to so-called ‘tank chasing’ lawyers.
Perhaps this time the Government will, once again, back down. Boris Johnson generally gives the impression of a man who has found himself at the head of such forces more by accident than design. But if so it will only be a battle postponed. Tennyson’s vision of a slumbering world, “lapt in universal law”, is falling out of favour on the Right.


conservativehome--2020-09-19--Sasha Swire’s diaries. Truth about the Cameron years – but not the whole truth.  Not by a long shot.

Sasha Swire ’ s diaries force us to make a point against ourselves .
Never , ever assume that anything said in front of a journalist won ’ t end up in print , unless you ’ ve a specific guarantee of it ( and not necessarily then ) .
Actually , scrap that .
Never assume that anything said in front of anyone won ’ t end up in print .
To judge from the extracts , the diaries are a mash-up of the perceptive and the delusional , bound together by a blithe disregard for discretion .
Which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A story , doubtless untrue , is doing the rounds .
That it was put to Hugo Swire , her ex-Conservative MP husband , that the diaries ’ publication will them friends .
“ I suppose so , ” he is said to have replied .
“ In which case , I ’ ll just have to buy some new ones.
” Whether apocryphal or not , that catches the flavour of the extracts : they paint a picture of a self-perpetuating elite which believed it was born to rule .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever-alert George Osborne to have launched a salvage operation .
The case for the prosecution is that leadership in Cameron ’ s Conservative Party – and thus in the Tory part of the Coalition Government – was confined to a small , southern-based , privately-educated , independently-wealthy closed circle of chums out of touch with much of the public .
And it is indeed the case that the two spiky outsiders in that group , Steve Hilton and Michael Gove , eventually fell out of favour with Cameron for what seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prized conviction above pragmatism .
His successors ’ social reach is wider .
In grammar school-educated Theresa May ’ s first Downing Street , her first two chiefs of staff came respectively from Birmingham ( Nick Timothy ) and Inverclyde ( Fiona Hill ) .
Boris Johnson ’ s Downing Street is driven by Dominic Cummings – privately-educated , but a northerner .
The Prime Minister himself is one of the boys , who is both on much the same social page as Cameron and Osborne while also being part of a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fundamentally a loner .
This explains why he was so open to Cummings , and often to those of a very different background to himself , in the first place .
The case for the defence is that Cameron and Osborne appointed their front bench on merit , with exceptions based largely on the limited availability of women .
( Both may well now agree that the rushing through the ranks of Sayeeda Warsi , for example , was an experiment that went awry . )
After all , Cameron screwed himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Shadow Culture Secretary – which helps to explain why his wife writes as she does .
She believes that he should have been Foreign Secretary .
But show me a politicians who doesn ’ t believe that he was under-promoted .
Their wives don ’ t always take the same view .
For the record and what it ’ s worth , I didn ’ t vote for Cameron as Conservative leader , but don ’ t feel for a moment that I was unfairly treated .
At the time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into govenment , his Cabinet included Gove , Ken Clarke , Iain Duncan Smith , Liam Fox , Eric Pickles and Owen Paterson : that ’ s a spread of talent .
Iain Dale suggested yesterday on this site that Cameron is loathed by Leavers for supporting Britain ’ s EU membership , and blamed by Remainers for holding a referendum on it .
Certainly , he trusted to his fabulous luck with referendums ( think AV , think Scotland ) , and had no plan for the country if he lost .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advent of Johnson , Cameron had proved himself the second most successful Conservative leader in general elections since the war , fighting two , winning one outright , and losing neither .
It is easy to forget that now .
Those names from that first Cabinet should also be a reminder that he was in many ways a good Prime Minister , getting the deficit down while reforming public services : consider the work of Gove at Education and Duncan Smith at Work and Pensions .
Swire ’ s diaries paint a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about self-advancement .
However , ponder a point more easily missed than it should be .
The image of Osborne inside the Westminster Village is one of a cynical operator .
But his loyalty to Cameron was exemplary and , given the history of Prime Ministers and Chancellors , rare .
It ’ s worth digging a big deeper than the diary ’ s surface .
“ You could put a snooker table in there , ” Swire reports Cameron as saying of a barn in her husband ’ s Devon home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband : “ so home counties ” .
A snapshot of generations-worth of class snobbery ?
But Swire ’ s father , John Nott , was an acerbic outsider in the stuffy world of the pre-Thatcher Conservative Party .
Her mother comes from outside England ’ s class system altogether : his wife was born in Slovenia , and her father was imprisoned in Dachau .
If Swire wasn ’ t in some sense an outsider herself she couldn ’ t have written these diaries .
Meanwhile , as Henry Hill has reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intake , Boris ’ Boys and Girls , the Tory Parliamentary Party is undergoing quiet but unmissable change .
“ Schooling is always one of the things Tory MPs seem to be most cagey about , ” he wrote earlier this year , “ but from those who have been explicit there is a similar portion of publicly-educated winners as in 2017 , at around 14 per cent .
”

Sasha Swire’s diaries force us to make a point against ourselves. Never, ever assume that anything said in front of a journalist won’t end up in print, unless you’ve a specific guarantee of it (and not necessarily then). Actually, scrap that. Never assume that anything said in front of anyone won’t end up in print.
To judge from the extracts, the diaries are a mash-up of the perceptive and the delusional, bound together by a blithe disregard for discretion. Which would make Swire a natural diarist.
A story, doubtless untrue, is doing the rounds. That it was put to Hugo Swire, her ex-Conservative MP husband, that the diaries’ publication will them friends. “I suppose so,” he is said to have replied. “In which case, I’ll just have to buy some new ones.”
Whether apocryphal or not, that catches the flavour of the extracts: they paint a picture of a self-perpetuating elite which believed it was born to rule. There is enough truth in the charge for the ever-alert George Osborne to have launched a salvage operation.
The case for the prosecution is that leadership in Cameron’s Conservative Party – and thus in the Tory part of the Coalition Government – was confined to a small, southern-based, privately-educated, independently-wealthy closed circle of chums out of touch with much of the public.
And it is indeed the case that the two spiky outsiders in that group, Steve Hilton and Michael Gove, eventually fell out of favour with Cameron for what seems to be the same reason: ultimately, they prized conviction above pragmatism.
His successors’ social reach is wider. In grammar school-educated Theresa May’s first Downing Street, her first two chiefs of staff came respectively from Birmingham (Nick Timothy) and Inverclyde (Fiona Hill). Boris Johnson’s Downing Street is driven by Dominic Cummings – privately-educated, but a northerner.
The Prime Minister himself is one of the boys, who is both on much the same social page as Cameron and Osborne while also being part of a different story: that of a man who is fundamentally a loner. This explains why he was so open to Cummings, and often to those of a very different background to himself, in the first place.
The case for the defence is that Cameron and Osborne appointed their front bench on merit, with exceptions based largely on the limited availability of women. (Both may well now agree that the rushing through the ranks of Sayeeda Warsi, for example, was an experiment that went awry.)
After all, Cameron screwed himself up to sack his friend, Swire, as Shadow Culture Secretary – which helps to explain why his wife writes as she does. She believes that he should have been Foreign Secretary. But show me a politicians who doesn’t believe that he was under-promoted. Their wives don’t always take the same view.
For the record and what it’s worth, I didn’t vote for Cameron as Conservative leader, but don’t feel for a moment that I was unfairly treated. At the time I went out of Parliament and he went into govenment, his Cabinet included Gove, Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, Eric Pickles and Owen Paterson: that’s a spread of talent.
Iain Dale suggested yesterday on this site that Cameron is loathed by Leavers for supporting Britain’s EU membership, and blamed by Remainers for holding a referendum on it. Certainly, he trusted to his fabulous luck with referendums (think AV, think Scotland), and had no plan for the country if he lost.
But until the trauma of 2016 and the advent of Johnson, Cameron had proved himself the second most successful Conservative leader in general elections since the war, fighting two, winning one outright, and losing neither. It is easy to forget that now.
Those names from that first Cabinet should also be a reminder that he was in many ways a good Prime Minister, getting the deficit down while reforming public services: consider the work of Gove at Education and Duncan Smith at Work and Pensions.
Swire’s diaries paint a picture of politics as a game – all about self-advancement. However, ponder a point more easily missed than it should be. The image of Osborne inside the Westminster Village is one of a cynical operator. But his loyalty to Cameron was exemplary and, given the history of Prime Ministers and Chancellors, rare.
It’s worth digging a big deeper than the diary’s surface. “You could put a snooker table in there,” Swire reports Cameron as saying of a barn in her husband’s Devon home. After which she muttered to her husband: “so home counties”.
A snapshot of generations-worth of class snobbery? But Swire’s father, John Nott, was an acerbic outsider in the stuffy world of the pre-Thatcher Conservative Party. Her mother comes from outside England’s class system altogether: his wife was born in Slovenia, and her father was imprisoned in Dachau.
If Swire wasn’t in some sense an outsider herself she couldn’t have written these diaries. Meanwhile, as Henry Hill has reported in his study of the 2019 Tory intake, Boris’ Boys and Girls, the Tory Parliamentary Party is undergoing quiet but unmissable change.
“Schooling is always one of the things Tory MPs seem to be most cagey about,” he wrote earlier this year, “but from those who have been explicit there is a similar portion of publicly-educated winners as in 2017, at around 14 per cent.”


