conservativehome--2020-10-27--“The first real overhaul of the candidate selection process since 2002”

We are trying to imagine what Boris Johnson , in his buccaneering days as a Daily Telegraph columnist and aspirant Conservative candidate , would have made of an e-mail telling him that “ we are moving away from the linear two-pass model and instead are transitioning to a nine-box lattice model ” .
And that “ this will provide a much broader and flexible range of development paths ” .
Our guess is that he would run for the hills .
Or for his word processor .
Or both .
That may also be the instinct of members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we write this piece , are receiving a note containing those words .
The e-mail also refers to “ a reimagined competency framework ” and ensuring “ that our new platforms are populated with one source of truth ” and offering “ a supportive and bespoke development journey for each one of you ” .
So what ’ s going on ?
The note is to those on the candidates ’ list .
And it says that “ we will shortly begin inviting a small number of you to take part in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process ” .
However , that ’ s only the start : for the pilots are “ the roadmap to the application process being rolled out ” .
In plain terms , the candidates list is about to undergo what was described to ConservativeHome as “ the first real overhaul of the process since 2002 ” .
Forget pilots ( for a moment ) : everyone on the list is to be reassessed – sooner or later .
The thrust of the e-mail is that there has been a candidates ’ review since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ transitioning ” off paper and on to digital , and that this will free up the candidates ’ team to do more work with each candidate .
So what does this “ reimagined competency framework ” look like ?
Well , there will be “ a short campaign elevator pitch , a 50-minute-long competency-based interview , a multiple-choice test , and a review of your campaigning report from the 2019 General Election ” .
CCHQ will be asking four main questions about prospective future MPs .
How would they campaign ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ?
What would they be like as legislators ?
How could they help develop party policy ?
It will also be looking for “ integrity ” , “ compassion ” – and a series of other values .
Footnote : the good news is that CCHQ has decided to cancel the ‘ Candidates Network Fee ’ for this year .
However , “ the new platforms have affected how the Re-List Assessment process is conducted , and you will now be required to contribute £110 towards the Re-List Assessment ” .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make of all this ?
Four points .
• The response of many of those who have been through the candidates ’ list experience , or are members of it now , will be a weary shrug – and claims that this new process is “ a CCHQ stitch-up ” .
But it seems to us that if CCHQ wants to stitch something up – and we ’ re not saying it ’ s never happened – it wouldn ’ t need to invent such an elaborate process to do so .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both to campaign and legislate strikes this site as reasonable enough .
• It seems unlikely to us that a CCHQ team of six people , even if liberated from the grind of paperwork , will be able to staff “ a supportive and bespoke development journey for each one of you ” .
There is talk of farming some of this work out to the regions and areas , but we are sceptical .
It strikes us that one way of soothing the nerves of would-be candidates would be to de-jargonise the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
• As readers will note , this rolling revision of the candidates ’ list is a very long way away from any actual selections for seats – and we are several years off a general election .

We are trying to imagine what Boris Johnson, in his buccaneering days as a Daily Telegraph columnist and aspirant Conservative candidate, would have made of an e-mail telling him that “we are moving away from the linear two-pass model and instead are transitioning to a nine-box lattice model”. And that “this will provide a much broader and flexible range of development paths”.
Our guess is that he would run for the hills. Or for his word processor. Or both.
That may also be the instinct of members of the Conservative candidates’ list, who as we write this piece, are receiving a note containing those words.
The e-mail also refers to “a reimagined competency framework” and ensuring “that our new platforms are populated with one source of truth” and offering “a supportive and bespoke development journey for each one of you”. So what’s going on?
The note is to those on the candidates’ list. And it says that “we will shortly begin inviting a small number of you to take part in our pilot scheme for the new Re-List Assessment process”. However, that’s only the start: for the pilots are “the roadmap to the application process being rolled out”.
In plain terms, the candidates list is about to undergo what was described to ConservativeHome as “the first real overhaul of the process since 2002”. Forget pilots (for a moment): everyone on the list is to be reassessed – sooner or later.
The thrust of the e-mail is that there has been a candidates’ review since the election; that the whole system is “transitioning” off paper and on to digital, and that this will free up the candidates’ team to do more work with each candidate.
So what does this “reimagined competency framework” look like? Well, there will be “a short campaign elevator pitch, a 50-minute-long competency-based interview, a multiple-choice test, and a review of your campaigning report from the 2019 General Election”.
CCHQ will be asking four main questions about prospective future MPs. How would they campaign? What would they be like at constituency work? What would they be like as legislators? How could they help develop party policy? It will also be looking for “integrity”, “compassion” – and a series of other values.
Footnote: the good news is that CCHQ has decided to cancel the ‘Candidates Network Fee’ for this year. However, “the new platforms have affected how the Re-List Assessment process is conducted, and you will now be required to contribute £110 towards the Re-List Assessment”. What you gain on the swings…
What to make of all this? Four points.


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Defence Science Expert Commit

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Defence Science Expert Committee – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport .
We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK ’ s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country .
We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move .
We work across all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aviation , maritime – to improve journeys , boost economic growth , work towards a low carbon future and build a One Nation Britain .
We are seeking a Non-Executive Director to join the Department ’ s Board .
The successful candidate , through their membership of the Board , will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.
” “ You will be independent of the Ministry of Defence operational activities and have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Ministry of Defence ’ s ( MOD ) Chief Scientific Advisor ( CSA ) .
Membership of Defence Science Expert Committee ( DSEC ) is an important and exciting opportunity to contribute to UK-led Defence Science and Technology .
DSEC is the MOD key source of independent advice on non-nuclear science , technology , engineering , analysis and mathematics issues .
It is an Expert Committee reporting to the MOD CSA and supporting the derivation and delivery of the Department ’ s Science and Technology Strategy .
DSEC comprises an Independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Members drawn from senior academic and industrial communities .
All are specialists in a branch of science , engineering , technology , humanities or medicine of relevance to defence and security and have proven ability in working on Boards or Committees .
Senior MOD officials , including CSA , keep the Committee abreast of developments in MOD and facilitate contacts within MOD.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board ( including its various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
The Board is specifically responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ” Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality .
The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting , to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.
” Time : 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” “ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance.
” Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee “ The FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Transport – Non-Executive Director
“This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport. We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK’s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country. We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move. We work across all modes of transport – roads, rail, aviation, maritime – to improve journeys, boost economic growth, work towards a low carbon future and build a One Nation Britain. We are seeking a Non-Executive Director to join the Department’s Board. The successful candidate, through their membership of the Board, will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.”
Time: 15 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 01 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Defence Science Expert Committee – Chair
“You will be independent of the Ministry of Defence operational activities and have the ability to apply intellectual rigour in support of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA). Membership of Defence Science Expert Committee (DSEC) is an important and exciting opportunity to contribute to UK-led Defence Science and Technology. DSEC is the MOD key source of independent advice on non-nuclear science, technology, engineering, analysis and mathematics issues. It is an Expert Committee reporting to the MOD CSA and supporting the derivation and delivery of the Department’s Science and Technology Strategy. DSEC comprises an Independent Chair supported by up to 10 Independent Members drawn from senior academic and industrial communities. All are specialists in a branch of science, engineering, technology, humanities or medicine of relevance to defence and security and have proven ability in working on Boards or Committees. Senior MOD officials, including CSA, keep the Committee abreast of developments in MOD and facilitate contacts within MOD.”
Time: 20-25 days per annum.
Remuneration: £465 per diem, plus allowances.
Closes: 02 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £100,000 – £130,000 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 08 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Normal relations between the Conservative leader and Conservative MPs are breaking down

