conservativehome--2020-06-26--Don’t rule out a second lockdown

Don’t rule out a second lockdown

We must live with the Coronavirus either until a vaccine against it is available ; or until herd immunity , treatments or a viable antibody test reduce its force ; or else until or unless it simply runs out of steam .
Which means the “ new normal ” – complete with face coverings in crowded places , more al fresco eating and drinking , no crowds at big events ( at least for the time being ) , and so on .
Unless we are prepared to risk the NHS collapsing , which is a very distant prospect at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being an impossibility .
However , the combination of lockdown fever , furlough , Black Lives Matter , summer and the fledgling test and trace system don ’ t bode well .
You may well think that polls suggesting support for the shutdown and fear of the virus sit oddly with today ’ s pictures of teeming beaches at Bournemouth or celebrating crowds outside Anfield .
But those surveys may be out of date ; or the respondents have may been telling the pollsters how they think other people should behave , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have different attitudes .
What ’ s certain is that long periods of repression are sometimes followed by frenzied outbreaks of celebration , like the austerities of Cromwell ’ s Commonwealth being followed by the salaciousness of Restoration comedy .
Feast-to-famine , famine-to-feast lurches are built into the economic cycle itself , and woe betide those who proclaim “ an end to boom and bust ” .
So it may be that while the dangers of catching the virus in the open air are negligible – as last month ’ s shift in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ministers therefore shouldn ’ t fuss about crowds on beaches… …There is nonetheless a lotus-eating mood around at present , sustained by furlough , and people driven stir-crazy by lockdown are ready to meet and party and mix in relatively confined spaces .
The potential knock-on problems haven ’ t been helped by the police ’ s initial surrender to the logic of mob protest in London and Bristol .
Most people don ’ t pick up much from politics , but are very sharp in reading the signs of the times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brixton and last night in Notting Hall may be an indication that weakness has consequences .
Twenty-two police were injured in the first incident – by way of comparison , six were hurt after the recent fascist thuggery in central London ( a term we prefer to the more loaded “ hard right ” ) .
The Government ’ s planned response to any local outbreaks of the virus is to follow the South Korean model – or , nearer to home , the German one .
Some 650,000 people in North Rhine-Westphalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a meat factory ( the combination of close working conditions , migrant workers , and cramped accomodation is a dangerous one ) .
Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock are hoping that a similar model will be implemented in a similar way if necessary .
But that would depend on enough testing taking place and enough tracing working well .
Those traced must also be relied upon to social distance voluntarily and effectively .
If all that doesn ’ t work , we find it hard to see how a second and further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very last thing anyone wants to think about as we emerged from such a shutdown is going back into it .
And we hope that it doesn ’ t happen .
But the fact is that the Prime Minister may not have been right when he said in May that “ we have been through the initial peak – but it is coming down the mountain that is often more dangerous ” .
The disturbing truth is that we may only be in the foothills of the climb .
Or , to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Coronavirus is fading in the rear view mirror .
But it may only be a trick of the light .

We must live with the Coronavirus either until a vaccine against it is available; or until herd immunity, treatments or a viable antibody test reduce its force; or else until or unless it simply runs out of steam.
Which means the “new normal” – complete with face coverings in crowded places, more al fresco eating and drinking, no crowds at big events (at least for the time being), and so on.
Unless we are prepared to risk the NHS collapsing, which is a very distant prospect at the moment, but a long way from being an impossibility.
However, the combination of lockdown fever, furlough, Black Lives Matter, summer and the fledgling test and trace system don’t bode well.
You may well think that polls suggesting support for the shutdown and fear of the virus sit oddly with today’s pictures of teeming beaches at Bournemouth or celebrating crowds outside Anfield.
But those surveys may be out of date; or the respondents have may been telling the pollsters how they think other people should behave, or else different groups of people may have different attitudes.
What’s certain is that long periods of repression are sometimes followed by frenzied outbreaks of celebration, like the austerities of Cromwell’s Commonwealth being followed by the salaciousness of Restoration comedy.
Feast-to-famine, famine-to-feast lurches are built into the economic cycle itself, and woe betide those who proclaim “an end to boom and bust”.
So it may be that while the dangers of catching the virus in the open air are negligible – as last month’s shift in the lockdown rules seemed to suggest – and Ministers therefore shouldn’t fuss about crowds on beaches…
…There is nonetheless a lotus-eating mood around at present, sustained by furlough, and people driven stir-crazy by lockdown are ready to meet and party and mix in relatively confined spaces.
The potential knock-on problems haven’t been helped by the police’s initial surrender to the logic of mob protest in London and Bristol.
Most people don’t pick up much from politics, but are very sharp in reading the signs of the times. The disturbances two nights ago in Brixton and last night in Notting Hall may be an indication that weakness has consequences.
Twenty-two police were injured in the first incident – by way of comparison, six were hurt after the recent fascist thuggery in central London (a term we prefer to the more loaded “hard right”).
The Government’s planned response to any local outbreaks of the virus is to follow the South Korean model – or, nearer to home, the German one.
Some 650,000 people in North Rhine-Westphalia are back in shutdown after an outbreak at a meat factory (the combination of close working conditions, migrant workers, and cramped accomodation is a dangerous one).
Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock are hoping that a similar model will be implemented in a similar way if necessary. But that would depend on enough testing taking place and enough tracing working well.
Those traced must also be relied upon to social distance voluntarily and effectively. If all that doesn’t work, we find it hard to see how a second and further national lockdowns can be avoided.
The very last thing anyone wants to think about as we emerged from such a shutdown is going back into it. And we hope that it doesn’t happen.
But the fact is that the Prime Minister may not have been right when he said in May that “we have been through the initial peak – but it is coming down the mountain that is often more dangerous”.
The disturbing truth is that we may only be in the foothills of the climb. Or, to change the image. we like to think that the Coronavirus is fading in the rear view mirror. But it may only be a trick of the light.