conservativehome--2020-09-19--Dale fails to realise that the right to be rude lies at the heart of the British idea of freedom

Why Can ’ t We All Just Get Along…Shout Less .
Listen More .
by Iain Dale Iain Dale has an acute grasp of the present and a defective sense of history .
At the start of this book he laments “ the growing trend towards rudeness and hatred ” , which has been exacerbated by “ the internet , and social media in particular ” .
Manners , he insists , have got worse : “ Over the years , I have grown hugely frustrated and a little bit angry about the decline in the way we talk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quotes a tweet in which Simon Schama calls Boris Johnson “ fatso ” .
According to Dale , A.J.P.Taylor or Thomas Babington Macaulay would never have been so rude about the Prime Minister .
But one of the delights of reading Taylor or Macaulay is that they are rude about anyone who incurs their displeasure .
It is true they are wittier than Schama .
The right to be as rude as we like about other people , and especially about people who consider themselves superior to ourselves , is at the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chaucer : a very rude writer .
Or John Wilkes , a libertine who was also one of the fathers of civil liberty , and was so rude about the Scots ( whom he actually rather liked ) that angry Scots army officers would stop him in the street and challenge him to a duel , and Scottish children would burn him in effigy .
Or recall what The Times wrote of George IV after his death in June 1830 : Politics too used to be rougher , and drunker .
Just now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before the First World War we were on the brink of civil war about Ireland .
Here is Winston Churchill , in his essay on Asquith , published in 1934 : One can not refrain from admiring Churchill both as a writer , and for the loyalty with which he defended his incendiary and almost unbelievably rude father , Lord Randolph Churchill , who in 1886 coined the shockingly unconstitutional words , “ Ulster will fight ; Ulster will be right ” .
Talk about inciting people to break the law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uncommonly polite age .
We are more polite than we used to be about the monarchy , our football hooligans have become less violent , our trade unions less able to bring the country to a grinding halt , our book reviewers less keen to tear some respected author limb from limb , Private Eye inspires less fear than it did , foxes roam town and country undisturbed , and there is not a single parliamentarian who is as rude as Lord Randolph was about Gladstone .
Lord Randolph , as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , We have lost the aristocratic insolence , suppressed the democratic brutality , and submitted ourselves to a tyranny of virtue organised and policed by the most sensitive members of the middle class .
I am myself a repressed and timid member of the middle class , who strives not to inflict unnecessary pain .
But I can not help feeling we have lost something .
What a neutered people we have become , terrified of giving offence to just about anyone , and forbidden by law from being rude about various groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am 62 ) were the subject of wounding but not always malicious jibes , some to be found in the rhymes we were taught in the nursery .
Those rhymes have since been purified , to bring them into strict conformity with modern standards .
We think of ourselves as free , and ignore the censorship to which we have consented , which in later ages may come to seem as ridiculous as anything Thomas Bowdler did to Shakespeare ’ s plays in order to make them fit to be read to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social media .
The censorship collapsed , no one was in charge , and every brute who wanted to have his say could do so .
No sooner had we hailed a new birth of freedom than we witnessed , with horror , a tidal wave of filth and cruelty sweeping through the internet .
A comparable horror was felt at the end of the Victorian period , when high-minded advocates of universal literacy found that by teaching people to read they had paved the way for the yellow press .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a new outlet – the internet – became available , it became a sewer , anything pure contaminated by contact with muck .
What is do be done about Twitter ?
This is where Dale comes in .
He says he is not writing “ an intellectual book ” but “ from experience ” and “ from the heart ” .
These qualities are familiar to readers of his Friday Diary on this site , and make him a successful broadcaster .
When he started in radio , he relates , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was doing something I felt completely at home with ” .
He had “ no formal training ” as a journalist , but this did not matter , for what he did have was the ability to react instantaneously and with deep emotion to some breaking news story .
His listeners know he shares and expresses their feelings , and ring in to tell him theirs .
He enters into what is happening , or what he has just heard is happening .
He is very good on grief , and confesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more comfortable talking about grief on the radio than I do to people close to me.
” In this book , we get a glimpse of Dale as a student at the University of East Anglia , woken by someone shouting through his door , “ Oh , you ’ re still alive then.
” On waking up and going into the communal kitchen , he sees in The Daily Mail that a Welsh Guardsman , Ian Dale , aged 19 from Pontypridd , has been killed in action in the Falklands : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dale is a bit naive .
He is surprised and outraged by events , rather than worldly wise and resigned .
He talks the story up .
These invaluable qualities are accompanied by enormous energy and plentiful political experience .
He fought North Norfolk for the Conservatives in 2005 , despite being warned by Chris Rennard , the Liberal Democrats ’ election supremo , that Norman Lamb , who had captured the seat from the Tories in 2001 by 483 votes , would this time “ get a majority of 10,000.
” Dale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loves knocking on doors .
Lamb gets a majority of 10,606 .
In this book , Dale claims that in 2018 “ political discourse…plumbed poisonous new depths ” .
He complains that Question Time has become “ a bear pit ” which is “ almost unwatchable ” , and that interviewers are so intent on achieving some “ Gotcha ” moment that the interview becomes more about them than about the politician whose views they are supposed to be discovering .
Brexit has divided us into opposing camps which will not listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mobs who , for example , attacked with repulsive virulence the female Labour MPs who dared to make a stand against anti-semitism .
Many people will agree with all this .
Such horrible things happen on social media that there is a temptation to avoid it altogether .
But I have the impression that the worst outrages have in the last few years prompted a reaction in favour of the decency and good manners which most readers , listeners , viewers and voters would for most of the time prefer , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various kinds of obscenity .
Dale himself detects “ a real appetite for respectful debate nowadays , in a way that maybe there wasn ’ t in years gone by ” .
Actually , the two appetites , for dignified and undignified behaviour , have always co-existed .
I can ’ t be alone in having enjoyed the sight of Dale some years ago rolling around on the seafront at Brighton with a protester whom he was trying to stop interfering with a television interview – an event to which several pages are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the most elevated piece of footage we had ever seen , but for a day or two it took its place in the national pantomime and put a smile on people ’ s faces , not least because we recognised the unavailing sincerity of what Dale was trying to do .
At the end of his book , Dale offers a list of “ 50 Ways to Improve Public Discourse ” .
Many of these are sensible .
He would like Twitter , Facebook and YouTube “ to ban anonymous accounts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What he doesn ’ t quite say is that if you want to purify social media , you have somehow to reintroduce the editorial function , enforce a house style and suppress antisocial behaviour .
A good letters editor on a traditional newspaper ensures that merely boorish letters aren ’ t published , and that the readers get the ten most interesting letters , not hundreds of semi-literate ravings which only a maniac would take the time to read .
The cure can , unfortunately , be worse than the disease .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tone , and encourages good writers to think it might be worth contributing their thoughts , it can also reduce freedom of expression .
I recall working for a newspaper where the poor , conscientious letters editor supposed it was his duty to suppress any letter which would upset some member of the paper ’ s staff .
In the late 1930s , the editor of The Times , a paper of high seriousness , supposed it was his duty to suppress any news which might upset Hitler .
So we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfection which we imagine to have existed in a past from which we recall only the highlights .
In my opinion , only Robin Day was able to make Question Time a pleasure to watch .
But meanwhile Dale ’ s book will delight his innumerable fans , who relish his throwaway manner and know that he at least understands their dismay at the dismal state of our culture .
“ O tempora , O mores !
” – “ O what times , O what habits !
” – as Cicero put @ @ @ @ @

