conservativehome--2020-09-02--Ryan Bourne: A message for Johnson and Sunak on tax rises.  Not now.  And not these.

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
How ’ s this for a false dichotomy ?
Last Saturday , Prospect asked : “ Post-Covid , are taxes hikes essential to fund the future ?
Or should we abandon “ deficit fetishism ” and spend our way to prosperity ?
” [ i.e .
through borrowing ] .
I shouldn ’ t need to tell ConservativeHome readers that “ spend to grow ” and “ spend to grow ” —the only difference being how to finance it—are not an exhaustive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that tweet , sadly , reflects conventional wisdom .
You should take the pre-Budget briefing in the Sunday papers about Treasury desires for £20-30 billion in tax hikes through capital gains tax , corporation tax , fuel duty , an online sales tax and restrictions on pensions tax relief with a pinch of salt .
Before every recent budget such stories have emerged , perhaps due to kite-flying or overexcited journalistic coverage of illustrative exercises in how one could raise revenues .
One suspects the briefings may even be a political ploy—raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ten saves the day .
Yet there ’ s undoubtedly an unnerving regularity to them .
Alongside a steady drumbeat from “ One Nation ” Tories and such organisations as the Resolution Foundation , the idea that large tax hikes will be desirable and necessary is taking hold , with Covid-19 apparently making this agenda more urgent .
We are told , as the kitchen sink of argumentation is thrown , that the pandemic itself proves the false economy of a “ hollowed out ” state after a decade of austerity .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ inevitable ” higher spending we will now want on health , welfare benefits , and higher public sector pay means tax hikes are needed .
Or that the crisis necessitates urgent repair to the public finances , and that there ’ s simply nowhere left to cut spending .
None of these arguments , however , stand the test of reason .
Countries that have dealt with the Coronavirus better include those ( South Korea , Taiwan , Australia ) with much lower tax-to-GDP ratios than the UK and much lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax-to-GDP ratios ( France , Belgium , Italy ) have seen similarly shocking death tolls to us .
At best , any failure to deliver resources where needed reflects bad state priorities , not an impoverished public realm .
Indeed , the story of a hollowed-out state at a time of the highest tax burden since the early 1980s , coupled with this international evidence , suggests ascribing blame to austerity for poor performance is both ahistorical and parochial .
The wisdom or otherwise of the “ levelling up ” agenda , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is largely unrelated to the pandemic too .
Actually , to the extent that Covid-19 affects the desirability of infrastructure and public service spending in the regions , it throws substantial doubt on the benefits of projects such as HS2 and other city and town revival plans .
Who knows what lasting impact the crisis will have on remote working , the location of activity , and favoured transport modes ?
One Nationers arguing that the virus proves the need to level up would have us believe that the pandemic ’ s effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but insignificant enough to alter the desirability of any of their proposed spending .
One might almost suggest motivated reasoning here .
In macroeconomic terms , the case for significant tax rises now is weaker still .
The point of bridging support through furlough was to shelter businesses and workers from this unexpected shock .
To pass the bill to the private sector now as it struggles back to life would strangle the recovery .
And for what ?
Borrowing costs are low , and we have no idea yet whether and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent budget hole once emergency spending stops and private sector activity revives .
In fact , even borrowing to date has not been as high as initially feared .
Of course , the extra debt to deal with the crisis has to be paid somehow , eventually .
But , as I argued here before , unusual shocks such as pandemics and wars primarily result in step-level debt-to-GDP increases rather than ongoing budget holes , because you stop spending on the immediate threat afterwards .
The implication is that modest consolidation over decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incurred debt , rather than adopting large tax increases to compensate over a Parliament .
Economists call it “ tax smoothing ” —debt provides a safety valve to allow us to only modestly change spending or taxation over long periods to maintain incentives .
Of course , if the Government thinks that , for political reasons , it must expand welfare benefits or health spending permanently , this would be a normative choice : there is nothing inevitable about sharp tax hikes .
Even if you think permanent scarring will occur , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices today .
The Government presumably wants us to be Covid-cautious still .
Two ways of reducing risks would be to drive more rather than use public transport and to shop more online .
Aside from all the other downsides of raising fuel duty and introducing an online sales tax , to use the tax system to incentivise worsening virus transmission right now by making driving and online shopping more expensive seems bizarre .
Raising top capital gains tax rates to 40 or 45 per cent would simply be self-defeating from a revenue-raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments represents a double tax .
The justification for having it at all is to deter people hiding income as capital gains .
But there ’ s a revenue-maximizing balance between this effect and deterring people from selling assets .
The Coalition government introduced a top 28 per cent CGT rate precisely because HMRC research suggested this raised most revenue .
Though it was then lowered to 20 per cent under George Osborne , raising it to 40 per cent plus would reduce revenue relative to a lower rate .
We ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need it most too .
And then there ’ s the mooted corporation tax rise from 19 back to 24 per cent .
Taxes on mobile capital will deter foreign investment just as Brexit is set to happen , as well as reducing the after-tax return on new domestic projects .
Who will bear the costs ?
Not just “ the wealthy , ” as commonly asserted , but workers too : evidence suggests that they bear between 30 and 70 percent of the burden of taxes on corporations .
Not only is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the specific proposals don ’ t conform to the pandemic ’ s needs or Boris ’ s Johnson ’ s ambitions to create a high-wage economy .
Covid-19 may permanently scar the public finances , sure .
But as yet its full effects are unknown and there ’ s little cost to pausing to see .
Anything else at this stage is using the crisis as a pretext for raising funds for hobby horses .
If the Prime Minister truly objects to this rationale as reported and understands the threat to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he should take this message to his Chancellor : on tax rises , not now and not these .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
How’s this for a false dichotomy? Last Saturday, Prospect asked: “Post-Covid, are taxes hikes essential to fund the future? Or should we abandon “deficit fetishism” and spend our way to prosperity?” [i.e. through borrowing]. I shouldn’t need to tell ConservativeHome readers that “spend to grow” and “spend to grow”—the only difference being how to finance it—are not an exhaustive set of fiscal policy options post-pandemic.
But that tweet, sadly, reflects conventional wisdom. You should take the pre-Budget briefing in the Sunday papers about Treasury desires for £20-30 billion in tax hikes through capital gains tax, corporation tax, fuel duty, an online sales tax and restrictions on pensions tax relief with a pinch of salt. Before every recent budget such stories have emerged, perhaps due to kite-flying or overexcited journalistic coverage of illustrative exercises in how one could raise revenues. One suspects the briefings may even be a political ploy—raising fears in the Tory base before Number Ten saves the day.
Yet there’s undoubtedly an unnerving regularity to them. Alongside a steady drumbeat from “One Nation” Tories and such organisations as the Resolution Foundation, the idea that large tax hikes will be desirable and necessary is taking hold, with Covid-19 apparently making this agenda more urgent.
We are told, as the kitchen sink of argumentation is thrown, that the pandemic itself proves the false economy of a “hollowed out” state after a decade of austerity. Or that the “levelling up” and the “inevitable” higher spending we will now want on health, welfare benefits, and higher public sector pay means tax hikes are needed. Or that the crisis necessitates urgent repair to the public finances, and that there’s simply nowhere left to cut spending.
None of these arguments, however, stand the test of reason. Countries that have dealt with the Coronavirus better include those (South Korea, Taiwan, Australia) with much lower tax-to-GDP ratios than the UK and much lower health spending too. Many with higher tax-to-GDP ratios (France, Belgium, Italy) have seen similarly shocking death tolls to us.
At best, any failure to deliver resources where needed reflects bad state priorities, not an impoverished public realm. Indeed, the story of a hollowed-out state at a time of the highest tax burden since the early 1980s, coupled with this international evidence, suggests ascribing blame to austerity for poor performance is both ahistorical and parochial.
The wisdom or otherwise of the “levelling up” agenda, and how best to pay for it, is largely unrelated to the pandemic too. Actually, to the extent that Covid-19 affects the desirability of infrastructure and public service spending in the regions, it throws substantial doubt on the benefits of projects such as HS2 and other city and town revival plans.
Who knows what lasting impact the crisis will have on remote working, the location of activity, and favoured transport modes? One Nationers arguing that the virus proves the need to level up would have us believe that the pandemic’s effects are significant enough for a tax revolution, but insignificant enough to alter the desirability of any of their proposed spending. One might almost suggest motivated reasoning here.
In macroeconomic terms, the case for significant tax rises now is weaker still. The point of bridging support through furlough was to shelter businesses and workers from this unexpected shock. To pass the bill to the private sector now as it struggles back to life would strangle the recovery. And for what? Borrowing costs are low, and we have no idea yet whether and how much this crisis will leave a permanent budget hole once emergency spending stops and private sector activity revives. In fact, even borrowing to date has not been as high as initially feared.
Of course, the extra debt to deal with the crisis has to be paid somehow, eventually. But, as I argued here before, unusual shocks such as pandemics and wars primarily result in step-level debt-to-GDP increases rather than ongoing budget holes, because you stop spending on the immediate threat afterwards.
The implication is that modest consolidation over decades is optimal to account for the extra incurred debt, rather than adopting large tax increases to compensate over a Parliament. Economists call it “tax smoothing”—debt provides a safety valve to allow us to only modestly change spending or taxation over long periods to maintain incentives. Of course, if the Government thinks that, for political reasons, it must expand welfare benefits or health spending permanently, this would be a normative choice: there is nothing inevitable about sharp tax hikes.
Even if you think permanent scarring will occur, those taxes suggested to raise revenue seem bizarre choices today. The Government presumably wants us to be Covid-cautious still. Two ways of reducing risks would be to drive more rather than use public transport and to shop more online.
Aside from all the other downsides of raising fuel duty and introducing an online sales tax, to use the tax system to incentivise worsening virus transmission right now by making driving and online shopping more expensive seems bizarre.
Raising top capital gains tax rates to 40 or 45 per cent would simply be self-defeating from a revenue-raising perspective. Capital Gains Tax on many investments represents a double tax. The justification for having it at all is to deter people hiding income as capital gains.
But there’s a revenue-maximizing balance between this effect and deterring people from selling assets. The Coalition government introduced a top 28 per cent CGT rate precisely because HMRC research suggested this raised most revenue. Though it was then lowered to 20 per cent under George Osborne, raising it to 40 per cent plus would reduce revenue relative to a lower rate. We’d get less investment and entrepreneurship when we need it most too.
And then there’s the mooted corporation tax rise from 19 back to 24 per cent. Taxes on mobile capital will deter foreign investment just as Brexit is set to happen, as well as reducing the after-tax return on new domestic projects. Who will bear the costs? Not just “the wealthy,” as commonly asserted, but workers too: evidence suggests that they bear between 30 and 70 percent of the burden of taxes on corporations.
Not only is the tax rise call premature then, but the specific proposals don’t conform to the pandemic’s needs or Boris’s Johnson’s ambitions to create a high-wage economy. Covid-19 may permanently scar the public finances, sure. But as yet its full effects are unknown and there’s little cost to pausing to see. Anything else at this stage is using the crisis as a pretext for raising funds for hobby horses.
If the Prime Minister truly objects to this rationale as reported and understands the threat to the nascent recovery of sharp tax rises today, he should take this message to his Chancellor: on tax rises, not now and not these.