conservativehome--2020-06-26--Iain Dale: The Jenrick row. What grudge could the Daily Mail possibly have against the former owner

Iain Dale: The Jenrick row. What grudge could the Daily Mail possibly have against the former owner of the Daily Express?

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
One of the grubbier aspects of Robert Jenrick ’ s woes at the moment is the position of the Daily Mail .
Yesterday , it printed four pages of bile against the Communities Secretary , with articles headlined as follows : “ He sweated under the glare like a saveloy in a chip shop ” – “ Riddle of his £830k home makeover planners refused ” – “ This haughty and reckless Minister is now a drag on the Tories ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that for days .
It ’ s quite clear that it has little to do with the rights and wrongs of the case .
It ’ s all bound up with the fact that their arch enemy and rival , Richard Desmond , is the one who stands to gain from the housing development on the Isle of Dogs .
He is , of course , the owner of the Daily Express until 2018 .
Now , given that the Express is hardly the paper it used to be , and the Mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of the Express , you might think the Mail would ignore it , in the way that Waitrose wouldn ’ t worry about the competition from the local independent Minimart .
But newspaper owners have long memories and carry grudges longer than elephants do .
The original accusation of “ cash for favours ” has quietly been dropped .
I wrote in this column last week that no politician is likely to be bought for £12,000 , especially when the money wasn ’ t even a donation in the conventional sense – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The trouble is that there has been a drip of information ever since , culminating in Robert Jenrick publishing 129 pages worth of emails , texts and letters between him and Desmond , or his department and Desmond .
And on Wednesday , The Times published what it thought was a massive new angle whereby Conservative councillors in Westminster were alleged to have overturned a planning decision on Jenrick ’ s Westminster home in 2014 .
He only became an MP in June 2014 , so it ’ s not clear what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are standing by their man , just as they did with Dominic Cummings .
The letter from the Cabinet Secretary to Steve Reed seeks to close the matter down , but the fact that it was sent only hours after Jenrick released all the different communications with Desmond probably didn ’ t help , and it certainly hasn ’ t ‘ drawn a line ’ under it all .
Jenrick expended a lot of political capital with his parliamentary colleagues over this three home lockdown situation back in April .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks .
He must hope that Number Ten remains staunch and that there is nothing else for the Mail to latch on to .
But the warning to other ministers is clear .
And , frankly , it should always have been clear to Jenrick .
When it comes to Desmond , sup with a very long spoon .
The fourth anniversary of the Brexit referendum passed this week with comparatively little comment .
On the actually Brexitversary on Monday night , I made the mistake of doing a phone-in on it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I didn ’ t want to refight the referendum , but I might as well have saved my breath .
Remainer after Remainer phoned in , all seemingly having been to the same debating school , where they had been taught not to engage in a debate and instead just barge their way through without any recognition that there might just possibly be another viewpoint .
It was like going back in a time machine .
By the end of the hour I had almost lost the will to live .
In real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate Remainers have long ago come to terms with the fact that we have left , and it ’ s up to the whole country to make the best of it .
I ’ m far more optimistic than that .
It ’ s not a case of tolerating the new post-Brexit world , it should be a matter of embracing it .
And after Coronavirus is over ( assuming it ever is ) , I think there will be new spirit of entrepreneurialism in this country , which will able us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internationally .
I can ’ t prove it , and there always will be those who attribute any bad bit of economic bad news to Brexit , but I am genuinely excited about the future .
The end is in sight .
The Government has advised those of us in vulnerable groups that we can emerge from isolation from the beginning of August .
This means I can leave the comfy confines of my bedroom and resume broadcasting from a proper studio at last .
It will have been 137 days since I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather enjoyed broadcasting from home and recording lots of podcasts on Zoom , taking part in video conferences on Teams or BlueJeans , but I am relishing some degree of normality returning .