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along…Shout Less. Listen More. by Iain Dale
Iain Dale has an acute grasp of the present and a defective sense of history. At the start of this book he laments “the growing trend towards rudeness and hatred”, which has been exacerbated by “the internet, and social media in particular”.
Manners, he insists, have got worse: “Over the years, I have grown hugely frustrated and a little bit angry about the decline in the way we talk to and debate with each other.”
He quotes a tweet in which Simon Schama calls Boris Johnson “fatso”. According to Dale, A.J.P.Taylor or Thomas Babington Macaulay would never have been so rude about the Prime Minister.
But one of the delights of reading Taylor or Macaulay is that they are rude about anyone who incurs their displeasure. It is true they are wittier than Schama.
The right to be as rude as we like about other people, and especially about people who consider themselves superior to ourselves, is at the heart of our understanding of liberty.
Consider Chaucer: a very rude writer. Or John Wilkes, a libertine who was also one of the fathers of civil liberty, and was so rude about the Scots (whom he actually rather liked) that angry Scots army officers would stop him in the street and challenge him to a duel, and Scottish children would burn him in effigy.
Or recall what The Times wrote of George IV after his death in June 1830:
“There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow?”
Politics too used to be rougher, and drunker. Just now we are having an argument about Ireland. Before the First World War we were on the brink of civil war about Ireland. Here is Winston Churchill, in his essay on Asquith, published in 1934:
“It was this sinister influence of eighty Irish votes – now happily for ever withdrawn from the House of Commons – making and unmaking Governments, swaying the fortunes of both great British political parties, which poisoned nearly forty years of our public life. The unconstitutional resistance of Ulster will be judged by history in relation to the fact that the Ulster Protestants believed that the Home Rule Bills were driven forward not as a result of British convictions, but by the leverage of this Irish voting power. That the lawless demonstrations in Ulster were the parent of many grievous ills cannot be doubted; but if Ulster had confined herself simply to constitutional agitation, it is extremely improbable that she would have escaped forcible inclusion in a Dublin Parliament.”
One cannot refrain from admiring Churchill both as a writer, and for the loyalty with which he defended his incendiary and almost unbelievably rude father, Lord Randolph Churchill, who in 1886 coined the shockingly unconstitutional words, “Ulster will fight; Ulster will be right”.
Talk about inciting people to break the law. The truth is that we live in an uncommonly polite age. We are more polite than we used to be about the monarchy, our football hooligans have become less violent, our trade unions less able to bring the country to a grinding halt, our book reviewers less keen to tear some respected author limb from limb, Private Eye inspires less fear than it did, foxes roam town and country undisturbed, and there is not a single parliamentarian who is as rude as Lord Randolph was about Gladstone.
Lord Randolph, as his son wrote in his life of him,
“flouted venerable leaders and mocked at constituted authority with a mixture of aristocratic insolence and democratic brutality”
We have lost the aristocratic insolence, suppressed the democratic brutality, and submitted ourselves to a tyranny of virtue organised and policed by the most sensitive members of the middle class.
I am myself a repressed and timid member of the middle class, who strives not to inflict unnecessary pain. But I cannot help feeling we have lost something.
What a neutered people we have become, terrified of giving offence to just about anyone, and forbidden by law from being rude about various groups of people who in my youth (I am 62) were the subject of wounding but not always malicious jibes, some to be found in the rhymes we were taught in the nursery.
Those rhymes have since been purified, to bring them into strict conformity with modern standards. We think of ourselves as free, and ignore the censorship to which we have consented, which in later ages may come to seem as ridiculous as anything Thomas Bowdler did to Shakespeare’s plays in order to make them fit to be read to children.
Then came the internet, and social media. The censorship collapsed, no one was in charge, and every brute who wanted to have his say could do so.
No sooner had we hailed a new birth of freedom than we witnessed, with horror, a tidal wave of filth and cruelty sweeping through the internet.
A comparable horror was felt at the end of the Victorian period, when high-minded advocates of universal literacy found that by teaching people to read they had paved the way for the yellow press.
The previous repression had been so effective that when a new outlet – the internet – became available, it became a sewer, anything pure contaminated by contact with muck.
What is do be done about Twitter? This is where Dale comes in. He says he is not writing “an intellectual book” but “from experience” and “from the heart”.
These qualities are familiar to readers of his Friday Diary on this site, and make him a successful broadcaster. When he started in radio, he relates, “for the first time in my life I was doing something I felt completely at home with”.
He had “no formal training” as a journalist, but this did not matter, for what he did have was the ability to react instantaneously and with deep emotion to some breaking news story.
His listeners know he shares and expresses their feelings, and ring in to tell him theirs. He enters into what is happening, or what he has just heard is happening.
He is very good on grief, and confesses that “Somewhat bizarrely, I feel more comfortable talking about grief on the radio than I do to people close to me.”
In this book, we get a glimpse of Dale as a student at the University of East Anglia, woken by someone shouting through his door, “Oh, you’re still alive then.”
On waking up and going into the communal kitchen, he sees in The Daily Mail that a Welsh Guardsman, Ian Dale, aged 19 from Pontypridd, has been killed in action in the Falklands:
“It was like being hit in the solar plexus. Tears streamed down my face, as they were to do many times over the next few weeks. Nothing else could have brought home to me the terrible waste of war like this did. I was the same age. It could have been me.”
Like many of the best journalists, Dale is a bit naive. He is surprised and outraged by events, rather than worldly wise and resigned. He talks the story up.
These invaluable qualities are accompanied by enormous energy and plentiful political experience. He fought North Norfolk for the Conservatives in 2005, despite being warned by Chris Rennard, the Liberal Democrats’ election supremo, that Norman Lamb, who had captured the seat from the Tories in 2001 by 483 votes, would this time “get a majority of 10,000.”
Dale is a gifted and indefatigable campaigner who loves knocking on doors. Lamb gets a majority of 10,606.
In this book, Dale claims that in 2018 “political discourse…plumbed poisonous new depths”. He complains that Question Time has become “a bear pit” which is “almost unwatchable”, and that interviewers are so intent on achieving some “Gotcha” moment that the interview becomes more about them than about the politician whose views they are supposed to be discovering.
Brexit has divided us into opposing camps which will not listen to each other, and Twitter is roamed by mobs who, for example, attacked with repulsive virulence the female Labour MPs who dared to make a stand against anti-semitism.
Many people will agree with all this. Such horrible things happen on social media that there is a temptation to avoid it altogether.
But I have the impression that the worst outrages have in the last few years prompted a reaction in favour of the decency and good manners which most readers, listeners, viewers and voters would for most of the time prefer, and that it has become easier to avoid various kinds of obscenity.
Dale himself detects “a real appetite for respectful debate nowadays, in a way that maybe there wasn’t in years gone by”.
Actually, the two appetites, for dignified and undignified behaviour, have always co-existed. I can’t be alone in having enjoyed the sight of Dale some years ago rolling around on the seafront at Brighton with a protester whom he was trying to stop interfering with a television interview – an event to which several pages are devoted in this book.
It was not the most elevated piece of footage we had ever seen, but for a day or two it took its place in the national pantomime and put a smile on people’s faces, not least because we recognised the unavailing sincerity of what Dale was trying to do.
At the end of his book, Dale offers a list of “50 Ways to Improve Public Discourse”. Many of these are sensible. He would like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube “to ban anonymous accounts and ensure all accounts are verified”.
What he doesn’t quite say is that if you want to purify social media, you have somehow to reintroduce the editorial function, enforce a house style and suppress antisocial behaviour.
A good letters editor on a traditional newspaper ensures that merely boorish letters aren’t published, and that the readers get the ten most interesting letters, not hundreds of semi-literate ravings which only a maniac would take the time to read.
The cure can, unfortunately, be worse than the disease. It is expensive, and although it raises the tone, and encourages good writers to think it might be worth contributing their thoughts, it can also reduce freedom of expression.
I recall working for a newspaper where the poor, conscientious letters editor supposed it was his duty to suppress any letter which would upset some member of the paper’s staff.
In the late 1930s, the editor of The Times, a paper of high seriousness, supposed it was his duty to suppress any news which might upset Hitler.
So we are unlikely ever to reach the state of perfection which we imagine to have existed in a past from which we recall only the highlights. In my opinion, only Robin Day was able to make Question Time a pleasure to watch.
But meanwhile Dale’s book will delight his innumerable fans, who relish his throwaway manner and know that he at least understands their dismay at the dismal state of our culture.
“O tempora, O mores!” – “O what times, O what habits!” – as Cicero put it in 63 BC.