The poor bloody infantry are fed up .
As Paul Waugh reports , Conservative backbenchers complain that on the question of free school meals during half term they were sent into action without either a clear objective or a proper plan .
The high command should have foreseen there would be a problem and worked out what to do about it .
Instead of which , those Tory MPs who were bold enough to go over the top , generally the younger and less experienced recruits , found themselves exposed to a hail of criticism .
The moral high ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rashford , who has 3.7 million followers on Twitter , to whom he declares in his Pinned Tweet : “ It ’ s time we put party politics aside and worked together to find a long-term sustainable solution to child food poverty in the UK.
” The only practical response to such a statement is to agree with it .
Rashford must be treated as an ally , not an adversary , and any accidental exchanges of fire with Rashford ’ s supporters must be replaced by whole-hearted co-operation in the great cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead of which , Downing Street failed to see there was a problem , let alone to grip it , and the Chief Whip , Mark Spencer , expressed the hope that Conservative MPs would have a great half term .
Backbenchers feel Downing Street does not take them seriously , and does not realise they can act as a valuable early warning system , exposed as they are to public opinion in their constituencies .
The letter to the Prime Minister on Monday from over 50 Conservative MPs in northern seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s levelling up agenda is being abandoned , is a further sign that normal methods of communication with Downing Street are reckoned to have broken down .
All Prime Ministers find themselves accused , from time to time , of failing to listen to their own backbenchers .
One should not imagine that it is unusual for the leader to seem , especially to his or her own troops , to have become cut off in Downing Street , isolated from normal human emotions , unable any more to see how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
But it is a bit early for Boris Johnson to start suffering from this condition .
Part of the trouble is that as long as the pandemic rages , he can not play his natural game , which is to get out and meet people .
A second problem is that he has never taken the House of Commons seriously .
He is by no means the only Tory leader of whom this could be said : neither Theresa May nor David Cameron was really a House of Commons person .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson has never had the time or the inclination to get to know his fellow parliamentarians better .
Nor , so far as one can see , does anyone else in Downing Street really know them , or possess that awareness of shifts in parliamentary opinion which is the fruit of long experience .
This is , in fact , an inexperienced administration , containing few ministers or advisers who have been around for more than a few years .
Johnson himself , as I noted when writing my account of his early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do things by actually doing them .
This was how he approached being Mayor of London , and it began to work once he had found immensely knowledgeable people like Sir Simon Milton who could do the bits he was never going to learn how to do .
There is a kind of high-minded commentator who implies that in the right hands , i.e .
those of someone as gifted as the commentator , government can be an exact science .
This rhetorical device serves to show in an even worse light the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We could have had perfection , and instead we have to put up with this .
The public is generally more charitable .
It recognises that in coping with a crisis like the pandemic , an element of trial and error is unavoidable .
But there comes a point where it expects that lessons will have been learned from the errors .
And it is on this capacity to learn from mistakes that the success of Johnson ’ s prime ministership will depend .

The poor bloody infantry are fed up. As Paul Waugh reports, Conservative backbenchers complain that on the question of free school meals during half term they were sent into action without either a clear objective or a proper plan.
The high command should have foreseen there would be a problem and worked out what to do about it.
Instead of which, those Tory MPs who were bold enough to go over the top, generally the younger and less experienced recruits, found themselves exposed to a hail of criticism.
The moral high ground is firmly in the hands of Marcus Rashford, who has 3.7 million followers on Twitter, to whom he declares in his Pinned Tweet: “It’s time we put party politics aside and worked together to find a long-term sustainable solution to child food poverty in the UK.”
The only practical response to such a statement is to agree with it. Rashford must be treated as an ally, not an adversary, and any accidental exchanges of fire with Rashford’s supporters must be replaced by whole-hearted co-operation in the great cause of feeding the nation’s children.
Instead of which, Downing Street failed to see there was a problem, let alone to grip it, and the Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, expressed the hope that Conservative MPs would have a great half term.
Backbenchers feel Downing Street does not take them seriously, and does not realise they can act as a valuable early warning system, exposed as they are to public opinion in their constituencies.
The letter to the Prime Minister on Monday from over 50 Conservative MPs in northern seats, expressing the fear that the Government’s levelling up agenda is being abandoned, is a further sign that normal methods of communication with Downing Street are reckoned to have broken down.
All Prime Ministers find themselves accused, from time to time, of failing to listen to their own backbenchers. One should not imagine that it is unusual for the leader to seem, especially to his or her own troops, to have become cut off in Downing Street, isolated from normal human emotions, unable any more to see how the poll tax will strike ordinary, sensible voters.
But it is a bit early for Boris Johnson to start suffering from this condition. Part of the trouble is that as long as the pandemic rages, he cannot play his natural game, which is to get out and meet people.
A second problem is that he has never taken the House of Commons seriously. He is by no means the only Tory leader of whom this could be said: neither Theresa May nor David Cameron was really a House of Commons person.
But it is still a pity that Johnson has never had the time or the inclination to get to know his fellow parliamentarians better.
Nor, so far as one can see, does anyone else in Downing Street really know them, or possess that awareness of shifts in parliamentary opinion which is the fruit of long experience.
This is, in fact, an inexperienced administration, containing few ministers or advisers who have been around for more than a few years.
Johnson himself, as I noted when writing my account of his early life, likes to learn how to do things by actually doing them. This was how he approached being Mayor of London, and it began to work once he had found immensely knowledgeable people like Sir Simon Milton who could do the bits he was never going to learn how to do.
There is a kind of high-minded commentator who implies that in the right hands, i.e. those of someone as gifted as the commentator, government can be an exact science. This rhetorical device serves to show in an even worse light the errors made by the present incumbent. We could have had perfection, and instead we have to put up with this.
The public is generally more charitable. It recognises that in coping with a crisis like the pandemic, an element of trial and error is unavoidable.
But there comes a point where it expects that lessons will have been learned from the errors. And it is on this capacity to learn from mistakes that the success of Johnson’s prime ministership will depend.


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Ryan Bourne: If you want to feed hungry children, don’t target food poverty. Aim to reduce poverty a

Ryan Bourne: If you want to feed hungry children, don’t target food poverty. Aim to reduce poverty as a whole.