The one thing I am certainly not looking forward to is wearing a facemask from the moment I step on to the train at Tonbridge each day .
But I guess I ’ ll get used to it .
Because it will be part of what we now have to refer to as the ‘ new normal ’ .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
One of the grubbier aspects of Robert Jenrick’s woes at the moment is the position of the Daily Mail.
Yesterday, it printed four pages of bile against the Communities Secretary, with articles headlined as follows: “He sweated under the glare like a saveloy in a chip shop” – “Riddle of his £830k home makeover planners refused” – “This haughty and reckless Minister is now a drag on the Tories”.
And it’s been like that for days. It’s quite clear that it has little to do with the rights and wrongs of the case. It’s all bound up with the fact that their arch enemy and rival, Richard Desmond, is the one who stands to gain from the housing development on the Isle of Dogs.
He is, of course, the owner of the Daily Express until 2018. Now, given that the Express is hardly the paper it used to be, and the Mail’s circulation is now many times that of the Express, you might think the Mail would ignore it, in the way that Waitrose wouldn’t worry about the competition from the local independent Minimart. But newspaper owners have long memories and carry grudges longer than elephants do.
The original accusation of “cash for favours” has quietly been dropped. I wrote in this column last week that no politician is likely to be bought for £12,000, especially when the money wasn’t even a donation in the conventional sense – it bought tickets at a fundraising dinner.
The trouble is that there has been a drip of information ever since, culminating in Robert Jenrick publishing 129 pages worth of emails, texts and letters between him and Desmond, or his department and Desmond.
And on Wednesday, The Times published what it thought was a massive new angle whereby Conservative councillors in Westminster were alleged to have overturned a planning decision on Jenrick’s Westminster home in 2014. He only became an MP in June 2014, so it’s not clear what the accusation is here.
Downing Street are standing by their man, just as they did with Dominic Cummings. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary to Steve Reed seeks to close the matter down, but the fact that it was sent only hours after Jenrick released all the different communications with Desmond probably didn’t help, and it certainly hasn’t ‘drawn a line’ under it all.
Jenrick expended a lot of political capital with his parliamentary colleagues over this three home lockdown situation back in April. He’s expended a lot more over the last few weeks. He must hope that Number Ten remains staunch and that there is nothing else for the Mail to latch on to. But the warning to other ministers is clear. And, frankly, it should always have been clear to Jenrick. When it comes to Desmond, sup with a very long spoon.
– – – – – – – – – –
The fourth anniversary of the Brexit referendum passed this week with comparatively little comment.
On the actually Brexitversary on Monday night, I made the mistake of doing a phone-in on it. I started off by saying that I didn’t want to refight the referendum, but I might as well have saved my breath.
Remainer after Remainer phoned in, all seemingly having been to the same debating school, where they had been taught not to engage in a debate and instead just barge their way through without any recognition that there might just possibly be another viewpoint. It was like going back in a time machine.
By the end of the hour I had almost lost the will to live. In real life, my experience is that most moderate Remainers have long ago come to terms with the fact that we have left, and it’s up to the whole country to make the best of it.
I’m far more optimistic than that. It’s not a case of tolerating the new post-Brexit world, it should be a matter of embracing it. And after Coronavirus is over (assuming it ever is), I think there will be new spirit of entrepreneurialism in this country, which will able us to do great things, both domestically and internationally.
I can’t prove it, and there always will be those who attribute any bad bit of economic bad news to Brexit, but I am genuinely excited about the future.
– – – – – – – – – –
The end is in sight. The Government has advised those of us in vulnerable groups that we can emerge from isolation from the beginning of August.
This means I can leave the comfy confines of my bedroom and resume broadcasting from a proper studio at last. It will have been 137 days since I last did that.
I’ve rather enjoyed broadcasting from home and recording lots of podcasts on Zoom, taking part in video conferences on Teams or BlueJeans, but I am relishing some degree of normality returning.
The one thing I am certainly not looking forward to is wearing a facemask from the moment I step on to the train at Tonbridge each day. But I guess I’ll get used to it. Because it will be part of what we now have to refer to as the ‘new normal’.