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Daniel Hannan: Does the army really still need tanks? Or the navy aircraft carriers?  Or the rest of

Daniel Hannan: Does the army really still need tanks? Or the navy aircraft carriers?  Or the rest of us, the Trident system?

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
My late father commanded a tank in Italy in 1944 .
He rarely mentioned it ( except , somewhat illogically , when reassuring my mother during car journeys that she could trust his navigation skills ) but I always thought it must have been a wonderful thing to do .
What a privilege to direct that mighty mass of metal , that extraordinary combination of armour , mobility and firepower .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanks might be phased out was one of grumpy and nostalgic scepticism .
Tanks were declared obsolete after both world wars , yet they turned out to be vital to the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 .
They played a role in subduing Fallujah in 2004 , and have been used more recently in the Russia-Ukraine war .
Are we truly prepared to dispense with what , for a hundred years , has been the best way to hold ( or seize ) ground ?
The question needs to be put .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change-averse , and never more so than when we work for a state bureaucracy .
Some of the most inexcusable wastes of money in British history happened because generals , defence contractors and Ministry of Defence officials were unwilling to admit that a shiny new project was already passé .
Think , for example , of the Eurofighter , designed to dogfight Soviet MiGs over the skies of West Germany , and already redundant many years before the first wings were welded .
Again and again , that white elephant came up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Defence Secretary of the day took the politically easier decision to throw good money after bad .
A Minister who suggests phasing out any part of our established capability will get a reputation for being too clever by half and ignoring the professionals .
It is no use pointing out that Ministers are there precisely to resist producer-capture .
In any argument between a politician and a craggy-faced retired general , the public will always back the general .
Still , it is the politician ’ s job to ensure that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
So let ’ s ask the question directly .
In an age of irregular warfare and increasingly powerful guided missiles , do we need manned armoured mobile guns ?
Iraq and eastern Ukraine were exceptional in that their terrain happened to be ideal for tank warfare – respectively desert and steppe .
Tanks are of less value in cluttered or inhabited lands .
They may be ( as both the exceptions again demonstrate ) useful against other tanks .
But how useful are they against advanced missile systems ?
Or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel ’ s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 exposed the tank ’ s limitations .
Expensive Israeli armour was hammered by cheap IEDs and low-tech missiles .
Israeli generals have absorbed the lessons of that campaign .
Have their British counterparts ?
Actually , yes – at least , to a degree that many will find surprising .
Overall , our Armed Forces are in the world ’ s top five ; but , measured by number of battle tanks , we barely scrape into the top 50 , well behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the UAE .
It makes sense .
We are an island nation which has traditionally relied on sea-and air-power .
When we do engage on the ground , it is often out-of-area and asymmetric .
So what should we do with our tanks ?
We can ’ t put the question off .
Whether or not tanks as a concept are outmoded , there is no question that our own main battle tank , the Challenger 2 , is showing its age .
Since it went into service in 1998 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major upgrades , the Russians five .
Our chief armoured vehicle , the Warrior , is even rustier , essentially unaltered since the Cold War .
Given that big changes are overdue , now is the moment to ask whether tanks give us a decent bang for our buck .
If we decide that they do – if there is felt to be no other credible way of holding territory – then we should think radically about what the new version might be .
Might we , for example , make a substantially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploy at distance ?
Might we , in doing so , reduce the manning requirement – or even remove it altogether , relying instead on remote guidance ?
I have picked tanks because leaks suggest that they are up for review , but the same logic applies across the board .
The most expensive items in our conventional repertoire are our two new aircraft carriers , HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales .
They cost around £6 billion to build , with a similar price tag for their aircraft .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a colossal sum ?
Instead of floating runways which launch manned planes which in turn launch missiles , might it be more cost effective to cut out the aircraft , and simply launch the missiles ( or the reconnaissance drones ) directly from the ship ?
Obviously that would imply some diminution in capability , but did we properly consider what else we could have done with the savings , or were we , as with the Eurofighter , beguiled by the sheer vastness of the thing ?
Again , simply to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction from good and patriotic Service personnel whose job is to consider capacity rather than opportunity cost .
So politicians rarely do it .
Still , any defence review worth the name needs to put hard questions .
Do we need a parachute regiment , for example ?
There are occasions when we need to drop special forces , but how likely are we to need to make a mass airborne deployment ?
And , since I ’ m deliberately raising the most difficult and provocative issues , how about Enoch Powell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ namely that , since we would never actually use it , it was money down the drain ?
Paradoxically , more limited nuclear weapons , capable of battlefield use , might be a more credible deterrent .
There may be good arguments , in all these cases , for sticking with something close to the status quo .
But let ’ s hear those arguments without preconditions .
Let ’ s have a no-holds-barred strategic review which sets out to ask how Britain can best defend its interests given the vertiginous acceleration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic assumptions are overturned by hypersonic missiles , weapons of extraordinary stealth and destructive power .
At the moment of impact , a hypersonic missile is travelling at 1200 miles per hour , and its kinetic force is equivalent to three tons of TNT .
Russia , China and the United States are engaged in a hypersonic arms race which makes a nonsense of much of what we used to think about air superiority , armour and the defence of naval vessels .
A total overhaul , in short , is both necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reassessing our defence needs , look at our allies ’ capacity .
It seems likely , for example , that in any major engagement , we would be on the same side as the United States and other Anglosphere nations .
It makes sense to co-ordinate our procurement , while still ensuring that we can act independently in a Falklands-type situation .
What we can ’ t afford is to cling to current practice for reasons of political convenience .
My father ’ s regiment , the North Irish Horse , was reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single officer .
It rapidly expanded after 1939 to deploy in Tunisia and later in Italy .
It exists today only as a squadron in the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry .
That is what I call flexibility .
Our Armed Forces are extraordinarily good at preserving traditions , but they are also supremely adaptable .
It is this second quality , in the end , that wins war