conservativehome--2020-09-20--WATCH: Hancock is challenged over Johnson’s disapproval of a “sneak culture”

Further national lockdown is possible if people do not follow rules , says Health Secretary Matt Hancock # Marr # @ @ @ @ @

Further national lockdown is possible if people do not follow rules, says Health Secretary Matt Hancock#Marr #Covid_19 https://t.co/DhwF19ofUV pic.twitter.com/oGnMPWlUez
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-20--WATCH: The Labour leader is pressed on whether he prefers an extension to No Deal

WATCH : The Labour leader is pressed on whether he prefers an extension to No Deal


conservativehome--2020-09-20--WATCH: “The nation faces a tipping point and we have a choice” – Hancock

`` The nation faces a tipping point and we have a choice…either everybody follows the rules…or we will have to @ @ @ @ @ Secretary @ MattHancock warns of `` more restrictive measures '' if people do n't isolate @ @ @ @ @ n't follow the rule of 6 .
# Ridge pic.twitter.com/gTNzndqjFc

"The nation faces a tipping point and we have a choice…either everybody follows the rules…or we will have to take more measures"
Health Secretary @MattHancock warns of "more restrictive measures" if people don't isolate when told to or don't follow the rule of 6.
#Ridge pic.twitter.com/gTNzndqjFc
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-20--WATCH: Starmer says he supports fines for people who don’t self-isolate when told to

'Govt .
is creating a legal duty to self-isolate if someone tests positive for # Covid19 .
Is this a @ @ @ @ @ Keir_Starmer backs fines for those who do n't self isolate , saying `` something has @ @ @ @ @ but warns it 's no silver bullet.
# Ridge https : //t.co/GvaT6GJIXE pic.twitter.com/XbCISqQfAn

'Govt. is creating a legal duty to self-isolate if someone tests positive for #Covid19. Is this a sensible policy?'@Keir_Starmer backs fines for those who don't self isolate, saying "something has to be done", but warns it's no silver bullet.#Ridge https://t.co/GvaT6GJIXE pic.twitter.com/XbCISqQfAn
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 20, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-20--If Conservative MPs are so restive now, how will they react if Labour sustains a poll lead?

There is a disconnect between the horrorshow commentary in the Conservative press about the Government , last week ’ s fracas about international law , the jumpy mood of Tory MPs…and the polls .
Though the latest YouGov finds the two main parties level , and Keir Starmer ’ s party will surely overtake the Conservatives in at least one survey soon , the fact remains that the latter are still hitting 40 per cent or so .
Nonetheless , we suspect that an even more testing period now lies ahead for Boris Johnson .
The slide to present poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from April to June – as the Government moved off its simple “ Save the NHS ” Covid message to one that was more complex .
Since then , its ratings have been remarkably stable , but although polls continue to show strong support for lockdowns , confidence in the Government ’ s handling of the virus has fallen .
Today ’ s papers combine committed anti-lockdown opinion , more bad news about testing , and reports of a push by Graham Brady for greater Parliamentary scrutiny of new measures .
Admittedly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t what it was – especially among older voters fearful of the virus .
But the Government had public support for its handling of the virus in March , and we have got used since then to a two-steps-forward-one-step-back relaxation of restrictions .
That ’ s changing fast .
If Conservative MPs are really so jumpy in September , with Labour still behind in the polls , what state of mind will they be in by December , if the test and trace system isn ’ t working well – as lockdowns tighten @

There is a disconnect between the horrorshow commentary in the Conservative press about the Government, last week’s fracas about international law, the jumpy mood of Tory MPs…and the polls.
Though the latest YouGov finds the two main parties level, and Keir Starmer’s party will surely overtake the Conservatives in at least one survey soon, the fact remains that the latter are still hitting 40 per cent or so.
Nonetheless, we suspect that an even more testing period now lies ahead for Boris Johnson.
The slide to present poll levels from 50 per cent took place from April to June – as the Government moved off its simple “Save the NHS” Covid message to one that was more complex.
Since then, its ratings have been remarkably stable, but although polls continue to show strong support for lockdowns, confidence in the Government’s handling of the virus has fallen.
Today’s papers combine committed anti-lockdown opinion, more bad news about testing, and reports of a push by Graham Brady for greater Parliamentary scrutiny of new measures.
Admittedly, the power of the press isn’t what it was – especially among older voters fearful of the virus.
But the Government had public support for its handling of the virus in March, and we have got used since then to a two-steps-forward-one-step-back relaxation of restrictions. That’s changing fast.
If Conservative MPs are really so jumpy in September, with Labour still behind in the polls, what state of mind will they be in by December, if the test and trace system isn’t working well – as lockdowns tighten?


conservativehome--2020-09-21--WATCH: The scientific advisers make their pitch 2) The epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days

WATCH: The scientific advisers make their pitch 2) The epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days, says Vallance

“ The epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days ” UK 's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance warns if @ @ @ @ @ we could see 50,000 Covid-19 cases per day

“The epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days”
UK's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance warns if this continues, by mid-October we could see 50,000 Covid-19 cases per day
Updates: https://t.co/SkVICdxcQR pic.twitter.com/K5SyO3UnQw
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) September 21, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-21--WATCH: The scientific advisers make their pitch 1) Whitty says action must be taken now to keep deat

WATCH: The scientific advisers make their pitch 1) Whitty says action must be taken now to keep death numbers down.