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Covid-19 ’ s initial economic impact fell disproportionately on those least able to mitigate it .
An Institute for Fiscal Studies paper in July found that single parents , low educated poor households , and ethnic minority groups suffered the worst relative hit .
Since then , workers in low-wage services industries such as hospitality , transport , and retail , have faced both the worst of unexpected job losses and uncertainty about their income .
With this unique shock , it is unsurprising that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibited failures in protecting against hardship .
Falling incomes , especially for those without savings or access to government benefits , have consequences .
The Food Standards Agency reports greater food bank use , self-reported hunger , and families eating out-of-date produce .
That context is why the Government faces intense pressure over extending free school meals during school holidays through Easter 2021 .
Given the uncertainty around the efficacy of other government support , you can see the temptation to follow the advice of Iain Martin , who proposes caving to Marcus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ £20m , handshake with Marcus R on steps of Number 10 on Monday and Royal Commission into child poverty , ” Martin tweeted .
That defeat might seem a small price to pay to end the optics of opposing meals for hungry children , regardless of any questions you might have about the realities , or the desirability of extending the government scheme .
As Isabel Hardman writes , the belief that Conservatives are insensitive to “ food poverty , ” coming first in righteous anger over food bank use in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meals , has hung around the Conservatives for a decade , whether fair or not .
Martin ’ s short-term solution , however , neglects that campaigners won ’ t be satiated by extending out-of-term meal vouchers to Easter 2021 .
Rashford ’ s campaign ’ s ultimate aim , remember , is to implement the Dimbleby Review , which would double the number of kids on benefit-triggered free school meals by extending eligibility to every child from a Universal Credit household ( an extra 1.5 million kids . )
Crossbench peer Baroness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-term meal vouchers to become a permanent feature .
Combined , that would be billions of pounds , year on year , not tens of millions .
Come next year , no matter the labour market ’ s health , the Government will face the same criticism .
If much of austerity taught us anything , it ’ s that even when acute need passes , wrapping up programmess will renew accusations that Conservatives “ want to starve kids ” by “ snatching ” their lunches .
Milton Friedman ’ s warning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a temporary government programme , ” in part stems from recipients ’ aversion to losses .
A Royal Commission packed with do-gooders who examine food poverty in isolation will bring further demands for spending and diet control .
That is why , I suspect , some Conservative MPs vociferously oppose the Rashford campaign .
It ’ s not heartlessness , or even this specific extension they oppose , but the precedent and direction of travel .
They can foresee the vision of government this type of reflexive policymaking and its paternalistic particulars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they are on a hiding to nothing in claiming this specific measure risks creating longer-term “ dependency ” or “ nationalising children ” if the public think today ’ s needs are real .
Conservatives who believe in a small , limited state have to have answers —about what responsibility the Government should have in dealing with hardship , what tools it should use , and what its role should be for those falling through gaps .
After ten years in government and riding cycles of support for the welfare state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity in the Party ’ s position , with a mix of preferences among its MPs for income support , service provision , civil society solutions , and combinations of the three .
There is a clear , principled alternative vision of how to deal with poverty if the Tories want it .
But it requires getting off the fence .
That alternative would say that “ food poverty ” is not distinct from poverty .
Free school meal campaigners are broadly right that hunger is not usually caused by parental fecklessness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ results from insufficient disposable income for some families .
If widespread hunger is evidenced , the debate should therefore be about whether benefit levels or eligibility are sufficient to meet basic needs—the goal of a safety net welfare state .
This type of limited support that trusts people to use top-ups for the betterment of their families is vastly preferable to a paternalistic state stripping us of responsibility , through demeaning out-of-term food vouchers akin to U.S. style food stamps .
In deep unexpected crises , the case for additional emergency income relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a more structural problem of hunger , then it demands examining why wages plus benefits are insufficient to deliver acceptable living standards .
Rather than just look at benefits then , we should examine living costs , too—the poor spend disproportionately high amounts on housing , energy , food , clothing and footwear , and transport .
My former colleague Kristian Niemietz wrote a free-market anti-poverty agenda back in 2011 , which I ’ ve pushed MPs to adopt since .
He showed that market-friendly policies on housing ( planning reform ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , energy ( ending high-cost green regulations ) , childcare ( reversing the credentialism and stringent ratios ) , and cutting sin taxes to economically-justified levels could shrink poverty by slashing the cost of living for the poor , so reducing food hardship , homelessness and more .
Most of this agenda would require no extra spending or busybodying from government paternalists ; some of the policies would bring the double-dividend of raising wages .
The Government has ambitious policies in a number of these areas .
But why are they never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they press for planning liberalisation , why is nobody highlighting how cheaper housing would lessen these tales of distress ?
Why is nobody identifying the discrepancy of some campaigning about food poverty while opposing trade deals that would make food , clothes , and manufactured goods cheaper , to the huge relative betterment of poor consumers ?
Sure , there would be families who make bad decisions and find themselves in trouble , even in a world of cheap and abundant housing and an effective safety net .
But instances of poverty owing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower and these thornier challenges ( often stemming from addictions , loss , ill-health , criminality and more ) are much better identified by local charities and civil society groups anyway , as Danny Kruger argued in the Commons last week in relation to hinger .
Giving nearly three million kids “ free ” school meals year-round would be an absolute sledgehammer to crack any remaining nut .
In today ’ s emotive debates , it ’ s not enough to just oppose proposals when the need is perceived as urgent .
Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their terms—a task much easier if they held a clear vision of the role and limits of state action .

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Covid-19’s initial economic impact fell disproportionately on those least able to mitigate it. An Institute for Fiscal Studies paper in July found that single parents, low educated poor households, and ethnic minority groups suffered the worst relative hit. Since then, workers in low-wage services industries such as hospitality, transport, and retail, have faced both the worst of unexpected job losses and uncertainty about their income.
With this unique shock, it is unsurprising that a welfare state built around previous experiences has exhibited failures in protecting against hardship. Falling incomes, especially for those without savings or access to government benefits, have consequences. The Food Standards Agency reports greater food bank use, self-reported hunger, and families eating out-of-date produce.
That context is why the Government faces intense pressure over extending free school meals during school holidays through Easter 2021. Given the uncertainty around the efficacy of other government support, you can see the temptation to follow the advice of Iain Martin, who proposes caving to Marcus Rashford’s campaign again. Give the “£20m, handshake with Marcus R on steps of Number 10 on Monday and Royal Commission into child poverty,” Martin tweeted.
That defeat might seem a small price to pay to end the optics of opposing meals for hungry children, regardless of any questions you might have about the realities, or the desirability of extending the government scheme. As Isabel Hardman writes, the belief that Conservatives are insensitive to “food poverty,” coming first in righteous anger over food bank use in 2010-2015 and now “free” school meals, has hung around the Conservatives for a decade, whether fair or not.
Martin’s short-term solution, however, neglects that campaigners won’t be satiated by extending out-of-term meal vouchers to Easter 2021. Rashford’s campaign’s ultimate aim, remember, is to implement the Dimbleby Review, which would double the number of kids on benefit-triggered free school meals by extending eligibility to every child from a Universal Credit household (an extra 1.5 million kids.)
Crossbench peer Baroness D’Souza is already pushing for out-of-term meal vouchers to become a permanent feature. Combined, that would be billions of pounds, year on year, not tens of millions.
Come next year, no matter the labour market’s health, the Government will face the same criticism. If much of austerity taught us anything, it’s that even when acute need passes, wrapping up programmess will renew accusations that Conservatives “want to starve kids” by “snatching” their lunches.
Milton Friedman’s warning that “there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme,” in part stems from recipients’ aversion to losses. A Royal Commission packed with do-gooders who examine food poverty in isolation will bring further demands for spending and diet control.
That is why, I suspect, some Conservative MPs vociferously oppose the Rashford campaign. It’s not heartlessness, or even this specific extension they oppose, but the precedent and direction of travel. They can foresee the vision of government this type of reflexive policymaking and its paternalistic particulars end with.
The problem for them is that they are on a hiding to nothing in claiming this specific measure risks creating longer-term “dependency” or “nationalising children” if the public think today’s needs are real. Conservatives who believe in a small, limited state have to have answers —about what responsibility the Government should have in dealing with hardship, what tools it should use, and what its role should be for those falling through gaps.
After ten years in government and riding cycles of support for the welfare state, there’s a lack of clarity in the Party’s position, with a mix of preferences among its MPs for income support, service provision, civil society solutions, and combinations of the three. There is a clear, principled alternative vision of how to deal with poverty if the Tories want it. But it requires getting off the fence.
That alternative would say that “food poverty” is not distinct from poverty. Free school meal campaigners are broadly right that hunger is not usually caused by parental fecklessness.
Therefore, logically, food poverty largely results from insufficient disposable income for some families. If widespread hunger is evidenced, the debate should therefore be about whether benefit levels or eligibility are sufficient to meet basic needs—the goal of a safety net welfare state.
This type of limited support that trusts people to use top-ups for the betterment of their families is vastly preferable to a paternalistic state stripping us of responsibility, through demeaning out-of-term food vouchers akin to U.S. style food stamps.
In deep unexpected crises, the case for additional emergency income relief is greater. But if there really is a more structural problem of hunger, then it demands examining why wages plus benefits are insufficient to deliver acceptable living standards. Rather than just look at benefits then, we should examine living costs, too—the poor spend disproportionately high amounts on housing, energy, food, clothing and footwear, and transport.
My former colleague Kristian Niemietz wrote a free-market anti-poverty agenda back in 2011, which I’ve pushed MPs to adopt since. He showed that market-friendly policies on housing (planning reform), food and clothes (free trade), energy (ending high-cost green regulations), childcare (reversing the credentialism and stringent ratios), and cutting sin taxes to economically-justified levels could shrink poverty by slashing the cost of living for the poor, so reducing food hardship, homelessness and more.
Most of this agenda would require no extra spending or busybodying from government paternalists; some of the policies would bring the double-dividend of raising wages .
The Government has ambitious policies in a number of these areas. But why are they never linked to the poverty discussions? As they press for planning liberalisation, why is nobody highlighting how cheaper housing would lessen these tales of distress? Why is nobody identifying the discrepancy of some campaigning about food poverty while opposing trade deals that would make food, clothes, and manufactured goods cheaper, to the huge relative betterment of poor consumers?
Sure, there would be families who make bad decisions and find themselves in trouble, even in a world of cheap and abundant housing and an effective safety net.
But instances of poverty owing to lack of resources would be much lower and these thornier challenges (often stemming from addictions, loss, ill-health, criminality and more) are much better identified by local charities and civil society groups anyway, as Danny Kruger argued in the Commons last week in relation to hinger. Giving nearly three million kids “free” school meals year-round would be an absolute sledgehammer to crack any remaining nut.
In today’s emotive debates, it’s not enough to just oppose proposals when the need is perceived as urgent. Conservatives must be better at re-setting the debate on their terms—a task much easier if they held a clear vision of the role and limits of state action.