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
My late father commanded a tank in Italy in 1944. He rarely mentioned it (except, somewhat illogically, when reassuring my mother during car journeys that she could trust his navigation skills) but I always thought it must have been a wonderful thing to do. What a privilege to direct that mighty mass of metal, that extraordinary combination of armour, mobility and firepower.
So my immediate reaction on hearing that tanks might be phased out was one of grumpy and nostalgic scepticism. Tanks were declared obsolete after both world wars, yet they turned out to be vital to the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. They played a role in subduing Fallujah in 2004, and have been used more recently in the Russia-Ukraine war. Are we truly prepared to dispense with what, for a hundred years, has been the best way to hold (or seize) ground?
The question needs to be put. We are, as a species, irrationally change-averse, and never more so than when we work for a state bureaucracy. Some of the most inexcusable wastes of money in British history happened because generals, defence contractors and Ministry of Defence officials were unwilling to admit that a shiny new project was already passé.
Think, for example, of the Eurofighter, designed to dogfight Soviet MiGs over the skies of West Germany, and already redundant many years before the first wings were welded. Again and again, that white elephant came up for review – and, each time, the Defence Secretary of the day took the politically easier decision to throw good money after bad.
A Minister who suggests phasing out any part of our established capability will get a reputation for being too clever by half and ignoring the professionals. It is no use pointing out that Ministers are there precisely to resist producer-capture. In any argument between a politician and a craggy-faced retired general, the public will always back the general.
Still, it is the politician’s job to ensure that a necessarily limited defence budget translates into maximum force. So let’s ask the question directly. In an age of irregular warfare and increasingly powerful guided missiles, do we need manned armoured mobile guns?
Iraq and eastern Ukraine were exceptional in that their terrain happened to be ideal for tank warfare – respectively desert and steppe. Tanks are of less value in cluttered or inhabited lands. They may be (as both the exceptions again demonstrate) useful against other tanks. But how useful are they against advanced missile systems? Or, indeed, against low-tech guerrilla forces?
Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 exposed the tank’s limitations. Expensive Israeli armour was hammered by cheap IEDs and low-tech missiles. Israeli generals have absorbed the lessons of that campaign. Have their British counterparts?
Actually, yes – at least, to a degree that many will find surprising. Overall, our Armed Forces are in the world’s top five; but, measured by number of battle tanks, we barely scrape into the top 50, well behind Greece, Jordan, Morocco, Romania and the UAE. It makes sense. We are an island nation which has traditionally relied on sea-and air-power. When we do engage on the ground, it is often out-of-area and asymmetric.
So what should we do with our tanks? We can’t put the question off. Whether or not tanks as a concept are outmoded, there is no question that our own main battle tank, the Challenger 2, is showing its age. Since it went into service in 1998, the Americans and the Germans have completed two major upgrades, the Russians five. Our chief armoured vehicle, the Warrior, is even rustier, essentially unaltered since the Cold War.
Given that big changes are overdue, now is the moment to ask whether tanks give us a decent bang for our buck. If we decide that they do – if there is felt to be no other credible way of holding territory – then we should think radically about what the new version might be.
Might we, for example, make a substantially lighter vehicle, easier to airlift and deploy at distance? Might we, in doing so, reduce the manning requirement – or even remove it altogether, relying instead on remote guidance?
I have picked tanks because leaks suggest that they are up for review, but the same logic applies across the board. The most expensive items in our conventional repertoire are our two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. They cost around £6 billion to build, with a similar price tag for their aircraft.
What else might we have done with such a colossal sum? Instead of floating runways which launch manned planes which in turn launch missiles, might it be more cost effective to cut out the aircraft, and simply launch the missiles (or the reconnaissance drones) directly from the ship? Obviously that would imply some diminution in capability, but did we properly consider what else we could have done with the savings, or were we, as with the Eurofighter, beguiled by the sheer vastness of the thing?
Again, simply to raise the issue is to invite an angry reaction from good and patriotic Service personnel whose job is to consider capacity rather than opportunity cost. So politicians rarely do it. Still, any defence review worth the name needs to put hard questions. Do we need a parachute regiment, for example? There are occasions when we need to drop special forces, but how likely are we to need to make a mass airborne deployment?
And, since I’m deliberately raising the most difficult and provocative issues, how about Enoch Powell’s objection to the nuclear deterrent – namely that, since we would never actually use it, it was money down the drain? Paradoxically, more limited nuclear weapons, capable of battlefield use, might be a more credible deterrent.
There may be good arguments, in all these cases, for sticking with something close to the status quo. But let’s hear those arguments without preconditions. Let’s have a no-holds-barred strategic review which sets out to ask how Britain can best defend its interests given the vertiginous acceleration of military technology.
Many of our postwar strategic assumptions are overturned by hypersonic missiles, weapons of extraordinary stealth and destructive power. At the moment of impact, a hypersonic missile is travelling at 1200 miles per hour, and its kinetic force is equivalent to three tons of TNT. Russia, China and the United States are engaged in a hypersonic arms race which makes a nonsense of much of what we used to think about air superiority, armour and the defence of naval vessels. A total overhaul, in short, is both necessary and urgent.
We should, in reassessing our defence needs, look at our allies’ capacity. It seems likely, for example, that in any major engagement, we would be on the same side as the United States and other Anglosphere nations. It makes sense to co-ordinate our procurement, while still ensuring that we can act independently in a Falklands-type situation. What we can’t afford is to cling to current practice for reasons of political convenience.
My father’s regiment, the North Irish Horse, was reduced, between the wars, to a single officer. It rapidly expanded after 1939 to deploy in Tunisia and later in Italy. It exists today only as a squadron in the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry. That is what I call flexibility. Our Armed Forces are extraordinarily good at preserving traditions, but they are also supremely adaptable. It is this second quality, in the end, that wins war


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Chris Criscione: Financially reckless councils are the exception, not the rule

Cllr Chris Criscione is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Uttlesford District Council and a member of the Council ’ s Investment Board .
Recent coverage on local authority finance , shrouded in controversy over prudence and proportionality , as Council ’ s look to cover their costs through continued investment in commercial property , has shed light on an increasingly complex and rather gloomy state of affairs .
One that preceded the public health emergency , but certainly have been worsened by its arrival .
Concerns around the attitude of some local authorities in pushing the boundaries of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are yet to overcome the very fact that this behaviour is a necessity in the absence of government funding and any reasonable alternative .
The local authority , standing on the principles of an unerring social conscience and a commitment to delivering good public services for all within its boundaries , has to meet the challenge before it .
It has to accept that top-down government funding and intervention is not sustainable and , bluntly , just not right for those who continue to argue for devolution across the country .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
So , what then ?
For many authorities , the choice is between cutting public services , raising council-tax to eye-watering levels with adverse impacts on the taxpayer – a process that would require direct consent through referenda – or seeking alternative funding through commercial investments .
The latter is certainly the most credible first step that has been taken up as the total amount of investments by local authorities exceeds £6.6bn , and on the basis that cuts and tax-rises should be a last resort .
But many are asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take place in a responsible fashion ?
On the whole , most would agree that it has .
Local authorities should understand that whilst they need to provide certainty around funding as they move into a self-sustaining future , they also need to act with prudence and proportionality in all their endeavours ; or it could end up costing them beyond their wildest imagination .
But – and in this instance it seems to be a huge “ but ” that has caught the eye of government and the independent regulators that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have thrown the rulebook out of the window in moves that are may ruin things for the many .
The government ’ s review into local authority borrowing ( the PWLB consultation ) seems to have been motivated by the recklessness of authorities who have borrowed well in excess of their annual budgets and spending power without any consideration of expected yield , year-on-year .
It would be fair to say that the scale of investment on an authority-by-authority basis is concerning in some cases .
However , the return on investment ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of the greatest significance because it seems to completely ignore the need to consider the principles of opportunity-cost , value for money , exposure , and , again to put it bluntly : the entire point of the whole exercise .
For Spelthorne , their billion pound investment portfolio delivered near to 1 % ROI in the last year ; a stark figure when you consider that they are looking to meet the shortfall caused by decreases in government funding and other key revenue streams that total well in excess of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame that it seems as if the most reckless authorities who lack good governance , sound independent advice , and prudence in their interactions , have at first glance ruined the opportunity for others .
In Uttlesford , the District where I sit as a councillor , and as a member of the Council ’ s Investment Board ; borrowing arrangements , the perceived strength of investments vis-à-vis the loan period and market conditions , as well as a consideration of yield , dominate our conversations at every turn .
There is much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ councillors put the need to meet the “ gap ” in funding at the forefront of our minds as we consider opportunities .
How can it be that authorities seemed to have abused lax-funding arrangements and the trust of their residents to secure investment portfolios in excess of £1bn without considering the whole motivation behind the operation ?
If we are to continue to build a self-sustaining future for local authorities , we must put the goal and objective front and centre , not the eagerness to trail-blaze or to do something just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a means to an ever-ambiguous end , not a profit-making exercise to put authorities in history books ( seemingly for the wrong reasons ) .
In my humble opinion , it ’ s not the Government ’ s rules and regulations that have caused this recklessness to take root , but the complete ignorance of the local authorities who have lost all comprehension of the goal and objective of the process .
One can only hope that the Government comes down hard on them for their decisions , but without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totalling in the hundreds – who just want to build a better Council for their residents in the circumstances .
Many authorities will be looking to meet the challenge of balancing their budgets with a sense of optimism that they can write their own destiny through their own actions and without the help of central government .
It ’ s not a process that delivers untold levels of satisfaction , or indeed one that presents a welcome challenge given the circumstances and timescales with which we are faced ; but it is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government sees the good intentions of the bulk of authorities and treats the reckless ones as the exception to the rule .