“ We should see this as a six-month problem ” UK government ’ s chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty @ @ @ @ @ virulent than flu ” and mortality rates will be “ significantly greater ” https : @ @

“We should see this as a six-month problem”
UK government’s chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty says coronavirus is “more virulent than flu” and mortality rates will be “significantly greater”https://t.co/kcXJIzil0o pic.twitter.com/8yYApwEYAF
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) September 21, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-21--Coronavirus powers – and why the time has come for Parliament to have a bigger say in their control

Big Brother Watch describes the Government ’ s emergency powers , introduced in response to the Coronavirus .
as “ the greatest loss of liberty in our country ’ s history ” and suggested that Ministers were ushering in “ an authoritarian surveillance state ” .
Whether or not you agree , or believe if you do that these powers are justified , the sweep and scope of them is daunting .
They allow judicial commissioners , entitled to issue warrants , to be appointed temporarily ; make it harder for landlords to evict tenants ; make it easier to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow Ministers to close premises and , in shutting schools , to “ make more specific directions… about particular people ” .
And so on .
The Government claims that these measures are carefully balanced : for example , the power to detain people who may be infected requires “ reasonable grounds ” .
Civil libertarians will counter that they have been used to launch 89 unlawful prosecutions .
There are big questions about the retention and security of data .
Enter Graham Brady .
The powers are to be reviewed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairman wants Parliament to vote on any new restrictions .
“ There is now no justification for ministers ruling by emergency powers without reference to normal democratic processes , ” he has said .
What happens next ?
Prepare for a tussle .
Ministers will argue that would be impractical for MPs to consider every new regulation , and that Parliament won ’ t always be sitting .
What would happen between a Thursday and a Monday , if the Commons isn ’ t sitting on the Friday , were there to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
But what will count most is less procedural abstractions than Parliamentary realities .
If the Government thinks that it would lose a vote on Brady ’ s amendment , assuming that this is in order , it will surely fold – and we will be told that all these insuperable difficulties about practicalities and timing can be resolved , after all .
Much will depend on what Keir Starmer decides to do .
There are no prizes for guessing what will motivate him .
Were Labour driven by his civil libertarian instincts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more frequently to account , it would be introducing the Brady proposal itself .
But the Labour leader is motivated by neither , nor even by the wish to inflict short-term damage on the Government .
He is in the long-term business , as far as Covid-19 is concerned , of watching and waiting – building a longer-term case against Boris Johnson , like the prosecutor he is .
Above all , he understands that voters dislike opposition for the sake of it .
Hence Labour ’ s passivity , towards the measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his front bench will play this one by ear .
They may band together with Brady to defeat the Government , if it doesn ’ t get its concession in first .
Or they may sit back , and do nothing that might deter Conservative MPs from having a first-class row on the floor of the Commons .
There will certainly be one if a deal is not struck .
This brings us to the second prong of the fork that Brady is fashioning .
If the first is about constitutional propriety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Government ’ s plan as a whole .
Most Tory MPs have not been worrying away for six months about civil liberties , for better or worse .
But many have become concerned by the strategy ’ s aim or handling or both .
They were mostly onside for the original lockdown , and stayed so during its loosening – though there has been growing debate about the speed at which this should take place , reflecting the institutional differences between the Treasury ( faster ) and the Department of Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government has handled the virus as well as is humanly possible , and will hate its opposition , Remainer and media critics .
Their primary impulse will be a loathing of all those who are putting in danger , as they see it , the retention of their seats at the next election .
Others , while having no time for those critics either , stand back from the fray and take a more dispassionate view .
They concede that Ministerial and administrative blunders also damage electoral prospects .
And acknowledge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus is mixed .
But what should worry Johnson is that some Conservative MPs have moved on from debating the speed of lifting lockdowns to believing that these should no longer happen at all , or at least very rarely .
Our sense is that there is growing support on the backbenches and among Ministers for a Sweden-type approach .
It would be surprising were this not so , given the Government ’ s reverses of the last six months or so , voter restiveness , the uncertainties of the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relentless drumbeat from the Tory press , now rising in volume , for an approach that relies less on compulsion and more on voluntarism .
We will consider the pluses and minuses of such an approach later this week : for the record , we favour a loosening of restrictions – a rebalancing both of lives and livelihoods and of lives and lives ( since there ’ s a trade-off between seeking to lower Covid-19 deaths and lower those from , say , cancer ) – backed up by a testing system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to concentrate on the significance of Brady ’ s move .
It marks the first time since the emergency measures were introduced that Conservative MPs are being offered a substantial Parliamentary opportunity to help shape the Government ’ s strategy .
The danger for Downing Street , if it comes to a debate and a vote , is that it faces a coalition of high-minded constitutionalists , supporters of a Swedish option , low-minded opportunists who dislike Johnson , feel under-promoted , are grievance-haunted ( or all three ) , plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brady himself , as Chairman of the 1922 Executive Committee , couldn ’ t be more senior .
Some think that the holder of that office should be a lower key operator .
But he has always been prepared to speak and vote against the whip if he thinks it necessary – on high speed rail , tobacco , elected Mayors and ( of course ) Europe .
Be in no doubt , as the Government ’ s scientific advisers press for more restrictions , that backbench restiveness is growing .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some Tory MPs will share voters ’ enthusiasm for shutdowns , at least when polled , and believe that the electorate would recoil at an approach that tolerates higher deaths .
Perhaps we will find out more next week .
But while the politics is complex , the principles are simple .
The wearing of masks in shops , local lockdowns , the rule of six , changes to the Coronavirus Act ’ s panoply of powers – ultimately , MPs must be able to decide all these , and that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last Parliament , the legislature tried to act , via a biased Speaker , as the executive .
Now , there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way – and of Ministers yielding , less through desire than by convenience , to arbitrary impulse .
We need the middle course : good Parliamentary government .
That ’ s the point of taking back control .