conservativehome--2020-06-26--Andrew Carter: A zoning system is needed to build the homes we need

Andrew Carter is Chief Executive of Centre for Cities .
You can almost guarantee that , however mad British politics gets , solving the housing crisis is never far from policy makers ’ minds .
In Downing Street , Dominic Cummings and Robert Jenrick are reportedly working on a plan to ramp up homebuilding numbers as part of our recovery from the economic damage done by lockdown .
I understand that very significant reforms are being suggested to Britain ’ s post-war planning rulebook .
Significant reforms are certainly needed .
The shortage of homes , particularly for younger people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities and towns for work , remains one of the largest domestic challenges that we face as a country .
It fuels huge social divisions : while homeownership remains a distant dream for many young people , existing homeowners – mostly older and living in urban south east England – have amassed huge fortunes in housing wealth .
Without a proper plan to fix this problem and help the younger generation , no political party should be confident about its own long-term survival .
The Government must come up with a bold solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need , where we need them .
All too often our analysis of the housing crisis boils down to criticising the people operating around it : greedy developers ; box-ticking town planners ; selfish NIMBYs or frivolous millennials impulse-buying too many avocados to save for a deposit .
We say that if only these people changed their behaviours – built more , saved more , thought more about the next generation – then we wouldn ’ t have a housing crisis .
This is a flawed view ; the problem with our planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town planners that you speak to will quietly admit that the planning system is designed to prevent development , not permit it .
Its discretionary case-by-case nature rations the development of land and chokes off the supply of new homes in the places where we need them most – close to jobs .
Instead , it forces councils to build new homes where it is most politically expedient , not where they ’ re needed .
The consequence of this ?
Just four per cent of suburban neighbourhoods supplied 45 per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while one in five neighbourhoods built no new homes at all .
Some places have particularly poor records : in Oxford for example , no neighbourhood has built more than 25 homes a year in the last decade and as a result , many of the people drawn there for work and study struggle to afford decant housing .
If this does not change our prosperity will suffer and the inequalities that we see in this country will become even more entrenched .
Clearly the bureaucratic case-by-case nature of the current planning system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to supply the homes that we need , where we need them .
You can see alarming parallels in our own system with the ‘ shortage economies ’ of the former Eastern Bloc , where production was tightly controlled by the rationing of permits .
Tinkering around the edges is not enough .
To solve the housing crisis and build the homes needed we should introduce a brand-new flexible zoning code , designed by the UK and devolved governments , to guide local authorities and city regions in the development of their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , any proposals that comply with a zone-based local plan and building regulations would automatically be granted planning permission .
Areas would be zoned according to density – ranging from light residential up to industrial .
There would still be opportunities for public consultation under this model , but they would be frontloaded into the writing of the plan rather than giving the public effective sign off on every single development .
I appreciate that removing much of the public consultation element of the planning process would be a controversial move for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply too bureaucratic and unresponsive to allow for enough new homes to be built .
Many of the most common concerns that people have about development , such as aesthetics and density , could be addressed in the drafting of the local plan .
So , for example , if people wanted to ensure that any new developments in their area were medium density mock-Georgian terraces they would still have the opportunity to do this under a zone-based system , but at the very beginning when the plan is developed .
A stable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is for many people in Britain today .
Our housing crisis is the result of a political choice that results from our tacit commitment to sustain a bureaucracy that deliberately undersupplies new homes .
This fuels inequality between prosperous places and struggling one , between homeowners and their children , and between the haves and the have-nots .
We can change this with a more flexible zoned approach to development , but it requires genuine political will to make it happen .
With a majority of 80 and no election on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government to seize this opportunity to end the housing crisis .
Yet if it balks now and our housing crisis worsens , it will further entrench our economic and social divides and make Britain an even more unequal place .
You can read our new report ‘ Planning for the Future : How flexible zoning will end the housing crisis ’ here .