Cllr Chris Criscione is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Uttlesford District Council and a member of the Council’s Investment Board.
Recent coverage on local authority finance, shrouded in controversy over prudence and proportionality, as Council’s look to cover their costs through continued investment in commercial property, has shed light on an increasingly complex and rather gloomy state of affairs. One that preceded the public health emergency, but certainly have been worsened by its arrival. Concerns around the attitude of some local authorities in pushing the boundaries of acceptability in terms of risk and exposure are yet to overcome the very fact that this behaviour is a necessity in the absence of government funding and any reasonable alternative.
The local authority, standing on the principles of an unerring social conscience and a commitment to delivering good public services for all within its boundaries, has to meet the challenge before it. It has to accept that top-down government funding and intervention is not sustainable and, bluntly, just not right for those who continue to argue for devolution across the country. You can’t have your cake and eat it. So, what then?
For many authorities, the choice is between cutting public services, raising council-tax to eye-watering levels with adverse impacts on the taxpayer – a process that would require direct consent through referenda – or seeking alternative funding through commercial investments. The latter is certainly the most credible first step that has been taken up as the total amount of investments by local authorities exceeds £6.6bn, and on the basis that cuts and tax-rises should be a last resort. But many are asking, has the system allowed for it to take place in a responsible fashion?
On the whole, most would agree that it has. Local authorities should understand that whilst they need to provide certainty around funding as they move into a self-sustaining future, they also need to act with prudence and proportionality in all their endeavours; or it could end up costing them beyond their wildest imagination. But – and in this instance it seems to be a huge “but” that has caught the eye of government and the independent regulators that concern themselves with public finance – some have thrown the rulebook out of the window in moves that are may ruin things for the many.
The government’s review into local authority borrowing (the PWLB consultation) seems to have been motivated by the recklessness of authorities who have borrowed well in excess of their annual budgets and spending power without any consideration of expected yield, year-on-year. It would be fair to say that the scale of investment on an authority-by-authority basis is concerning in some cases. However, the return on investment (ROI) presented by the secured investments is of the greatest significance because it seems to completely ignore the need to consider the principles of opportunity-cost, value for money, exposure, and, again to put it bluntly: the entire point of the whole exercise. For Spelthorne, their billion pound investment portfolio delivered near to 1% ROI in the last year; a stark figure when you consider that they are looking to meet the shortfall caused by decreases in government funding and other key revenue streams that total well in excess of this in coming years.
It is a shame that it seems as if the most reckless authorities who lack good governance, sound independent advice, and prudence in their interactions, have at first glance ruined the opportunity for others. In Uttlesford, the District where I sit as a councillor, and as a member of the Council’s Investment Board; borrowing arrangements, the perceived strength of investments vis-à-vis the loan period and market conditions, as well as a consideration of yield, dominate our conversations at every turn. There is much to consider, but at all times councillors put the need to meet the “gap” in funding at the forefront of our minds as we consider opportunities.
How can it be that authorities seemed to have abused lax-funding arrangements and the trust of their residents to secure investment portfolios in excess of £1bn without considering the whole motivation behind the operation? If we are to continue to build a self-sustaining future for local authorities, we must put the goal and objective front and centre, not the eagerness to trail-blaze or to do something just because one is able to do so. This is a means to an ever-ambiguous end, not a profit-making exercise to put authorities in history books (seemingly for the wrong reasons).
In my humble opinion, it’s not the Government’s rules and regulations that have caused this recklessness to take root, but the complete ignorance of the local authorities who have lost all comprehension of the goal and objective of the process. One can only hope that the Government comes down hard on them for their decisions, but without ruining it for the other authorities – totalling in the hundreds – who just want to build a better Council for their residents in the circumstances.
Many authorities will be looking to meet the challenge of balancing their budgets with a sense of optimism that they can write their own destiny through their own actions and without the help of central government. It’s not a process that delivers untold levels of satisfaction, or indeed one that presents a welcome challenge given the circumstances and timescales with which we are faced; but it is an opportunity nevertheless. That is provided that the government sees the good intentions of the bulk of authorities and treats the reckless ones as the exception to the rule.


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Unconscious bias training. What’s the point of having a huge majority if Tories can’t say no to it?

On Monday , The Times revealed news that won ’ t exactly delight Conservatives .
Having voted for Boris Johnson under the assumption that his party would stand up to cancel culture , wokeness and all things far-Left , they will be astounded to know that the House of Commons is reportedly piloting “ unconscious bias training ” for MPs .
Though this training has been offered to Commons staff since 2016 , it is the first time it has been extended in such a manner .
The move has come about partly as a result of the Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as the experiences of parliamentary staff .
According to research by Parlireach , employees from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be challenged to show their security passes , among other discriminatory incidents .
While these injustices must , of course , be fixed , it is the “ unconscious bias training ” solution that a lot of the electorate will take issue with .
Numerous articles have been written about how pseudoscientific the method is .
But the worst bit is the basic premise ; it assumes that racism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s minds , and need to be exorcised with the help of an educator .
Are we okay with our MPs undertaking this ?
What does this say if they are happy to go along with it ?
Personally I think unconscious bias training is prejudiced in itself ( “ white people have the same bad thoughts ” ) , oxymoronic ( how can you train the unconscious ? )
, and ultimately sounds like something out of Salem ( “ let ’ s get the devil out of you !
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 8 billion .
Sadly , the emergence of unconscious bias training is not an isolated phenomenon ; it fits into a wider trend that is troubling the silent majority , who will see this latest development as yet another example of Conservatives/ the mainstream , even , losing the culture war .
Yes , the Tories repeatedly win elections , but Britain remains plagued by woke ideology , which seems to grow in prevalence each day .
The most recent example of this came from a somewhat predictable place – the BBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Land of Hope and Glory and Rule , Britannia !
in favour of orchestral music after the lyrics were deemed problematic .
It has since u-turned on this decision , but only after a great amount of backlash .
You almost had to pinch yourself that we reached that situation , and that the change of heart was some sort of victory .
As if that wasn ’ t barmy enough , the British Library ( BL ) is also going through a woke revolution .
A number of people , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have decided that this institution needs a “ major cultural change ” .
Reforms have been proposed by a “ Decolonising Working Group ” , which says that the BL building is an “ imperialism symbol ” because it resembles a battleship .
Who knows what ’ s next… Will activists “ dismantle ” the BL in the same way they want to “ dismantle ” patriarchy and other vague sociological constructs ?
Not to give any ideas , but perhaps the scene of it coming down might finally make politicians wake up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are facing is .
Woke ideology has been accelerated through lockdown , and it is not going away .
One is not naive , incidentally , about injustices in the world .
It is far from perfect , and the battles for racial and gender equality , among others , are not won yet .
It would be foolish to dismiss these , and pretend that things are fine .
Clearly they aren ’ t .
But we have reached a state in which intolerance masquerading as tolerance has become increasingly dangerous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and professors are afraid at universities because of having right-leaning political views ; where people can ’ t get work in the arts for the same reason , and where Netflix shows as innocuous as The Mighty Boosh are eradicated because someone ’ s now suddenly offended .
The standards of morality seem to shift all the time ; for activists , nothing is ever enough as they look for 2020 ’ s blasphemers .
Sometimes they claim that cancel culture is exaggerated , or a myth , but only because they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the receiving end .
In all this , many voters are asking themselves one question , and that is : where are the Conservatives ?
Busy , of course , with the pandemic , but more than ever the electorate is needing reassurances that they ’ re safe ; not next to be cancelled .
Ministers have made small steps towards sticking up for not so much ‘ conservative ’ , but mainstream values .
Gavin Williamson , for instance , has encouraged universities to defend free speech through financial incentives , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wants more plurality of opinion .
And yet , the recent scenes of statue toppling have not exactly inspired confidence .
MPs were too quiet on the matter , perhaps scared of putting a foot wrong .
They should have taken some lessons from Emmanuel Macron , who took charge when France experienced BLM protests , making a televised address that struck an important balance .
There , he acknowledged that someone ’ s “ address , name , colour of skin ” can reduce their chances of success in French society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the face of racism , anti-Semitism and discrimination ” .
At the same time , he said the fight against racism had been distorted when it became exploited by “ separatists ” , and that “ the republic will not erase any trace , or any name , from its history.
” The Prime Minister has spoken out against woke ideology – last week he said of the BBC Proms ’ decision that Britain must stop “ this general bout of self-recrimination and wetness ” – but I can ’ t help feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s address .
Where do ministers begin at fighting back ?
Perhaps it is Michael Gove , Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster , who will have to lead this charge .
He has already criticised “ group think ” in the civil service , warning that a “ metropolitan ” outlook of decision-makers had led to a government that was “ estranged ” from the people .
Or it might be that Dominic Cummings – ever in touch with public opinion – who will make a difference as he reforms the civil service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Number 10 Policy Unit , who has written for distinctly “ unwoke ” publications , such as spiked .
It may also be the case that MPs like Joy Morrissey , who has stood up for free speech , Ben Bradley , who has fought back in the culture wars , and Neil O ’ Brien , who has also done this – recently criticising unconscious bias training – get pushed more towards the centre stage .
I suspect that deep down , the answer to all this wokeness ( call it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is courage .
Tories simply need to get much more vocal about their own convictions ; the more speak up against this ideology , the better .
Saying no to unconscious bias training is a good place to start .