Big Brother Watch describes the Government’s emergency powers, introduced in response to the Coronavirus. as “the greatest loss of liberty in our country’s history” and suggested that Ministers were ushering in “an authoritarian surveillance state”. Whether or not you agree, or believe if you do that these powers are justified, the sweep and scope of them is daunting.
They allow judicial commissioners, entitled to issue warrants, to be appointed temporarily; make it harder for landlords to evict tenants; make it easier to detain people with mental health problems; allow Ministers to close premises and, in shutting schools, to “make more specific directions… about particular people”.
And so on. The Government claims that these measures are carefully balanced: for example, the power to detain people who may be infected requires “reasonable grounds”. Civil libertarians will counter that they have been used to launch 89 unlawful prosecutions. There are big questions about the retention and security of data.
Enter Graham Brady. The powers are to be reviewed in the Commons next week. The 1922 Committee Chairman wants Parliament to vote on any new restrictions. “There is now no justification for ministers ruling by emergency powers without reference to normal democratic processes,” he has said.
What happens next? Prepare for a tussle. Ministers will argue that would be impractical for MPs to consider every new regulation, and that Parliament won’t always be sitting. What would happen between a Thursday and a Monday, if the Commons isn’t sitting on the Friday, were there to be a public emergency? Or during recess?
But what will count most is less procedural abstractions than Parliamentary realities. If the Government thinks that it would lose a vote on Brady’s amendment, assuming that this is in order, it will surely fold – and we will be told that all these insuperable difficulties about practicalities and timing can be resolved, after all.
Much will depend on what Keir Starmer decides to do. There are no prizes for guessing what will motivate him. Were Labour driven by his civil libertarian instincts, or the desire to hold Ministers more frequently to account, it would be introducing the Brady proposal itself.
But the Labour leader is motivated by neither, nor even by the wish to inflict short-term damage on the Government. He is in the long-term business, as far as Covid-19 is concerned, of watching and waiting – building a longer-term case against Boris Johnson, like the prosecutor he is.
Above all, he understands that voters dislike opposition for the sake of it. Hence Labour’s passivity, towards the measures and more widely. So he and his front bench will play this one by ear. They may band together with Brady to defeat the Government, if it doesn’t get its concession in first.
Or they may sit back, and do nothing that might deter Conservative MPs from having a first-class row on the floor of the Commons. There will certainly be one if a deal is not struck. This brings us to the second prong of the fork that Brady is fashioning.
If the first is about constitutional propriety, the second is about Coronavirus politics, and the Government’s plan as a whole. Most Tory MPs have not been worrying away for six months about civil liberties, for better or worse. But many have become concerned by the strategy’s aim or handling or both.
They were mostly onside for the original lockdown, and stayed so during its loosening – though there has been growing debate about the speed at which this should take place, reflecting the institutional differences between the Treasury (faster) and the Department of Health (slower).
Some think that the Government has handled the virus as well as is humanly possible, and will hate its opposition, Remainer and media critics. Their primary impulse will be a loathing of all those who are putting in danger, as they see it, the retention of their seats at the next election.
Others, while having no time for those critics either, stand back from the fray and take a more dispassionate view. They concede that Ministerial and administrative blunders also damage electoral prospects. And acknowledge that the Government’s record of dealing with the virus is mixed.
But what should worry Johnson is that some Conservative MPs have moved on from debating the speed of lifting lockdowns to believing that these should no longer happen at all, or at least very rarely. Our sense is that there is growing support on the backbenches and among Ministers for a Sweden-type approach.
It would be surprising were this not so, given the Government’s reverses of the last six months or so, voter restiveness, the uncertainties of the future, Parliament’s abnormal workings and the relentless drumbeat from the Tory press, now rising in volume, for an approach that relies less on compulsion and more on voluntarism.
We will consider the pluses and minuses of such an approach later this week: for the record, we favour a loosening of restrictions – a rebalancing both of lives and livelihoods and of lives and lives (since there’s a trade-off between seeking to lower Covid-19 deaths and lower those from, say, cancer) – backed up by a testing system that works.
For this morning, we want to concentrate on the significance of Brady’s move. It marks the first time since the emergency measures were introduced that Conservative MPs are being offered a substantial Parliamentary opportunity to help shape the Government’s strategy.
The danger for Downing Street, if it comes to a debate and a vote, is that it faces a coalition of high-minded constitutionalists, supporters of a Swedish option, low-minded opportunists who dislike Johnson, feel under-promoted, are grievance-haunted (or all three), plus backbenchers who are simply unhappy and bewildered.
Brady himself, as Chairman of the 1922 Executive Committee, couldn’t be more senior. Some think that the holder of that office should be a lower key operator. But he has always been prepared to speak and vote against the whip if he thinks it necessary – on high speed rail, tobacco, elected Mayors and (of course) Europe.
Be in no doubt, as the Government’s scientific advisers press for more restrictions, that backbench restiveness is growing. We don’t know by how much. Some Tory MPs will share voters’ enthusiasm for shutdowns, at least when polled, and believe that the electorate would recoil at an approach that tolerates higher deaths.
Perhaps we will find out more next week. But while the politics is complex, the principles are simple. The wearing of masks in shops, local lockdowns, the rule of six, changes to the Coronavirus Act’s panoply of powers – ultimately, MPs must be able to decide all these, and that means more debates and votes.
During the last Parliament, the legislature tried to act, via a biased Speaker, as the executive. Now, there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far the other way – and of Ministers yielding, less through desire than by convenience, to arbitrary impulse. We need the middle course: good Parliamentary government. That’s the point of taking back control.


conservativehome--2020-09-21--Neil O’Brien: Johnson should instruct a team of Ministers to wage war on woke