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Daniel Hannan: We need Ministers’ estimate of the cost of the lockdown to lives and livelihoods

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 .
It often happens in politics that you have to choose between disagreeable alternatives .
If you do X , bad things will happen , and if you do Y , bad things will happen .
Whichever option you pick , the media will then point to those bad things as evidence that you should have taken the other path .
Commentators make little allowance for the concept of the lesser evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all its options are unappealing .
The only real choice its leaders have is where the blow should fall hardest .
How much poverty and suffering should the general population suffer to prolong each threatened life ?
For a long time , it was not acceptable in polite company to acknowledge that such a trade-off existed .
Anyone who tried to point out that we made precisely this calculation every time we assessed a new treatment – that there was even a generic measure for the value of medical intervention , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was treated as some sort of granny-murderer .
And so , perhaps inevitably , governments around the world declared that they would protect their populations from the coronavirus “ at any cost ” , not stopping to consider what was implied by those three words .
Even back in March , a handful of dissidents argued that , setting aside the cost to liberty and livelihood , a severe lockdown would also cost lives as other medical conditions went untreated .
But few wanted to listen .
A bullying , moralising tone dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to point out that the issue was not “ lives versus the economy ” but “ lives versus lives ” , they were portrayed as eugenicists .
The only real surprise was that a handful of places – Sweden , Brazil , Tanzania , some US states – defied the pressure .
Almost everywhere else , governments did precisely what the early nineteenth-century economist Frédéric Bastiat would have predicted , prioritising “ the seen ” ( the Covid fatality count ) over “ the unseen ” ( the other deaths , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational opportunities and so on ) .
But the unseen doesn ’ t remain unseen forever .
The impact of the closures , initially muffled by a generous furlough scheme and a general sense of solidarity , is now being felt .
Public opinion , hitherto solidly pro-lockdown is ( you can feel it ) about to shift .
In such circumstances , refusing to quantify the costs is bad politics as well as bad policy .
In any case , “ you all supported this at the time ” never works as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ERM membership right up until our departure .
They showed initial support for the invasion of Iraq .
A fat lot of good that did John Major or Tony Blair after the event .
After an early over-reaction , the Government is now trying to be proportionate .
Although Delingpole-level lockdown sceptics will never acknowledge it , most prohibitions were lifted on 4 July .
Even in the most restricted parts of England , shops , schools and ( with restrictions ) pubs remain open .
Contrast this to Wales – a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK would look like if Labour were in office .
In the circumstances , ministers would be well-advised to take up the idea – pushed by ConservativeHome – of publishing estimates of the cost of the lockdown .
Not just the direct costs .
We need some sense of the impact on education , mental health and so on .
“ When you can measure what you are speaking about , and express it in numbers , ” said the brilliant Ulster mathematician Lord Kelvin , “ you know something about it ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be difficult , some speculative .
We can put a figure easily enough on the furlough scheme .
We can measure the decline in GDP .
We can quantify the direct cost to the Exchequer ( over £200 billion – a figure that makes the famous £350 million a week on the side of that bus look trivial ) .
But what about the impact of , say , lost education ?
What about the chance that other diseases might become more widespread because of fewer childhood vaccinations ?
What is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tier 3 restrictions ?
These questions are hard to answer , but that doesn ’ t mean we shouldn ’ t have a go .
One reads that the Chancellor of the Exchequer , Rishi Sunak , wants the Government to assess them and to publish its findings .
Let ’ s hope he gets his way .
Back in March , there was little time for such assessments : decisions were necessarily rushed , and schemes were put in place for what many imagined was a crisis that would be over by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did anyone want to discuss the trade-offs .
Simply to run the numbers would have been to invite the accusation that heartless Tories somehow cared more about an abstract thing called “ the economy ” than about people ’ s well-being .
That is no longer true .
Now , it is Labour ’ s enthusiasm for lockdown – a position abandoned even by the WHO – that looks ideological .
Publishing the figures will underline that the government is striving to be balanced .
Never mind how it looks , though : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only thing more callous than putting a value on human life is refusing to do so .