On Monday, The Times revealed news that won’t exactly delight Conservatives. Having voted for Boris Johnson under the assumption that his party would stand up to cancel culture, wokeness and all things far-Left, they will be astounded to know that the House of Commons is reportedly piloting “unconscious bias training” for MPs.
Though this training has been offered to Commons staff since 2016, it is the first time it has been extended in such a manner. The move has come about partly as a result of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as the experiences of parliamentary staff. According to research by Parlireach, employees from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be challenged to show their security passes, among other discriminatory incidents.
While these injustices must, of course, be fixed, it is the “unconscious bias training” solution that a lot of the electorate will take issue with. Numerous articles have been written about how pseudoscientific the method is. But the worst bit is the basic premise; it assumes that racism and other prejudices sit deep within people’s minds, and need to be exorcised with the help of an educator.
Are we okay with our MPs undertaking this? What does this say if they are happy to go along with it? Personally I think unconscious bias training is prejudiced in itself (“white people have the same bad thoughts”), oxymoronic (how can you train the unconscious?), and ultimately sounds like something out of Salem (“let’s get the devil out of you!”). Yet the industry is now worth $8 billion.
Sadly, the emergence of unconscious bias training is not an isolated phenomenon; it fits into a wider trend that is troubling the silent majority, who will see this latest development as yet another example of Conservatives/ the mainstream, even, losing the culture war. Yes, the Tories repeatedly win elections, but Britain remains plagued by woke ideology, which seems to grow in prevalence each day.
The most recent example of this came from a somewhat predictable place – the BBC, which decided to scrap the words from Land of Hope and Glory and Rule, Britannia! in favour of orchestral music after the lyrics were deemed problematic. It has since u-turned on this decision, but only after a great amount of backlash. You almost had to pinch yourself that we reached that situation, and that the change of heart was some sort of victory.
As if that wasn’t barmy enough, the British Library (BL) is also going through a woke revolution. A number of people, including – worryingly – its chief librarian, have decided that this institution needs a “major cultural change”. Reforms have been proposed by a “Decolonising Working Group”, which says that the BL building is an “imperialism symbol” because it resembles a battleship.
Who knows what’s next… Will activists “dismantle” the BL in the same way they want to “dismantle” patriarchy and other vague sociological constructs? Not to give any ideas, but perhaps the scene of it coming down might finally make politicians wake up and realise how serious the threat they are facing is. Woke ideology has been accelerated through lockdown, and it is not going away.
One is not naive, incidentally, about injustices in the world. It is far from perfect, and the battles for racial and gender equality, among others, are not won yet. It would be foolish to dismiss these, and pretend that things are fine. Clearly they aren’t.
But we have reached a state in which intolerance masquerading as tolerance has become increasingly dangerous. We live in a society where students and professors are afraid at universities because of having right-leaning political views; where people can’t get work in the arts for the same reason, and where Netflix shows as innocuous as The Mighty Boosh are eradicated because someone’s now suddenly offended.
The standards of morality seem to shift all the time; for activists, nothing is ever enough as they look for 2020’s blasphemers. Sometimes they claim that cancel culture is exaggerated, or a myth, but only because they are doing the cancelling – and never on the receiving end.
In all this, many voters are asking themselves one question, and that is: where are the Conservatives? Busy, of course, with the pandemic, but more than ever the electorate is needing reassurances that they’re safe; not next to be cancelled.
Ministers have made small steps towards sticking up for not so much ‘conservative’, but mainstream values. Gavin Williamson, for instance, has encouraged universities to defend free speech through financial incentives, and the BBC has its new Director General who wants more plurality of opinion.
And yet, the recent scenes of statue toppling have not exactly inspired confidence. MPs were too quiet on the matter, perhaps scared of putting a foot wrong. They should have taken some lessons from Emmanuel Macron, who took charge when France experienced BLM protests, making a televised address that struck an important balance.
There, he acknowledged that someone’s “address, name, colour of skin” can reduce their chances of success in French society and promised to be “uncompromising in the face of racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination”. At the same time, he said the fight against racism had been distorted when it became exploited by “separatists”, and that “the republic will not erase any trace, or any name, from its history.”
The Prime Minister has spoken out against woke ideology – last week he said of the BBC Proms’ decision that Britain must stop “this general bout of self-recrimination and wetness” – but I can’t help feeling it lacked the command of Macron’s address.
Where do ministers begin at fighting back? Perhaps it is Michael Gove, Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster, who will have to lead this charge. He has already criticised “group think” in the civil service, warning that a “metropolitan” outlook of decision-makers had led to a government that was “estranged” from the people.
Or it might be that Dominic Cummings – ever in touch with public opinion – who will make a difference as he reforms the civil service, as with Munira Mirza, Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit, who has written for distinctly “unwoke” publications, such as spiked.
It may also be the case that MPs like Joy Morrissey, who has stood up for free speech, Ben Bradley, who has fought back in the culture wars, and Neil O’Brien, who has also done this – recently criticising unconscious bias training – get pushed more towards the centre stage.
I suspect that deep down, the answer to all this wokeness (call it that, or whatever you like), is courage. Tories simply need to get much more vocal about their own convictions; the more speak up against this ideology, the better. Saying no to unconscious bias training is a good place to start.