Every day brings fresh examples of the woke revolution rolling through western institutions .
The last couple of weeks saw Edinburgh University ‘ cancelling ’ the great Scottish enlightenment philosopher David Hume , taking his name off one of its buildings .
The BBC broadcasting a comedian joking about killing white people .
The Parliamentary authorities considering making MPs undertake “ unconscious bias training ” .
The Natural History Museum reviewing displays relating to Charles Darwin , because the voyage of the Beagle could be seen as “ colonialism ” .
The SNP administration in Edinburgh trying to push through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite being warned by everyone from the Police Federation to comedians and novelists that it threatens free speech .
In the US , where the woke agenda is further advanced , it was announced that films must now hit diversity quotas to be eligible to win an Oscar .
The English department at the University of Chicago announced it will admit only those graduate students who plan to work in Black Studies .
I ’ ve written before about what ’ s wrong with the woke agenda , but others have put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the woke revolution , there ’ s now a diverse group of thinkers pushing back .
Ed West and Douglas Murray have chronicled the excesses of wokery in books that are funny as well as perceptive .
Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay have explained the origins of the woke agenda in the “ critical theory ” sweeping universities over recent decades .
Tom Holland , though not a political writer , explains how much the woke agenda owes ( without realising it ) to Christianity .
For me , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Greg Lukianoff , two liberal professors in the US .
They are worried the woke agenda isn ’ t just undermining basic liberal ideas like free speech and debate , but encouraging younger people to think in ways that are damaging .
They diagnose three bad ways of thinking which have become engrained in US universities : a belief that young people are emotionally fragile and have to be protected from ideas they might find upsetting ; a belief that you should always trust your emotions , prioritising emotion over reason ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world into ‘ goodies ’ and ‘ baddies ’ , with no in-betweens .
As Haidt and Lukianoff write , making universities into ‘ safe spaces ’ with no intellectual diversity is setting people up to fail : students don ’ t get used to disagreeing reasonably ; or understanding that people who don ’ t agree with you may not be evil .
As someone pointed out : you don ’ t help someone get strong by taking the weights out of the gym for them .
Their book contains hair-raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ madness this agenda has led to in US universities , increasingly a world of ‘ trigger warnings ’ , ‘ no-platforming ’ and everyone walking on eggshells for fear of committing ‘ microagressions.
’ While this may seem remote to us living in Britain and not working in universities , the truth is that ideas from the US relentlessly percolate into the UK .
Whether it ’ s the Black Lives Matter protests in London , or British teenagers referring to the British police as “ Feds ” , ideas always blow over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens in the US today will likely happen here tomorrow .
I find the woke agenda alarming because it promises a future very different from the one I grew up hoping for .
When I was a teenager the future was going to be that we would be increasingly colour-blind .
That people would be treated as individuals , not members of races .
That everyone was capable of fitting into our shared modern , western culture .
Instead , wokeism tells us we should increasingly see each other as members of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t assimilate into a modern , western culture because that they are ( in some ill-defined way ) incompatible with that culture .
That young people from ethnic minorities should be on their guard at all times , because they live in a culture which seeps racism from every pore .
Worst of all , it tells us that we must stay in our lane .
That we can ’ t enjoy another culture , because that ’ s “ cultural appropriation.
” That values like working hard or objectivity or the nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not others .
I ’ m not the first to say it ( indeed there ’ s comedy sketches about it ) but in the same way that the extreme left and extreme right are kind of similar , the woke agenda and the racist one have some powerful similarities .
If we think the woke agenda is damaging , divisive and illiberal , what can we do about it ?
There ’ s now a number of campaign groups dealing with different aspects of it .
The Free Speech Union does what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campaign for Common Sense brings a thoughtful take to the big questions raised by the woke agenda .
The Equiano Project and “ All In Britain ” promote grown-up , non-hysterical discussion about race and diversity .
But what should we do as a Party and a Government ?
While the Prime Minister is quite right to speak out on absurdities like the Last Night of the Proms saga , he simply can ’ t be everywhere , since he has a virus to fight , an economy to save and a Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to empower a minister , or group of ministers , to lead and deal with this .
Different solutions are possible in different fields .
For example , in the civil service , government has more control .
The Government could end programmes like “ unconscious bias training ” which don ’ t work and waste money , but have official backing and are compulsory for all staff in many departments .
The other day , it was revealed that the Ministry Of Defence has more diversity and equality officers than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need so many people in such roles in the public sector ?
In other fields like broadcasting , universities and cultural institutions , government has less direct control .
Ministers like Oliver Dowden and Gavin Williamson have rightly rapped institutions over the knuckles when they have done things that are unacceptable .
But as well as intervening , government also needs to communicate why this agenda is wrong and divisive , and what it opposes .
Margaret Thatcher could not intervene personally in every departmental squabble .
But she didn ’ t ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to wonder what her view on an issue would be .
You knew .
Because she took time to make arguments of principle , again and again .
That ’ s what ’ s needed now .
One common theme in many woke rows is that people in positions of leadership simply don ’ t understand where the boundaries are .
For example , permanent secretaries of various government departments tweeted their support for the Black Lives Matter movement .
The Civil Service Race Forum attacks government , claiming “ many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several department ’ s intranets have promoted highly contentious material about “ white privilege ” and Britain ’ s “ systemic racism.
” Officials need to understand that they are not posting neutral stuff that everyone agrees on , but one side of a political argument .
When the British Library promoted materials to staff suggesting they should back a campaign by Diane Abbott , how could its leadership not spot that they were violating the rules on political neutrality ?
The truth is we all live in bubbles , and if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the people you know probably have a certain world view .
Such people need to be reminded that the taxpayers who pay their wages don ’ t all agree , and they have an obligation to be neutral .
To get them to understand where the boundaries are , government needs to set them out clearly and wholeheartedly .
The Prime Minister has even bigger battles to fight .
But he should empower a minister to lay down the law , and wage war on woke .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
Every day brings fresh examples of the woke revolution rolling through western institutions.
The last couple of weeks saw Edinburgh University ‘cancelling’ the great Scottish enlightenment philosopher David Hume, taking his name off one of its buildings. The BBC broadcasting a comedian joking about killing white people. The Parliamentary authorities considering making MPs undertake “unconscious bias training”. The Natural History Museum reviewing displays relating to Charles Darwin, because the voyage of the Beagle could be seen as “colonialism”. The SNP administration in Edinburgh trying to push through a “Hate Crime” law – despite being warned by everyone from the Police Federation to comedians and novelists that it threatens free speech.
In the US, where the woke agenda is further advanced, it was announced that films must now hit diversity quotas to be eligible to win an Oscar. The English department at the University of Chicago announced it will admit only those graduate students who plan to work in Black Studies.
I’ve written before about what’s wrong with the woke agenda, but others have put it better than me, and in response to the woke revolution, there’s now a diverse group of thinkers pushing back.
Ed West and Douglas Murray have chronicled the excesses of wokery in books that are funny as well as perceptive. Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay have explained the origins of the woke agenda in the “critical theory” sweeping universities over recent decades. Tom Holland, though not a political writer, explains how much the woke agenda owes (without realising it) to Christianity.
For me, one of the most compelling critiques is by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, two liberal professors in the US.
They are worried the woke agenda isn’t just undermining basic liberal ideas like free speech and debate, but encouraging younger people to think in ways that are damaging.
They diagnose three bad ways of thinking which have become engrained in US universities: a belief that young people are emotionally fragile and have to be protected from ideas they might find upsetting; a belief that you should always trust your emotions, prioritising emotion over reason; and forms of us-versus-them thinking which divide the world into ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’, with no in-betweens.
As Haidt and Lukianoff write, making universities into ‘safe spaces’ with no intellectual diversity is setting people up to fail: students don’t get used to disagreeing reasonably; or understanding that people who don’t agree with you may not be evil. As someone pointed out: you don’t help someone get strong by taking the weights out of the gym for them.
Their book contains hair-raising accounts of the kind of protests and madness this agenda has led to in US universities, increasingly a world of ‘trigger warnings’, ‘no-platforming’ and everyone walking on eggshells for fear of committing ‘microagressions.’
While this may seem remote to us living in Britain and not working in universities, the truth is that ideas from the US relentlessly percolate into the UK.
Whether it’s the Black Lives Matter protests in London, or British teenagers referring to the British police as “Feds”, ideas always blow over from across the Atlantic, so what happens in the US today will likely happen here tomorrow.
I find the woke agenda alarming because it promises a future very different from the one I grew up hoping for. When I was a teenager the future was going to be that we would be increasingly colour-blind. That people would be treated as individuals, not members of races. That everyone was capable of fitting into our shared modern, western culture.
Instead, wokeism tells us we should increasingly see each other as members of different races. That ethnic minorities can’t assimilate into a modern, western culture because that they are (in some ill-defined way) incompatible with that culture. That young people from ethnic minorities should be on their guard at all times, because they live in a culture which seeps racism from every pore.
Worst of all, it tells us that we must stay in our lane. That we can’t enjoy another culture, because that’s “cultural appropriation.” That values like working hard or objectivity or the nuclear family are characteristics of white people, not others.
I’m not the first to say it (indeed there’s comedy sketches about it) but in the same way that the extreme left and extreme right are kind of similar, the woke agenda and the racist one have some powerful similarities.
If we think the woke agenda is damaging, divisive and illiberal, what can we do about it?
There’s now a number of campaign groups dealing with different aspects of it. The Free Speech Union does what it says on the tin. The Campaign for Common Sense brings a thoughtful take to the big questions raised by the woke agenda. The Equiano Project and “All In Britain” promote grown-up, non-hysterical discussion about race and diversity.
But what should we do as a Party and a Government?
While the Prime Minister is quite right to speak out on absurdities like the Last Night of the Proms saga, he simply can’t be everywhere, since he has a virus to fight, an economy to save and a Brexit deal to land. So the Government needs to empower a minister, or group of ministers, to lead and deal with this.
Different solutions are possible in different fields. For example, in the civil service, government has more control. The Government could end programmes like “unconscious bias training” which don’t work and waste money, but have official backing and are compulsory for all staff in many departments. The other day, it was revealed that the Ministry Of Defence has more diversity and equality officers than the Royal Navy has warships. Do we need so many people in such roles in the public sector?
In other fields like broadcasting, universities and cultural institutions, government has less direct control. Ministers like Oliver Dowden and Gavin Williamson have rightly rapped institutions over the knuckles when they have done things that are unacceptable.
But as well as intervening, government also needs to communicate why this agenda is wrong and divisive, and what it opposes.
Margaret Thatcher could not intervene personally in every departmental squabble. But she didn’t’ have to. Civil servants didn’t have to wonder what her view on an issue would be. You knew. Because she took time to make arguments of principle, again and again.
That’s what’s needed now. One common theme in many woke rows is that people in positions of leadership simply don’t understand where the boundaries are.
For example, permanent secretaries of various government departments tweeted their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The Civil Service Race Forum attacks government, claiming “many anti BAME policies originated in Whitehall.” Several department’s intranets have promoted highly contentious material about “white privilege” and Britain’s “systemic racism.”
Officials need to understand that they are not posting neutral stuff that everyone agrees on, but one side of a political argument.
When the British Library promoted materials to staff suggesting they should back a campaign by Diane Abbott, how could its leadership not spot that they were violating the rules on political neutrality?
The truth is we all live in bubbles, and if you run a large arts organisation in London most of the people you know probably have a certain world view. Such people need to be reminded that the taxpayers who pay their wages don’t all agree, and they have an obligation to be neutral.
To get them to understand where the boundaries are, government needs to set them out clearly and wholeheartedly. The Prime Minister has even bigger battles to fight. But he should empower a minister to lay down the law, and wage war on woke.