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.
It often happens in politics that you have to choose between disagreeable alternatives. If you do X, bad things will happen, and if you do Y, bad things will happen. Whichever option you pick, the media will then point to those bad things as evidence that you should have taken the other path. Commentators make little allowance for the concept of the lesser evil.
When an epidemic hits a country, all its options are unappealing. The only real choice its leaders have is where the blow should fall hardest. How much poverty and suffering should the general population suffer to prolong each threatened life?
For a long time, it was not acceptable in polite company to acknowledge that such a trade-off existed. Anyone who tried to point out that we made precisely this calculation every time we assessed a new treatment – that there was even a generic measure for the value of medical intervention, the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) – was treated as some sort of granny-murderer.
And so, perhaps inevitably, governments around the world declared that they would protect their populations from the coronavirus “at any cost”, not stopping to consider what was implied by those three words. Even back in March, a handful of dissidents argued that, setting aside the cost to liberty and livelihood, a severe lockdown would also cost lives as other medical conditions went untreated.
But few wanted to listen. A bullying, moralising tone dominated the public debate. However gently critics tried to point out that the issue was not “lives versus the economy” but “lives versus lives”, they were portrayed as eugenicists.
The only real surprise was that a handful of places – Sweden, Brazil, Tanzania, some US states – defied the pressure. Almost everywhere else, governments did precisely what the early nineteenth-century economist Frédéric Bastiat would have predicted, prioritising “the seen” (the Covid fatality count) over “the unseen” (the other deaths, as well as the joblessness, the lost educational opportunities and so on).
But the unseen doesn’t remain unseen forever. The impact of the closures, initially muffled by a generous furlough scheme and a general sense of solidarity, is now being felt. Public opinion, hitherto solidly pro-lockdown is (you can feel it) about to shift. In such circumstances, refusing to quantify the costs is bad politics as well as bad policy.
In any case, “you all supported this at the time” never works as an excuse. Opinion polls showed support for ERM membership right up until our departure. They showed initial support for the invasion of Iraq. A fat lot of good that did John Major or Tony Blair after the event.
After an early over-reaction, the Government is now trying to be proportionate. Although Delingpole-level lockdown sceptics will never acknowledge it, most prohibitions were lifted on 4 July. Even in the most restricted parts of England, shops, schools and (with restrictions) pubs remain open. Contrast this to Wales – a snapshot of what the rest of the UK would look like if Labour were in office.
In the circumstances, ministers would be well-advised to take up the idea – pushed by ConservativeHome – of publishing estimates of the cost of the lockdown. Not just the direct costs. We need some sense of the impact on education, mental health and so on. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,” said the brilliant Ulster mathematician Lord Kelvin, “you know something about it”.
Necessarily, some of the calculations will be difficult, some speculative. We can put a figure easily enough on the furlough scheme. We can measure the decline in GDP. We can quantify the direct cost to the Exchequer (over £200 billion – a figure that makes the famous £350 million a week on the side of that bus look trivial).
But what about the impact of, say, lost education? What about the chance that other diseases might become more widespread because of fewer childhood vaccinations? What is the difference in impact between Tier 2 and Tier 3 restrictions?
These questions are hard to answer, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a go. One reads that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, wants the Government to assess them and to publish its findings. Let’s hope he gets his way.
Back in March, there was little time for such assessments: decisions were necessarily rushed, and schemes were put in place for what many imagined was a crisis that would be over by the summer. Nor, frankly, did anyone want to discuss the trade-offs. Simply to run the numbers would have been to invite the accusation that heartless Tories somehow cared more about an abstract thing called “the economy” than about people’s well-being.
That is no longer true. Now, it is Labour’s enthusiasm for lockdown – a position abandoned even by the WHO – that looks ideological. Publishing the figures will underline that the government is striving to be balanced. Never mind how it looks, though: better statistics will lead to better decisions. The only thing more callous than putting a value on human life is refusing to do so.


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Gary Powell: Local Authorities must play their part in defending freedom of speech and religion

The many readers of ConservativeHome involved with local authorities , as elected Members , as officers , or as employees in any other capacity , should not underestimate the potential influence we have in protecting the basic freedoms that underpin British values : freedoms that are now under serious attack and that will continue to be eroded in a most egregious way , unless a solid and sustained conservative resistance to that attack emerges soon .
Local authorities and local Conservative associations reflect a microcosm of what is happening to the Conservative family nationally , with many officials and activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the conservative political opinions they actually hold .
Even as much as “ liking ” someone else ’ s post on social media containing an opinion at variance with the current leftist orthodoxy is often viewed as too risky .
Indeed , it really is risky , as the Labour MP , Rosie Duffield , discovered when she dared to “ like ” a post by Piers Morgan in which he had suggested that “ people with a cervix ” should actually be called “ women ” .
The Salem rent-a-mob went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wicked Ms Duffield should have the Labour whip withdrawn and suffer party expulsion .
If we Conservatives allow the barnpot Left to set the political agenda and impose their own ideology as the unassailable cultural norm , then we seriously diminish the responsibilities of officials elected to local and national government .
Political government involves much more than administrative practicalities .
We should also be ensuring – particularly as conservatives – that we are acting robustly to protect the rights of women , the safeguarding of children , and the inviolability of individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out courageously and challenge zealots and conformist opportunists who trample on the basic human rights of our citizens .
If the Conservative Party no longer has the stomach for defending basic civil liberties and the rule of law , then we can be sure another party on the Right of the spectrum will eventually emerge to take on that responsibility , arriving as the adults , committed to restoring order and to offering protection from the bullies who have been kicking us around with impunity .
The German expression “ mundtot machen ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aptly describes what we are currently witnessing in British society – indeed , in western societies – when people are silenced by coercion .
This has its own version of pandemic contagion .
It is a compelled oral necrosis : a rapidly-spreading pathology that threatens to kill the soul of our society and of the rest of western civilisation via death by a thousand cuts .
Our politicians , media , police , and judiciary are hosts that are well on the way to colonisation by this infectious agent that is spread and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the very people charged with protecting our freedoms have become either enforcers of the new mouth-dead orthodoxy , or else timid or opportunistic bystanders , watching on while good people are sacked , vilified , and silenced , for the crime of having the “ wrong ” opinions .
A “ wrong ” opinion , by the way , is any opinion that is offensive to the dominant section of today ’ s identity-politics-obsessed Left .
Take the recent case of the school pastoral assistant , Kristie Higgs ( 44 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct ” from Farmor ’ s School in Fairford , Gloucestershire , after an anonymous individual ( remember the Stasi ? )
reported Mrs Higgs to her employer for expressing wrongthink about LGBT+ sex and relationship “ education ” .
Mrs Higgs had aired her views in a relatively small private social media network .
She is a Christian , and she took the school to an employment tribunal on the basis that she had suffered discrimination because of her religious beliefs .
Religious belief is supposed to be a protected characteristic under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tribunal ruled that the school had been warranted in dismissing her and attempted to justify its twisted ruling by claiming the dismissal was related not to her religious beliefs , but instead to the fact that her posts could lead others to believe she had “ unacceptable ” views about lesbian , gay , and trans people .
The very foundation of freedom of speech and of religious belief is surely the legally-protected right to hold and express beliefs that some others – or even many others – may find “ unacceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no longer a protected characteristic .
My impression , I am appalled to say , is that Christians tend to be singled out for special mistreatment where inconsistency in applying the law is concerned , so your odds might be better if your religion is not Christian , should you express socially conservative beliefs anywhere and get grassed up to the Politburo .
A further similar recent example is that of Maya Forstater , who lost her job after opining on her private social media account that it is impossible to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Ms Forstater had been dismissed fairly , because her view was “ not worthy of respect in a democratic society ” .
So the Ministry of Truth seems to think that a belief in basic biology is “ not worthy of respect ” to the extent that you and your children deserve punishment by being deprived of your income stream ; whereas , by contrast , it apparently is “ worthy of respect ” to believe the law should be changed in a way that allows any non-trans male-bodied rapist to mendaciously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing rooms .
This topic of cultural Marxism evokes a detail in Brecht ’ s “ The Caucasian Chalk Circle ” , where the eccentric and unwilling judge , Azdak , symbolically uses the unjust statute book of the ancien regime to sit on , instead making judgments according to his best insights , which generally lead to fairer outcomes .
Yet our Statute Book serves us far better than the convoluted post-modernist justifications of ideologically-captured judges .
While such judges sit contemptuously on our Statute Book , we Conservatives must not sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to lose our freedoms , many of today ’ s bystanders will discover that , despite their cooperation with the witch-hunters , the hands they once sat on will not be spared the manacles .