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson has a bad first day back, with no plausible excuses for not doi

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson has a bad first day back, with no plausible excuses for not doing his homework

Boris Johnson had a bad first day back .
While Sir Keir Starmer conveyed genuine moral indignation , the Prime Minister sounded like a schoolboy who has not merely failed to do his homework , but has not taken the trouble to think up any plausible excuses for failing to do it .
Starmer , in the manner of a teacher demanding proper answers from a disgracefully feckless pupil , began with “ the exams fiasco ” : “ When did the Prime Minister first know there was a problem with the algorithm ?
” There was no good answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the PM knew and did nothing , or did not know but should have known .
Johnson accused Starmer of “ going round undermining confidence…spreading doubts…gloom and dubitation ” .
But this counter- attack was mounted in a lacklustre way .
Starmer proceeded to accuse Johnson of “ making it up as he goes along ” and “ just playing games ” , but there was in fact something oddly unplayful in the PM ’ s demeanour .
He was not enjoying himself , and in the socially distanced Chamber , less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in normal times for PMQs , lacked the audience which might have spurred him into performing with brio .
The Speaker , Sir Lindsay Hoyle , was not amused : “ We do need to have the answers.
” Johnson didn ’ t have them .
He tried to dub Starmer “ Captain Hindsight ” , and accused him of having for years supported an IRA sympathiser , i.e .
Jeremy Corbyn .
Starmer retorted that “ the problem is the PM is governing in hindsight ” , and waxed wrathful at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRA , when actually he had spent years prosecuting it .
He demanded that Johnson have the “ decency ” to withdraw the IRA comment , but added that “ doing the decent thing and the Prime Minister don ’ t go together ” .
The PM was unrepentant .
His hooliganism is reminiscent of Lord Randolph Churchill , father of Winston , who in the 1880s was almost unbelievably rude about Gladstone , but in a wittier way than Johnson today achieved .
So this was not a glorious half-hour .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the PM and the Leader of the Opposition .
Starmer is bound to find Johnson disreputable , and was today successful in showing him up .
Johnson is bound to find Starmer prosy and negative , and was today unable to make those charges stick .
Ian Blackford , for the Scots Nats , said on a point of order that Downing Street had accused the SNP of revealing the whereabouts of Johnson ’ s holiday cottage in Scotland : “ this allegation and briefing was entirely and deliberately false ” , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , should not have been engaged in by “ the apparatus of the British Government ” , and had led to threats against Blackford as the local MP .
Johnson replied in a light-hearted manner , whereupon the Speaker reminded the House in a grave tone of the “ security implications ” .
So we see Johnson , by his impenitence , infuriating those who think life is real and life is earnest .

Boris Johnson had a bad first day back. While Sir Keir Starmer conveyed genuine moral indignation, the Prime Minister sounded like a schoolboy who has not merely failed to do his homework, but has not taken the trouble to think up any plausible excuses for failing to do it.
Starmer, in the manner of a teacher demanding proper answers from a disgracefully feckless pupil, began with “the exams fiasco”: “When did the Prime Minister first know there was a problem with the algorithm?”
There was no good answer, because as Starmer remarked, either the PM knew and did nothing, or did not know but should have known.
Johnson accused Starmer of “going round undermining confidence…spreading doubts…gloom and dubitation”. But this counter- attack was mounted in a lacklustre way.
Starmer proceeded to accuse Johnson of “making it up as he goes along” and “just playing games”, but there was in fact something oddly unplayful in the PM’s demeanour. He was not enjoying himself, and in the socially distanced Chamber, less than a tenth as full as it would be in normal times for PMQs, lacked the audience which might have spurred him into performing with brio.
The Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, was not amused: “We do need to have the answers.”
Johnson didn’t have them. He tried to dub Starmer “Captain Hindsight”, and accused him of having for years supported an IRA sympathiser, i.e. Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer retorted that “the problem is the PM is governing in hindsight”, and waxed wrathful at the slur that he had somehow supported the IRA, when actually he had spent years prosecuting it.
He demanded that Johnson have the “decency” to withdraw the IRA comment, but added that “doing the decent thing and the Prime Minister don’t go together”.
The PM was unrepentant. His hooliganism is reminiscent of Lord Randolph Churchill, father of Winston, who in the 1880s was almost unbelievably rude about Gladstone, but in a wittier way than Johnson today achieved.
So this was not a glorious half-hour. It showed instead the profound incompatibility between the PM and the Leader of the Opposition.
Starmer is bound to find Johnson disreputable, and was today successful in showing him up. Johnson is bound to find Starmer prosy and negative, and was today unable to make those charges stick.
Ian Blackford, for the Scots Nats, said on a point of order that Downing Street had accused the SNP of revealing the whereabouts of Johnson’s holiday cottage in Scotland: “this allegation and briefing was entirely and deliberately false”, “the worst kind of political smear”, should not have been engaged in by “the apparatus of the British Government”, and had led to threats against Blackford as the local MP.
Johnson replied in a light-hearted manner, whereupon the Speaker reminded the House in a grave tone of the “security implications”. So we see Johnson, by his impenitence, infuriating those who think life is real and life is earnest.


conservativehome--2020-09-03--Henry Hill: After decades on the defensive, Westminster is finally gearing up to counter-attack the

Henry Hill: After decades on the defensive, Westminster is finally gearing up to counter-attack the SNP

One of the biggest challenges faced by the embryonic campaign to keep the United Kingdom together is the decades-long assault waged by Scottish nationalists – and not just the SNP – against its shared institutions .
It is difficult to make the case for a common government when ‘ Westminster ’ has been turned into a curse word and the word ‘ Britain ’ has been banished from your lexicon .
This is one of the things that appears to have finally sunk in over the past few years .
One of Theresa May ’ s early interventions in Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to defend the role of Westminster in public life .
Now Boris Johnson has reportedly assembled what the Press & Journal are calling a ‘ Mordor Squad ’ , as part of a broader effort to get much more pro-active at combating the SNP ’ s attempts to alienate Scotland from the rest of the nation .
Their Daniel O ’ Donoghue summarises the new approach : “ Ministers will be visiting often , there will be a much slicker operation to present the work of the UK Government in Scotland and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in highlighting the domestic failures of Nicola Sturgeon ’ s government .
The hope is that the narrative will shift away from constitutional politics and stave off another independence referendum , but if not , Westminster will be up to speed and ready to face the challenge.
” We got a flavour of this new line of attack this week when the Conservatives accused Scottish ministers of squandering a ‘ Britain bonus ’ worth £62 billion since the Nationalists came to power at Holyrood in 2007 .
The Scottish Government also provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is up against : the Daily Telegraph reports that the SNP have tried to get any reference to ‘ Britain ’ or ‘ the UK ’ stripped out of the nationwide cultural festival Downing Street is planning for 2022 .
This follows their push to abolish the British Transport Police in Scotland in a long-running campaign to dissolve the bonds of nationhood which hold the Union together – one which has already been successful enough to lead figures such as Michael Gove to shy away from the language of ‘ Britain ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trying to replace Westminster governance with an inter-governmental approach when the devolved administrations are not committed to making the Union work , and on that note Alister Jack , the Secretary of State for Scotland , has a piece in the Scottish Farmer explaining why ‘ common frameworks ’ are no adequate substitute for proper , UK-level control of post-Brexit powers .
( As we warned at the time . )
…as Ross takes the fight to the SNP Meanwhile Douglas Ross , the new Scottish Conservative leader and unofficial ‘ Deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started the push to shift the focus away from the constitution by unveiling a ‘ Scotland first ’ economic plan , the Scotsman reports .
The paper describes it as “ a wide-ranging blueprint that includes plans for a town centre regeneration fund and an overhaul of national economic development body Scottish Enterprise ” , and will feature measures intended to help ensure more Scottish Government cash is spent in the country .
He has also hired Kirstene Hair , the former Tory MP for Angus , as an adviser and spoken up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular visits to Scotland .
Meanwhile Holyrood ’ s opposition parties have ‘ slated ’ Nicola Sturgeon after her Government offered up a legislative agenda containing “ the lowest number of planned Bills under any SNP government since devolution ” , according to the Courier .
Instead , the Daily Record reports that First Minister has promised to set out ‘ the question , timing , and terms ’ of a second referendum on independence – not one of which is in her remit .
A high-profile stand-off over the right to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue front and centre ahead of next year ’ s Holyrood elections .
Scottish Labour wracked by rebellion aimed at forcing Leonard out As Stephen Daisley points out this week , one critical front in any fight to save the UK is the future of Scottish Labour .
The party has a key role in winning over left-of-centre voters who might be persuaded to back the Union but can not bring themselves to vote for the Tories .
Labour ’ s under-performance at the last general election not only cost it most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also helped to unseat pro-UK MPs from other parties even when their actual vote was up on 2017 .
Richard Leonard , their ineffectual Scottish leader , has long been identified as a stumbling block to any revival and this week saw his critics go over the top .
At least four MSPs have called on him to quit , according to the Daily Record , with several resigning positions on the Labour front bench to do so .
However their dear leader shows no signs of being ready to go quietly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spin doctor to sell the Party ’ s “ radical and transformative agenda ” , and Labour List reports that his response to the “ failed coup ” is a mooted ‘ change of personnel ’ amongst the MSP group .
• Independence is a quack cure for everything – Kevin Hague , The Times • If , as polls suggest , the party is about to start for the SNP , why are so many leaving early ?
– Mandy Rhodes , Sunday Post • The SNP is riding high , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rory Scothorne , The Guardian • Scotland is a bigger challenge than Covid or Brexit – Stephen Glover , Daily Mail • We need time out from independence debate – Kenny Farquharson , The Times • A bridge to Scotland is a great idea but a terrible proposal – Carl McClean , News Letter