conservativehome--2020-09-21--Marc Jones: Sobriety tags on offenders who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol can ma

Marc Jones: Sobriety tags on offenders who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol can makes us safer

Marc Jones is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire Alcohol fuelled crime has always been and remains a significant concern across the United Kingdom .
Creative thinking and a determination to find new solutions by Conservative Ministers and Police and Crime Commissioners ( PCCs ) has provided a genuine opportunity for change which must be grasped .
This year the Government is rolling out a programme to allow courts to impose ‘ sobriety ’ tags on offenders who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol .
These tags are a true innovative game changer in supporting real behavioural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer than ever before .
From May this year , Magistrates ’ and Crown Courts can require offenders to wear the tags by executing an Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement ( AAMR ) as part of a community or suspended sentence .
These tags perform around-the-clock monitoring of an offender ’ s sweat to determine whether alcohol has been consumed and if the presence of alcohol is detected in the system , probation services are alerted , and the individual is sent back to court .
No-one should be in any doubt that innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem which is a blight on communities across the UK .
Crime fuelled by alcohol is estimated to cost £11 billion per year in England and Wales , with 40 per cent of all violent incidents are committed by those believed to be under the influence of alcohol rising even higher in a domestic setting .
In 2018 , a staggering 8,700 people were killed or injured in crashes involving at least one drink driver on our roads .
How many innocent lives were torn apart ?
Excessive alcohol is not just an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Health England ( PHE ) estimated that in 2018/19 there were 358,000 estimated admissions where the main reason for admission to hospital was attributable to alcohol .
The overall social and economic cost of alcohol-related harm is calculated by PHE as £21.5bn per year and with the total budget for the NHS standing at £130bn next year the scale of the problem is obvious .
While we recognise solutions are required are sobriety tags a solution ?
Well , on their own they can not provide a panacea , I can testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made significant improvements to the lives and wellbeing of my constituents in Lincolnshire .
I was one of three PCCs to run the first tagging scheme outside London to trial the technology and the support system that works alongside it and the results have been astonishing .
A review of the project carried out for my office found that of the 226 individuals issued with an AAMR order a staggering 94 per cent successfully completed the order and 97.4 % of all the days monitored were free of alcohol .
One offender claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months sobriety in which his life has changed forever as it gave him the space he needed to seek help for his issues .
Much praise for this initiative should go to Kit Malthouse , the Minister of State for Crime and Policing .
During a lecture in Oxford University , Malthouse first heard of an experiment in South Dakota which was utilising such tags to tackle drink driving .
Malthouse , Deputy Mayor of London and de facto PCC at the time , quickly identified the ingenuity of such a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing his determination to bring this initiative forward pay dividends .
Now it is the turn of Police and Crime Commissioners to see this project through .
Since 2012 PCC ’ s have a unique remit to protect and improve the communities they serve .
Unlike Chief Constables , a PCC has the responsibility to look beyond the operational necessities of fighting crime on a daily basis and to work with agencies and partners to explore and commission new ways to safeguard residents through crime prevention and rehabilitation in the long term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the worth of this system then listen to the words of one offender who wore a sobriety tag during the pilot project in Lincolnshire : “ Since I had the tag removed I feel 100 % in control of my drinking .
I was worried to begin with that when I had the tag taken off I might go back to drinking again but the process gave me a better understanding of alcohol .
I also didn ’ t want to go back to court .
“ I no longer need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to the tag and my probation officer – I ’ m much happier with my life now and pleased that more people can benefit from my experience of wearing the tags.
” As Malthouse so eloquently says : “ This policy represents a revolution in our approach to alcohol crime , and part of the solution to a stubborn and ugly domestic abuse problem ” .
I could not agree more .

Marc Jones is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire
Alcohol fuelled crime has always been and remains a significant concern across the United Kingdom.
Creative thinking and a determination to find new solutions by Conservative Ministers and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) has provided a genuine opportunity for change which must be grasped.
This year the Government is rolling out a programme to allow courts to impose ‘sobriety’ tags on offenders who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol. These tags are a true innovative game changer in supporting real behavioural change that can help make our communities safer than ever before.
From May this year, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts can require offenders to wear the tags by executing an Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) as part of a community or suspended sentence.
These tags perform around-the-clock monitoring of an offender’s sweat to determine whether alcohol has been consumed and if the presence of alcohol is detected in the system, probation services are alerted, and the individual is sent back to court.
No-one should be in any doubt that innovation is needed in the approach to this problem which is a blight on communities across the UK.
Crime fuelled by alcohol is estimated to cost £11 billion per year in England and Wales, with 40 per cent of all violent incidents are committed by those believed to be under the influence of alcohol rising even higher in a domestic setting.
In 2018, a staggering 8,700 people were killed or injured in crashes involving at least one drink driver on our roads. How many innocent lives were torn apart?
Excessive alcohol is not just an issue for the criminal justice system. Public Health England (PHE) estimated that in 2018/19 there were 358,000 estimated admissions where the main reason for admission to hospital was attributable to alcohol.
The overall social and economic cost of alcohol-related harm is calculated by PHE as £21.5bn per year and with the total budget for the NHS standing at £130bn next year the scale of the problem is obvious.
While we recognise solutions are required are sobriety tags a solution? Well, on their own they cannot provide a panacea, I can testify that they do work – and have made significant improvements to the lives and wellbeing of my constituents in Lincolnshire.
I was one of three PCCs to run the first tagging scheme outside London to trial the technology and the support system that works alongside it and the results have been astonishing.
A review of the project carried out for my office found that of the 226 individuals issued with an AAMR order a staggering 94 per cent successfully completed the order and 97.4% of all the days monitored were free of alcohol.
One offender claimed the wearing of a tag gave him three months sobriety in which his life has changed forever as it gave him the space he needed to seek help for his issues.
Much praise for this initiative should go to Kit Malthouse, the Minister of State for Crime and Policing.
During a lecture in Oxford University, Malthouse first heard of an experiment in South Dakota which was utilising such tags to tackle drink driving.
Malthouse, Deputy Mayor of London and de facto PCC at the time, quickly identified the ingenuity of such a system and a decade later we are now seeing his determination to bring this initiative forward pay dividends.
Now it is the turn of Police and Crime Commissioners to see this project through. Since 2012 PCC’s have a unique remit to protect and improve the communities they serve.
Unlike Chief Constables, a PCC has the responsibility to look beyond the operational necessities of fighting crime on a daily basis and to work with agencies and partners to explore and commission new ways to safeguard residents through crime prevention and rehabilitation in the long term.
This project offers that opportunity.
If I haven’t convinced you of the worth of this system then listen to the words of one offender who wore a sobriety tag during the pilot project in Lincolnshire:
“Since I had the tag removed I feel 100% in control of my drinking. I was worried to begin with that when I had the tag taken off I might go back to drinking again but the process gave me a better understanding of alcohol. I also didn’t want to go back to court.
“I no longer need a drink to manage my emotions which is down to the tag and my probation officer – I’m much happier with my life now and pleased that more people can benefit from my experience of wearing the tags.”
As Malthouse so eloquently says:
“This policy represents a revolution in our approach to alcohol crime, and part of the solution to a stubborn and ugly domestic abuse problem”.
“More importantly, it’s simple, corrective and it works.”
I could not agree more.