Cllr Gary Powell is a councillor in Buckinghamshire
The many readers of ConservativeHome involved with local authorities, as elected Members, as officers, or as employees in any other capacity, should not underestimate the potential influence we have in protecting the basic freedoms that underpin British values: freedoms that are now under serious attack and that will continue to be eroded in a most egregious way, unless a solid and sustained conservative resistance to that attack emerges soon.
Local authorities and local Conservative associations reflect a microcosm of what is happening to the Conservative family nationally, with many officials and activists clearly too scared to express in public, the conservative political opinions they actually hold. Even as much as “liking” someone else’s post on social media containing an opinion at variance with the current leftist orthodoxy is often viewed as too risky. Indeed, it really is risky, as the Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, discovered when she dared to “like” a post by Piers Morgan in which he had suggested that “people with a cervix” should actually be called “women”. The Salem rent-a-mob went into a frenzy, with demands that wicked Ms Duffield should have the Labour whip withdrawn and suffer party expulsion.
If we Conservatives allow the barnpot Left to set the political agenda and impose their own ideology as the unassailable cultural norm, then we seriously diminish the responsibilities of officials elected to local and national government. Political government involves much more than administrative practicalities. We should also be ensuring – particularly as conservatives – that we are acting robustly to protect the rights of women, the safeguarding of children, and the inviolability of individual liberty. This requires us to speak out courageously and challenge zealots and conformist opportunists who trample on the basic human rights of our citizens. If the Conservative Party no longer has the stomach for defending basic civil liberties and the rule of law, then we can be sure another party on the Right of the spectrum will eventually emerge to take on that responsibility, arriving as the adults, committed to restoring order and to offering protection from the bullies who have been kicking us around with impunity.
The German expression “mundtot machen” – making someone “mouth-dead” – aptly describes what we are currently witnessing in British society – indeed, in western societies – when people are silenced by coercion. This has its own version of pandemic contagion. It is a compelled oral necrosis: a rapidly-spreading pathology that threatens to kill the soul of our society and of the rest of western civilisation via death by a thousand cuts.
Our politicians, media, police, and judiciary are hosts that are well on the way to colonisation by this infectious agent that is spread and maintained by fear and bullying. So many of the very people charged with protecting our freedoms have become either enforcers of the new mouth-dead orthodoxy, or else timid or opportunistic bystanders, watching on while good people are sacked, vilified, and silenced, for the crime of having the “wrong” opinions. A “wrong” opinion, by the way, is any opinion that is offensive to the dominant section of today’s identity-politics-obsessed Left.
Take the recent case of the school pastoral assistant, Kristie Higgs (44), who was dismissed for “gross misconduct” from Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, after an anonymous individual (remember the Stasi?) reported Mrs Higgs to her employer for expressing wrongthink about LGBT+ sex and relationship “education”. Mrs Higgs had aired her views in a relatively small private social media network. She is a Christian, and she took the school to an employment tribunal on the basis that she had suffered discrimination because of her religious beliefs. Religious belief is supposed to be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010: however, the tribunal ruled that the school had been warranted in dismissing her and attempted to justify its twisted ruling by claiming the dismissal was related not to her religious beliefs, but instead to the fact that her posts could lead others to believe she had “unacceptable” views about lesbian, gay, and trans people.
The very foundation of freedom of speech and of religious belief is surely the legally-protected right to hold and express beliefs that some others – or even many others – may find “unacceptable”. Otherwise, your religious beliefs are no longer a protected characteristic. My impression, I am appalled to say, is that Christians tend to be singled out for special mistreatment where inconsistency in applying the law is concerned, so your odds might be better if your religion is not Christian, should you express socially conservative beliefs anywhere and get grassed up to the Politburo.
A further similar recent example is that of Maya Forstater, who lost her job after opining on her private social media account that it is impossible to change biological sex. The employment judge found that Ms Forstater had been dismissed fairly, because her view was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. So the Ministry of Truth seems to think that a belief in basic biology is “not worthy of respect” to the extent that you and your children deserve punishment by being deprived of your income stream; whereas, by contrast, it apparently is “worthy of respect” to believe the law should be changed in a way that allows any non-trans male-bodied rapist to mendaciously self-identify his way into women’s changing rooms.
This topic of cultural Marxism evokes a detail in Brecht’s “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”, where the eccentric and unwilling judge, Azdak, symbolically uses the unjust statute book of the ancien regime to sit on, instead making judgments according to his best insights, which generally lead to fairer outcomes. Yet our Statute Book serves us far better than the convoluted post-modernist justifications of ideologically-captured judges. While such judges sit contemptuously on our Statute Book, we Conservatives must not sit timidly on our hands. If we continue to lose our freedoms, many of today’s bystanders will discover that, despite their cooperation with the witch-hunters, the hands they once sat on will not be spared the manacles.


conservativehome--2020-10-28--Ed Birkett and Benedict McAleenan: Hydrogen holds huge potential for British industry – here’s how t

Ed Birkett and Benedict McAleenan: Hydrogen holds huge potential for British industry – here’s how to achieve it