Johnson assembles ‘Mordor Squad’ to tackle SNP’s assault on Westminster…
One of the biggest challenges faced by the embryonic campaign to keep the United Kingdom together is the decades-long assault waged by Scottish nationalists – and not just the SNP – against its shared institutions.
It is difficult to make the case for a common government when ‘Westminster’ has been turned into a curse word and the word ‘Britain’ has been banished from your lexicon.
This is one of the things that appears to have finally sunk in over the past few years. One of Theresa May’s early interventions in Scotland was notable for its explicitly stating the need to defend the role of Westminster in public life.
Now Boris Johnson has reportedly assembled what the Press & Journal are calling a ‘Mordor Squad’, as part of a broader effort to get much more pro-active at combating the SNP’s attempts to alienate Scotland from the rest of the nation. Their Daniel O’Donoghue summarises the new approach:
“Ministers will be visiting often, there will be a much slicker operation to present the work of the UK Government in Scotland and the Scots Tories will be “unrelenting” in highlighting the domestic failures of Nicola Sturgeon’s government. The hope is that the narrative will shift away from constitutional politics and stave off another independence referendum, but if not, Westminster will be up to speed and ready to face the challenge.”
We got a flavour of this new line of attack this week when the Conservatives accused Scottish ministers of squandering a ‘Britain bonus’ worth £62 billion since the Nationalists came to power at Holyrood in 2007.
The Scottish Government also provided a telling reminder of what Boris Johnson is up against: the Daily Telegraph reports that the SNP have tried to get any reference to ‘Britain’ or ‘the UK’ stripped out of the nationwide cultural festival Downing Street is planning for 2022. This follows their push to abolish the British Transport Police in Scotland in a long-running campaign to dissolve the bonds of nationhood which hold the Union together – one which has already been successful enough to lead figures such as Michael Gove to shy away from the language of ‘Britain’.
It also highlights once again the folly of trying to replace Westminster governance with an inter-governmental approach when the devolved administrations are not committed to making the Union work, and on that note Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has a piece in the Scottish Farmer explaining why ‘common frameworks’ are no adequate substitute for proper, UK-level control of post-Brexit powers. (As we warned at the time.)
…as Ross takes the fight to the SNP
Meanwhile Douglas Ross, the new Scottish Conservative leader and unofficial ‘Deputy Minister for the Union’, has started the push to shift the focus away from the constitution by unveiling a ‘Scotland first’ economic plan, the Scotsman reports. The paper describes it as “a wide-ranging blueprint that includes plans for a town centre regeneration fund and an overhaul of national economic development body Scottish Enterprise”, and will feature measures intended to help ensure more Scottish Government cash is spent in the country.
He has also hired Kirstene Hair, the former Tory MP for Angus, as an adviser and spoken up in favour of the Prime Minister making regular visits to Scotland.
Meanwhile Holyrood’s opposition parties have ‘slated’ Nicola Sturgeon after her Government offered up a legislative agenda containing “the lowest number of planned Bills under any SNP government since devolution”, according to the Courier. Instead, the Daily Record reports that First Minister has promised to set out ‘the question, timing, and terms’ of a second referendum on independence – not one of which is in her remit. A high-profile stand-off over the right to hold another vote will help to keep the issue front and centre ahead of next year’s Holyrood elections.
Scottish Labour wracked by rebellion aimed at forcing Leonard out
As Stephen Daisley points out this week, one critical front in any fight to save the UK is the future of Scottish Labour. The party has a key role in winning over left-of-centre voters who might be persuaded to back the Union but cannot bring themselves to vote for the Tories.
Labour’s under-performance at the last general election not only cost it most of the seats it held itself, but also helped to unseat pro-UK MPs from other parties even when their actual vote was up on 2017.
Richard Leonard, their ineffectual Scottish leader, has long been identified as a stumbling block to any revival and this week saw his critics go over the top. At least four MSPs have called on him to quit, according to the Daily Record, with several resigning positions on the Labour front bench to do so.
However their dear leader shows no signs of being ready to go quietly. He has responded by appointing a new spin doctor to sell the Party’s “radical and transformative agenda”, and Labour List reports that his response to the “failed coup” is a mooted ‘change of personnel’ amongst the MSP group.
Op-eds:


conservativehome--2020-09-03--Tune in to our next ConservativeHome Live event – with special guest Katharine Birbalsingh

I ’ m pleased to say we have a great lineup of guests for our ConservativeHome Live events this Autumn @ @ @ @ @ our next special guest , Free School pioneer Katharine Birbalsingh , next week – at @ @ @ @ @ .
As Headmistress and co-founder of the Michaela Community School in Wembley , Katharine is @ @ @ @ @ as a force to change lives for the better – and an equally fearless challenger @ @ @ @ @ have stood in its way .
Join us as we explore her Free School experiences @ @ @ @ @ the recent exam crisis and the return of pupils to school , and cover other @ @ @ @ @ to the Black Lives Matter movement .
Thanks to the support of our sponsor , @ @ @ @ @ will be FREE to view .
As ever , there will be a chance for @ @ @ @ @ questions to Katharine , too .
Click here to register for your free ticket .

I’m pleased to say we have a great lineup of guests for our ConservativeHome Live events this Autumn.
I will be interviewing our next special guest, Free School pioneer Katharine Birbalsingh, next week – at 7pm on Wednesday 9th September.
As Headmistress and co-founder of the Michaela Community School in Wembley, Katharine is a fearless champion of education as a force to change lives for the better – and an equally fearless challenger of the misguided orthodoxies that have stood in its way.
Join us as we explore her Free School experiences, discuss her perspective on the recent exam crisis and the return of pupils to school, and cover other topics from freedom of expression to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Thanks to the support of our sponsor, Thorncliffe, this online event will be FREE to view. As ever, there will be a chance for audience members to put their questions to Katharine, too.
Click here to register for your free ticket.


conservativehome--2020-09-03--Why the obsessive focus on new tax rises when we need proper spending control – in the form of a rea

Why the obsessive focus on new tax rises when we need proper spending control – in the form of a real zero-based review?