Andrew Carter is Chief Executive of Centre for Cities.
You can almost guarantee that, however mad British politics gets, solving the housing crisis is never far from policy makers’ minds.
In Downing Street, Dominic Cummings and Robert Jenrick are reportedly working on a plan to ramp up homebuilding numbers as part of our recovery from the economic damage done by lockdown. I understand that very significant reforms are being suggested to Britain’s post-war planning rulebook.
Significant reforms are certainly needed. The shortage of homes, particularly for younger people who need move to our most high-demand cities and towns for work, remains one of the largest domestic challenges that we face as a country. It fuels huge social divisions: while homeownership remains a distant dream for many young people, existing homeowners – mostly older and living in urban south east England – have amassed huge fortunes in housing wealth.
Without a proper plan to fix this problem and help the younger generation, no political party should be confident about its own long-term survival. The Government must come up with a bold solution to get Britain building the homes we need, where we need them.
All too often our analysis of the housing crisis boils down to criticising the people operating around it: greedy developers; box-ticking town planners; selfish NIMBYs or frivolous millennials impulse-buying too many avocados to save for a deposit.
We say that if only these people changed their behaviours – built more, saved more, thought more about the next generation – then we wouldn’t have a housing crisis. This is a flawed view; the problem with our planning system is the system itself.
Most town planners that you speak to will quietly admit that the planning system is designed to prevent development, not permit it. Its discretionary case-by-case nature rations the development of land and chokes off the supply of new homes in the places where we need them most – close to jobs. Instead, it forces councils to build new homes where it is most politically expedient, not where they’re needed.
The consequence of this? Just four per cent of suburban neighbourhoods supplied 45 per cent of new homes in the past decade, while one in five neighbourhoods built no new homes at all. Some places have particularly poor records: in Oxford for example, no neighbourhood has built more than 25 homes a year in the last decade and as a result, many of the people drawn there for work and study struggle to afford decant housing. If this does not change our prosperity will suffer and the inequalities that we see in this country will become even more entrenched.
Clearly the bureaucratic case-by-case nature of the current planning system is a major hurdle to our ability to supply the homes that we need, where we need them. You can see alarming parallels in our own system with the ‘shortage economies’ of the former Eastern Bloc, where production was tightly controlled by the rationing of permits.
Tinkering around the edges is not enough. To solve the housing crisis and build the homes needed we should introduce a brand-new flexible zoning code, designed by the UK and devolved governments, to guide local authorities and city regions in the development of their own local plans.
Under this new code, any proposals that comply with a zone-based local plan and building regulations would automatically be granted planning permission. Areas would be zoned according to density – ranging from light residential up to industrial.
There would still be opportunities for public consultation under this model, but they would be frontloaded into the writing of the plan rather than giving the public effective sign off on every single development.
I appreciate that removing much of the public consultation element of the planning process would be a controversial move for many people, but the current system is simply too bureaucratic and unresponsive to allow for enough new homes to be built.
Many of the most common concerns that people have about development, such as aesthetics and density, could be addressed in the drafting of the local plan. So, for example, if people wanted to ensure that any new developments in their area were medium density mock-Georgian terraces they would still have the opportunity to do this under a zone-based system, but at the very beginning when the plan is developed.
A stable home need not be unaffordable, as it is for many people in Britain today. Our housing crisis is the result of a political choice that results from our tacit commitment to sustain a bureaucracy that deliberately undersupplies new homes. This fuels inequality between prosperous places and struggling one, between homeowners and their children, and between the haves and the have-nots.
We can change this with a more flexible zoned approach to development, but it requires genuine political will to make it happen. With a majority of 80 and no election on the horizon, the time is right for the Government to seize this opportunity to end the housing crisis.
Yet if it balks now and our housing crisis worsens, it will further entrench our economic and social divides and make Britain an even more unequal place.
You can read our new report ‘Planning for the Future: How flexible zoning will end the housing crisis’ here.


conservativehome--2020-06-26--Johnson, Starmer – and their strategies in firing people