Ed Birkett is Research Fellow in the Energy & Environment Unit at Policy Exchange and Benedict McAleenan is Senior Adviser at Policy Exchange .
In the fight against climate change , there are no silver bullets .
We won ’ t solve it through technology alone , nor by telling people to mend their sinful ways .
But there are some potential game changers , and among those is hydrogen .
The Prime Minister is reportedly a convert to the potential of hydrogen as a pioneering fuel that could kick-start a green recovery .
As well as helping a recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regions it would reinvigorate industry after decades of decline , delivering on the “ levelling up ” agenda .
In 2018 , Policy Exchange explored the potential for hydrogen as a fuel of the future and highlighted the opportunities in northern industrial hubs .
However , there ’ s a risk that our politicians will get carried away .
It has huge potential but also very real limits , and there ’ s a danger of government investments going wrong .
Hydrogen isn ’ t the right answer everywhere Hydrogen has huge potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial areas of the UK , making it a natural focus for the Government ’ s net zero and levelling up agendas .
Our report , Fuelling the Future , described how hydrogen is widely used in industrial processes , including removing sulphur from fuels , manufacturing fertiliser , and even producing margarine .
But most of this is hydrogen produced from natural gas , which releases carbon , leading to the nickname “ grey hydrogen ” .
There are already pilots underway to trial “ green ” hydrogen supply and Britain is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for electrolysis ( producing hydrogen from water using electricity ) .
In the future , with lots of cheap , clean electricity from offshore wind farms , there is huge potential to scale up hydrogen in the UK , benefitting British manufacturing companies whilst decarbonising refineries and chemical plants .
Once the costs of hydrogen fall , it could be used in the blast furnaces of Port Talbot to replace coal and to secure jobs in our nationally strategic steel industry .
It could then be expanded to other industries including glassmaking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transport that perhaps offers the biggest long-term potential for low-carbon hydrogen .
Batteries look likely to dominate the market for passenger cars , with manufacturers like Nissan and Tesla offering vehicles with increasingly longer ranges and shorter charge times .
However , for heavy transport , including lorries , planes , buses and ships , the weight of batteries could be prohibitive .
In these applications , hydrogen offers a solution .
Once the right infrastructure is in place , hydrogen vehicles will offer fast refuelling whilst minimising weight .
Several British manufacturers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydrogen-powered public transport .
Despite this potential , hydrogen is not a silver bullet .
When compared to petrol , diesel or natural gas , it is much less energy dense , which means it needs to be stored under high pressure , increasing costs and complexity .
For many use cases , hydrogen ’ s Achilles ’ Heel is that it is inefficient when compared to using electricity because there are many more conversion steps in the chain .
This means that a hydrogen-powered car will use twice as much energy as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance .
Some have touted hydrogen as key to the UK ’ s energy security , ending our reliance on foreign fuels .
The UK is a leading manufacturer of electrolysers , for instance , which produce hydrogen from electricity and water , which means that we could use UK wind farms to power electrolysers , generating hydrogen .
However , based on current forecasts , the bulk of the UK ’ s low-carbon hydrogen is expected to come from natural gas .
The UK ’ s declining gas reserves means that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rapid expansion of hydrogen risks tying us into a fuel that we will increasingly import from countries such as Qatar .
Hydrogen hubs are the right place to start None of this means that hydrogen doesn ’ t have an instrumental role to play in a Net Zero UK , but we need to be careful and to consider these challenges .
First , as we argued in 2018 , we should create “ hydrogen hubs ” .
This will support innovation in the areas that already use high-carbon hydrogen such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for hydrogen is concentrated in areas that the Government wants to “ level up ” , such as Humberside , Teesside and Falkirk .
These industrial centres can also deliver economies of scale and therefore cost savings , assuming that government carries some of the development risk in return for regional growth .
Second , these areas should pioneer wider uses of hydrogen , exploiting their engineering skills base to innovate and learn .
The Government has already announced that the first “ hydrogen transport hub ” will be based in Teesside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testbed for hydrogen vehicles , including boats , trains and planes , following Policy Exchange ’ s 2018 recommendations .
Finally , the Government should engage the market wherever possible .
The success of offshore wind in the UK is a combination of private sector innovation and Government support to push costs down .
The same principles should apply to hydrogen .
Efficient markets also keep options open if hydrogen remains too costly and other technologies emerge that are better and cheaper .
None of this is bad news .
Acknowledging hydrogen ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best approach that puts British industrial towns back in the vanguard of an industrial revolution .
It may not be the single answer to our future fuel needs , but it has huge potential .
At our Conservative Party Conference fringe event a few weeks ago , Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen called for the Government to “ put hydrogen on the same footing and on the same platform as other technologies like electrification and batteries ” .
The Teesside hydrogen transport hub is the first step to achieving this , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Ed Birkett is Research Fellow in the Energy & Environment Unit at Policy Exchange and Benedict McAleenan is Senior Adviser at Policy Exchange.
In the fight against climate change, there are no silver bullets. We won’t solve it through technology alone, nor by telling people to mend their sinful ways. But there are some potential game changers, and among those is hydrogen.
The Prime Minister is reportedly a convert to the potential of hydrogen as a pioneering fuel that could kick-start a green recovery. As well as helping a recovery from the Covid-19 crisis, for some regions it would reinvigorate industry after decades of decline, delivering on the “levelling up” agenda.
In 2018, Policy Exchange explored the potential for hydrogen as a fuel of the future and highlighted the opportunities in northern industrial hubs. However, there’s a risk that our politicians will get carried away. It has huge potential but also very real limits, and there’s a danger of government investments going wrong.
Hydrogen isn’t the right answer everywhere
Hydrogen has huge potential as a low-carbon fuel and in revitalising industrial areas of the UK, making it a natural focus for the Government’s net zero and levelling up agendas. Our report, Fuelling the Future, described how hydrogen is widely used in industrial processes, including removing sulphur from fuels, manufacturing fertiliser, and even producing margarine. But most of this is hydrogen produced from natural gas, which releases carbon, leading to the nickname “grey hydrogen”.
There are already pilots underway to trial “green” hydrogen supply and Britain is a global leader in the technology needed for electrolysis (producing hydrogen from water using electricity). In the future, with lots of cheap, clean electricity from offshore wind farms, there is huge potential to scale up hydrogen in the UK, benefitting British manufacturing companies whilst decarbonising refineries and chemical plants.
Once the costs of hydrogen fall, it could be used in the blast furnaces of Port Talbot to replace coal and to secure jobs in our nationally strategic steel industry. It could then be expanded to other industries including glassmaking and manufacturing electronics.
But it is heavy transport that perhaps offers the biggest long-term potential for low-carbon hydrogen. Batteries look likely to dominate the market for passenger cars, with manufacturers like Nissan and Tesla offering vehicles with increasingly longer ranges and shorter charge times.
However, for heavy transport, including lorries, planes, buses and ships, the weight of batteries could be prohibitive. In these applications, hydrogen offers a solution. Once the right infrastructure is in place, hydrogen vehicles will offer fast refuelling whilst minimising weight. Several British manufacturers are champing at the bit to deliver hydrogen-powered public transport.
Despite this potential, hydrogen is not a silver bullet. When compared to petrol, diesel or natural gas, it is much less energy dense, which means it needs to be stored under high pressure, increasing costs and complexity. For many use cases, hydrogen’s Achilles’ Heel is that it is inefficient when compared to using electricity because there are many more conversion steps in the chain. This means that a hydrogen-powered car will use twice as much energy as a battery-powered car to travel the same distance.
Some have touted hydrogen as key to the UK’s energy security, ending our reliance on foreign fuels. The UK is a leading manufacturer of electrolysers, for instance, which produce hydrogen from electricity and water, which means that we could use UK wind farms to power electrolysers, generating hydrogen.
However, based on current forecasts, the bulk of the UK’s low-carbon hydrogen is expected to come from natural gas. The UK’s declining gas reserves means that we increasingly rely on imported gas, so a rapid expansion of hydrogen risks tying us into a fuel that we will increasingly import from countries such as Qatar.
Hydrogen hubs are the right place to start
None of this means that hydrogen doesn’t have an instrumental role to play in a Net Zero UK, but we need to be careful and to consider these challenges.
First, as we argued in 2018, we should create “hydrogen hubs”. This will support innovation in the areas that already use high-carbon hydrogen such as refineries and heavy industry.
Helpfully, demand for hydrogen is concentrated in areas that the Government wants to “level up”, such as Humberside, Teesside and Falkirk. These industrial centres can also deliver economies of scale and therefore cost savings, assuming that government carries some of the development risk in return for regional growth.
Second, these areas should pioneer wider uses of hydrogen, exploiting their engineering skills base to innovate and learn. The Government has already announced that the first “hydrogen transport hub” will be based in Teesside. The Teesside hub will be a testbed for hydrogen vehicles, including boats, trains and planes, following Policy Exchange’s 2018 recommendations.
Finally, the Government should engage the market wherever possible. The success of offshore wind in the UK is a combination of private sector innovation and Government support to push costs down. The same principles should apply to hydrogen. Efficient markets also keep options open if hydrogen remains too costly and other technologies emerge that are better and cheaper.
None of this is bad news. Acknowledging hydrogen’s limits allows us to design the best approach that puts British industrial towns back in the vanguard of an industrial revolution. It may not be the single answer to our future fuel needs, but it has huge potential.
At our Conservative Party Conference fringe event a few weeks ago, Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen called for the Government to “put hydrogen on the same footing and on the same platform as other technologies like electrification and batteries”. The Teesside hydrogen transport hub is the first step to achieving this, but there’s lots more still to do.


conservativehome--2020-10-29--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Defence Science Expert Commit


conservativehome--2020-10-29--Why we should “have enough of experts” – the SAGE advisers and Great Barrington signatories alike