Not even his worst enemy – or indeed his best friend – would call David Cameron an ideologue .
Which makes the conclusion of one of the central chapters of his autobiography all the more arresting .
And relevant to the current debate about Rishi Sunak , prospective tax rises and the Government ’ s future .
“ My assessment now is that we probably didn ’ t cut enough , ” he writes in “ Budgets and Banks ” , his account of the first years of Coalition economic policy .
“ We could have done more , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland had done successfully , to get Britain back in the black and then get the economy moving ” .
As ConservativeHome pointed out as that Parliament neared its end , the cuts to rising departmental budgets had been substantial .
But they were neither very different from Labour ’ s original plans , nor as deep as they might have been .
At the 2010 election , the difference in proposed slower spending growth between the two parties was £10 billion – just over a tiny two per cent of the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
And once in government , George Osborne eased off his original plan to eliminate the deficit by 2015 .
This turned into a target of doing so by 2016/17 .
Then 2017/18 .
Then he dangled the prospect of a surplus by that year .
Then by 2019/20 .
Mañana .
Exit Cameron and Osborne ; enter Theresa May and Philip Hammond – plus Nick Timothy .
The last wasn ’ t a fan of the former Chancellor , and May ’ s first conference speech was crafted to signal “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ austerity ” really what the Coalition delivered ?
If you mean cuts in rising departmental budgets , yes .
If you mean actual reductions , no .
If you mean an outcome very different from what Gordon Brown planned , certainly not .
Nonetheless , Jeremy Corbyn had gained the rhetorical benefit of the doubt .
If the Prime Minister herself was conceding that austerity had happened and shouldn ’ t continue , might not his ranting denunciation of it have a point ?
Enter the 2017 election , exit Timothy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enter Boris Johnson .
Now the Prime Minister is not temperamentally inclined to favour cuts in spending growth , either .
His economic instincts are Roman – or , more precisely , those of Maximus Decimus Meridian in Gladiator : “ are you not entertained ?
” Bring on the charioteers and dancing girls .
Or , translated into modern terms , bring on 50,000 more nurses , 50 million more GP appointments a year , 20,000 more police , and so on .
So said last December ’ s Conservative Manifesto .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedecessor had delivered policy hostages to fortune , especially on social care , and Johnson wasn ’ t going to repeat the mistake .
In any event , a new Conservative Government needed maximum economic flexibility to deliver Brexit effectively .
But that was before the Coronavirus .
Some of this week ’ s leaks about tax rises to plug consequent gaps in revenue can perhaps be discounted .
After all , the deficit is big enough to look after itself for a while , with interest rates at their current low levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unyielding message to the 1922 Committee yesterday , is trying to get Tory MPs thinking about the medium-term as well as the short-term .
In the Chancellor ’ s defence , Conservatives must tax something , if anything like a modern state is to function .
And , sure , there ’ s a case for switching the burden of taxation from income to spending , for recasting pension saving incentives , for looking at a new top-rate council tax band , and so on .
However , there ’ s none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the answer to Britain ’ s economic problems .
The bottom line is that we can ’ t tax ourselves back to prosperity – and that , as James Frayne wrote on this site on Tuesday , it would be electorally fatal for the Conservatives to try .
Especially when , at 34.4 per cent of national income , the tax take is at its highest sustained level since the 1940s .
Which takes us back to Cameron ’ s assessment of his Government ’ s early record on public spending ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures in reining in its growth ; to May ’ s dissing of “ austerity ” , and to how Johnson , so different to her in so many ways , is of much the same mind as her about it .
The heart of the matter is that , Coronanirus notwithstanding , we ’ re spending more than we can afford .
Over a third of public spending goes on healthcare and pensions .
But the economy is not growing at anything like the rate it was before the financial crash .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t had growth of more than 2.6 per cent a year .
Before it took place , the lowest rate of growth in roughly 15 years was 2.3 per cent .
This combination of high spending and low growth is neither sustainable nor just – since younger people lose twice , first from not using health and pensions spending at the same rate as older ones and , second , from not owning capital to anything like the same extent .
So whether or not the Treasury ’ s spending review turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should launch what Cameron hints his government should have held in 2010 : namely , a real zero-based probe , in which every programme paid for by the taxpayer would have to be justified – along the lines of the review undertaken by the then Canadian government during the 1990s , which succeeded in helping turn deficits into surpluses .
A sustained programme of spending control would walk hand in hand with tax cuts as well as rises – with reductions concentrated on business , including employers ’ national insurance , as recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Studies .
Readers will already have spotted the political problem with this strategy – namely , that the Conservative Party is unprepared for it .
After May and with Johnson ; in the wake of an election that promised a mass of public spending for “ Red Wall ” seats ; with a government tempted to move to the economic left ; with Number Ten focused on “ levelling-up ” , and with MPs who have become used to splashing the cash , what price fiscal responsibility ?
“ Those who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be opposed – and pretty hysterically – to whatever we did .
Given all the hype and hostility , and yes , sometimes hatred , we might as well have ripped the plaster off with more cuts early on , ” writes Cameron .
So : on the one hand , there ’ s a need to return to slower spending growth , either in the aftermath of a “ dash for growth ” , or more swiftly if it fails .
And on the other , we have a generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We can ’ t solve the conundrum , but may at least help to kickstart debate .

Not even his worst enemy – or indeed his best friend – would call David Cameron an ideologue. Which makes the conclusion of one of the central chapters of his autobiography all the more arresting. And relevant to the current debate about Rishi Sunak, prospective tax rises and the Government’s future.
“My assessment now is that we probably didn’t cut enough,” he writes in “Budgets and Banks”, his account of the first years of Coalition economic policy. “We could have done more, even more quickly, as smaller countries like Ireland had done successfully, to get Britain back in the black and then get the economy moving”.
As ConservativeHome pointed out as that Parliament neared its end, the cuts to rising departmental budgets had been substantial. But they were neither very different from Labour’s original plans, nor as deep as they might have been. At the 2010 election, the difference in proposed slower spending growth between the two parties was £10 billion – just over a tiny two per cent of the total of £673 billion of public expenditure that year.
And once in government, George Osborne eased off his original plan to eliminate the deficit by 2015. This turned into a target of doing so by 2016/17. Then 2017/18. Then he dangled the prospect of a surplus by that year. Then by 2019/20. Mañana.
Exit Cameron and Osborne; enter Theresa May and Philip Hammond – plus Nick Timothy. The last wasn’t a fan of the former Chancellor, and May’s first conference speech was crafted to signal “an end to austerity”. But is “austerity” really what the Coalition delivered? If you mean cuts in rising departmental budgets, yes. If you mean actual reductions, no. If you mean an outcome very different from what Gordon Brown planned, certainly not.
Nonetheless, Jeremy Corbyn had gained the rhetorical benefit of the doubt. If the Prime Minister herself was conceding that austerity had happened and shouldn’t continue, might not his ranting denunciation of it have a point? Enter the 2017 election, exit Timothy and – eventually – May. And enter Boris Johnson.
Now the Prime Minister is not temperamentally inclined to favour cuts in spending growth, either. His economic instincts are Roman – or, more precisely, those of Maximus Decimus Meridian in Gladiator: “are you not entertained?” Bring on the charioteers and dancing girls. Or, translated into modern terms, bring on 50,000 more nurses, 50 million more GP appointments a year, 20,000 more police, and so on.
So said last December’s Conservative Manifesto. One sees the point. Its 2017 precedecessor had delivered policy hostages to fortune, especially on social care, and Johnson wasn’t going to repeat the mistake. In any event, a new Conservative Government needed maximum economic flexibility to deliver Brexit effectively.
But that was before the Coronavirus. Some of this week’s leaks about tax rises to plug consequent gaps in revenue can perhaps be discounted. After all, the deficit is big enough to look after itself for a while, with interest rates at their current low levels. Maybe Rishi Sunak, who delivered an unyielding message to the 1922 Committee yesterday, is trying to get Tory MPs thinking about the medium-term as well as the short-term.
In the Chancellor’s defence, Conservatives must tax something, if anything like a modern state is to function. And, sure, there’s a case for switching the burden of taxation from income to spending, for recasting pension saving incentives, for looking at a new top-rate council tax band, and so on.
However, there’s none at all for obsessing with tax rises as the answer to Britain’s economic problems. The bottom line is that we can’t tax ourselves back to prosperity – and that, as James Frayne wrote on this site on Tuesday, it would be electorally fatal for the Conservatives to try. Especially when, at 34.4 per cent of national income, the tax take is at its highest sustained level since the 1940s.
Which takes us back to Cameron’s assessment of his Government’s early record on public spending; to the Coalition’s successes and failures in reining in its growth; to May’s dissing of “austerity”, and to how Johnson, so different to her in so many ways, is of much the same mind as her about it.
The heart of the matter is that, Coronanirus notwithstanding, we’re spending more than we can afford. Over a third of public spending goes on healthcare and pensions. But the economy is not growing at anything like the rate it was before the financial crash. Since it erupted, we haven’t had growth of more than 2.6 per cent a year. Before it took place, the lowest rate of growth in roughly 15 years was 2.3 per cent.
This combination of high spending and low growth is neither sustainable nor just – since younger people lose twice, first from not using health and pensions spending at the same rate as older ones and, second, from not owning capital to anything like the same extent.
So whether or not the Treasury’s spending review turns out to be three-year or rolling, it should launch what Cameron hints his government should have held in 2010: namely, a real zero-based probe, in which every programme paid for by the taxpayer would have to be justified – along the lines of the review undertaken by the then Canadian government during the 1990s, which succeeded in helping turn deficits into surpluses.
A sustained programme of spending control would walk hand in hand with tax cuts as well as rises – with reductions concentrated on business, including employers’ national insurance, as recommended by Sajid Javid and the Centre for Policy Studies.
Readers will already have spotted the political problem with this strategy – namely, that the Conservative Party is unprepared for it. After May and with Johnson; in the wake of an election that promised a mass of public spending for “Red Wall” seats; with a government tempted to move to the economic left; with Number Ten focused on “levelling-up”, and with MPs who have become used to splashing the cash, what price fiscal responsibility?
“Those who were going to be opposed to austerity were going to be opposed – and pretty hysterically – to whatever we did. Given all the hype and hostility, and yes, sometimes hatred, we might as well have ripped the plaster off with more cuts early on,” writes Cameron.
So: on the one hand, there’s a need to return to slower spending growth, either in the aftermath of a “dash for growth”, or more swiftly if it fails. And on the other, we have a generation of Conservative MPs unprepared for tough decisions. We can’t solve the conundrum, but may at least help to kickstart debate.