Government policy on Covid-19 includes “ protecting those who are at highest risk ” .
It has downgraded shielding , making it “ less restrictive ” , updating its advice , and now linking it to the three-tier system .
It will apply “ in some of the worst affected areas and only for a limited period of time ” .
Nonetheless , it ’ s there .
Do you see what we did there ?
All those quotes are from the guidance save one – the first , which is from the Great Barrington Declaration .
The point we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less difference between the Government ’ s approach – and indeed that of other governments – and that of the declaration than some would have you believe .
There is a consensus that the most vulnerable need special protection .
Some of the attacks on the declaration from its critics treat it as though it and other approaches are opposities – whereas , as we have seen , they are part of a continuum .
Our take is that both the declaration ’ s supporters and opponents miss the central point – which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at ConservativeHome since the Government ’ s response to the Coronavirus began to take shape .
Which is as follows : the declaration ’ s supporters may be right in believing that it is possible to intensify shielding for the vulnerable and relaxing it for others in ways that would deliver results acceptable to electorates .
And it may be that they are wrong , as our columnist Neil O ’ Brien has argued would be the case .
Certainly , no government has attempted it to date – including Sweden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , isn ’ t attempting herd immunity , and has has deployed some restrictive measures .
These include closing universities , table-service only in restaurants , and limiting gatherings to 300 people – except in Malmo and its hinterland , where the previous limit of 50 applies , as well as other local curbs .
Nonetheless , a policy shouldn ’ t automatically be rejected simply because it hasn ’ t been tried before .
Which brings us to the heart of the matter .
As we say , it is possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution , but they would , in doing so , have to answer questions which it leaves open .
The declaration speaks of “ protecting those who are at highest risk ” who , in its next sentence , are also referred to as “ the vulnerable ” .
These “ should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home .
When possible , they should meet family members outside rather than inside ” .
A comprehensive and detailed list of measures…is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable ” ?
Those who are “ clinically extremely vulnerable ” , as the Government now puts it , or also those who , in its original guidance , are “ at increased risk of severe illness from Coronavirus ” .
Or , say , the over-80s , as some would doubtless urge ?
What about lumping in the over-65s , for safety ’ s sake ?
Is it politically possible to confine all or any of these in their homes until the virus abates or a vaccine arrives ?
What about those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a family substitute ?
Stand back from these questions for a moment , and imagine what the Daily Telegraph , or any publication with older readers , would make of Great Barrington ’ s “ focused protection ” , in practice .
E-mails would begin to flow in complaining of being “ put under house arrest ” .
Older celebrities would tell anyone willing to listen that they were willing to defy the Government – even if that meant prison .
( That one of them might be the Prime Minister ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Features would be commissioned to project agonising stories of isolation , abandonment , and loneliness .
On Twitter , “ the comprehensive and detailed list of measures ” would be ridiculed for flaws , faults and omissions .
Yes , we know perfectly well that all that applies now .
But this is precisely the point .
All these decisions – the implementation of the Great Barrington policy , or of the Government ’ s three-tiered approach , or of a total indefinite lockdown for that matter – are fairly and squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , SAGE , the leading Great Barrington signatories , and scientific advisers alike have no more or less standing to make them than anyone else .
An epidemiologist is an expert in the study of disease .
He is not an expert in the political decisions that may arise from his study : indeed , there are no such experts – only lay people who we elect to make those decisions , and who we hire and fire in elections .
As advisers , experts are indispensable .
But “ advisers advise and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be , how they are to the protected , whether “ focused protection ” is practically possible or politically acceptable – all these are decisions for the people we elect , accountable to us at the ballot box .
So as we put it right at the start , “ the crucial decisions on the virus are not scientific .
They are political.
” That applies whether the scientists in question are members of SAGE or signatories of Great Barrington .
The point is far from being abstract , as lockdowns intensify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the push for more .
For what it ’ s worth , we believe that Ali is right to “ ask the Government to consider an alternative strategy which may cause less overall harm based on the Swedish approach , but with much better protection of the vulnerable , especially in care homes ” .
To this end , it should aim to broaden the public conversation about the effect of lockdowns , restrictions and Covid-19 on lives and livelihoods .
And give wider advice – from economists , for example – more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessments of their impacts – a view supported by many others , including the Chairman of the 1922 Committee and the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee .
We hope to see more MPs make the same case when Parliament returns next week .

Government policy on Covid-19 includes “protecting those who are at highest risk”. It has downgraded shielding, making it “less restrictive”, updating its advice, and now linking it to the three-tier system. It will apply “in some of the worst affected areas and only for a limited period of time”. Nonetheless, it’s there.
Do you see what we did there? All those quotes are from the guidance save one – the first, which is from the Great Barrington Declaration.
The point we are making is that there’s less difference between the Government’s approach – and indeed that of other governments – and that of the declaration than some would have you believe. There is a consensus that the most vulnerable need special protection.
Some of the attacks on the declaration from its critics treat it as though it and other approaches are opposities – whereas, as we have seen, they are part of a continuum.
Our take is that both the declaration’s supporters and opponents miss a central point – which we have been banging on about here at ConservativeHome since the Government’s response to the Coronavirus began to take shape in March.
Which is as follows: the declaration’s supporters may be right in believing that it is possible to intensify shielding for the vulnerable and relaxing it for others in ways that would deliver results acceptable to electorates.
And it may be that they are wrong, as our columnist Neil O’Brien has argued would be the case. Certainly, no government has attempted it to date – including Sweden’s which, as Raghib Ali has pointed out, isn’t attempting herd immunity, and has has deployed some restrictive measures.
These include closing universities, table-service only in restaurants, and limiting gatherings to 300 people – except in Malmo and its hinterland, where the previous limit of 50 applies, as well as other local curbs.
Nonetheless, a policy shouldn’t automatically be rejected simply because it hasn’t been tried before. Which brings us to the heart of the matter. As we say, it is possible for governments to attempt the Great Barrington solution, but they would, in doing so, have to answer questions which it leaves open.
The declaration speaks of “protecting those who are at highest risk” who, in its next sentence, are also referred to as “the vulnerable”.
These “should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside”. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures…is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals”.
But who are “the vulnerable”? Those who are “clinically extremely vulnerable”, as the Government now puts it, or also those who, in its original guidance, are “at increased risk of severe illness from Coronavirus”.
Or, say, the over-80s, as some would doubtless urge? What about lumping in the over-65s, for safety’s sake? Is it politically possible to confine all or any of these in their homes until the virus abates or a vaccine arrives? What about those who for whom neighbours, say, are a family substitute?
Stand back from these questions for a moment, and imagine what the Daily Telegraph, or any publication with older readers, would make of Great Barrington’s “focused protection”, in practice.
E-mails would begin to flow in complaining of being “put under house arrest”. Older celebrities would tell anyone willing to listen that they were willing to defy the Government – even if that meant prison. (That one of them might be the Prime Minister’s father is not beyond imagination.)
Features would be commissioned to project agonising stories of isolation, abandonment, and loneliness. On Twitter, “the comprehensive and detailed list of measures” would be ridiculed for flaws, faults and omissions.
Yes, we know perfectly well that all that applies now. But this is precisely the point. All these decisions – the implementation of the Great Barrington policy, or of the Government’s three-tiered approach, or of a total indefinite lockdown for that matter – are fairly and squarely political ones.
It follows that epidemiologists, SAGE, the leading Great Barrington signatories, and scientific advisers alike have no more or less standing to make them than anyone else.
An epidemiologist is an expert in the study of disease. He is not an expert in the political decisions that may arise from his study: indeed, there are no such experts – only lay people who we elect to make those decisions, and who we hire and fire in elections. As advisers, experts are indispensable. But “advisers advise and Ministers decide”.
Who the vulnerable might be, how they are to the protected, whether “focused protection” is practically possible or politically acceptable – all these are decisions for the people we elect, accountable to us at the ballot box.
So as we put it right at the start, “the crucial decisions on the virus are not scientific. They are political.” That applies whether the scientists in question are members of SAGE or signatories of Great Barrington. The point is far from being abstract, as lockdowns intensify abroad – and SAGE here clearly leads the push for more.
For what it’s worth, we believe that Ali is right to “ask the Government to consider an alternative strategy which may cause less overall harm based on the Swedish approach, but with much better protection of the vulnerable, especially in care homes”.
To this end, it should aim to broaden the public conversation about the effect of lockdowns, restrictions and Covid-19 on lives and livelihoods. And give wider advice – from economists, for example – more formal status.
Which means publishing regular assessments of their impacts – a view supported by many others, including the Chairman of the 1922 Committee and the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. We hope to see more MPs make the same case when Parliament returns next week.