After years of Jeremy Corbyn doing nothing to tackle anti-Semitism in the Labour Party , many were astonished yesterday by Keir Starmer ’ s decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary .
He took action after she Retweeted an article by actress Maxine Peake , containing an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory ; namely that Israel was linked to the killing of George Floyd in the US .
According to The Huff Post , Starmer gave Long-Bailey four hours to delete the post and apologise , but she did not do this – also refusing to take calls from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many marvelled at Starmer ’ s decisiveness , using this as evidence for the increasingly fashionable assumption that Conservatives should be worried about him at future elections ( one that this writer does not agree with , incidentally ; the “ taking the knee ” photo will haunt him for years ) .
The move challenged stereotypes of Starmer – that he ’ s “ forensic ” and lawyerly in manner – as it was combative , as well as making him look straightforward ( certainly something of an achievement after Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Starmer ’ s decision to remove Long-Bailey from his Shadow Cabinet first and foremost reflects his commitment to eradicating anti-Semitism – and thank goodness for that .
But it may also demonstrate two other things .
First , that he is sceptical about Long-Bailey ’ s overall popularity with the electorate – and wanted to get rid of her anyway .
One suspects outside the Twitter bubble , voters overwhelmingly associate her with Corbyn ’ s dire tenure , and haven ’ t been won over with her tendency to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ progressive patriotism ” , as well as her obsession with the “ Green Industrial Revolution ” .
Second , it arguably gives Starmer more leverage to demand Boris Johnson sacks members of his own team .
The Prime Minister has already been under enormous pressure to do this , following the saga with Dominic Cummings , as well as recent attacks on Robert Jenrick , the Housing Secretary .
He is accused of trying to force through permission for a development by Richard Desmond – a billionaire donor he “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dinner – who then paid £12,000 to the Tories soon after he got the green light .
Newspapers appear to have given up on getting rid of Cummings , and have now turned their sights on Jenrick , perhaps viewing the mild-mannered MP as an easier target .
Take The Daily Mail ( Desmond is the former owner of the Express newspapers , as Iain Dale points out here , incidentally ) , which accused the Prime Minister of not being decisive enough over his Housing Minister .
“ It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act decisively when one of his ministers or senior advisers falls short of the standards the public expect ” , read its leader , which praised Starmer ’ s “ non-nonsense approach ” and suggested Johnson “ should learn from ” it .
Anyone reading The Daily Mail over the last few months will know that it ’ s been consistently against ( pro-Brexit ) Johnson , so the attack is no surprise – but does the paper have a point ?
Has he been weak over the Covid-19 crisis when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few months have arguably softened Johnson ’ s image , with his u-turn on free school meals , and the enormous sums being spent on Covid-19 protections .
He comes across as something of a yes man .
With all this , it ’ s easy to forget that he can be ruthless when it comes to his team .
This was clear in his first reshuffle as Prime Minister , in which he sacked Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary , replacing him with Dominic Raab , as well as asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Penny Mordaunt to go .
It was “ the biggest government clearout since Harold Macmillan ’ s infamous ‘ Night of the Long Knives ’ in 1962 ” , wrote PoliticsHome .
Later on , in what was referred to as the St Valentine ’ s Day Massacre , Johnson fired five Cabinet ministers , including Julian Smith , the Northern Ireland Secretary , and Sajid Javid resigned after the Prime Minister demanded he lose his team of advisers .
Clearly Johnson is ready to strike if he sees fit to – so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jenrick don ’ t fit the bill .
This , one suspects , is not part of some grandiose plot , but down to the simple principle of belief : the Prime Minister does not think that either man is in the wrong .
A lot has been said about Cummings , but my own view is that his explanation made sense – and furthermore that No 10 could have gone on the offence in reminding people how unusual his circumstances are .
A chief adviser in a nationwide pandemic , living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s had the press ( seemingly permanently ) camped outside , and Covid-19 , will have one of the most challenging lockdowns .
Jenricks ’ case , on the other hand , is ambiguous and will come increasingly under scrutiny , with Labour now reporting him to parliament ’ s watchdog .
Text messages between him and Desmond demonstrate the latter to be a pushy character , repeatedly trying to get his housing scheme through .
Jenrick seems uncomfortable in response , reminding Desmond that he ’ s Secretary of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with him “ whilst he was making ” a “ decision with respect to the planning application ” .
As Andrew Gimson sets out in his recent profile of Jenrick , one Tory backbencher has described him as “ a decent man ” ; one is less flattering , suggesting that he ’ s “ a suit ” – who simply takes orders .
He has released 129 pages of emails , texts and letters in total – to clear his name .
From reading some of the exchanges , one suspects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being too polite .
Either way there is a false equivalence between what may be a mistake , and Long-Bailey ’ s disgraceful post .
Especially after Starmer cautioned her , it would have been unacceptable for her to stay in her position .
What was especially poignant about yesterday , on a semi-related note , is how shocked members of the Left were with what happened , not used to being on the receiving end of such swift justice .
In recent years , it ’ s the Right that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” – be it Toby Young ’ s resignation as Theresa May ’ s university adviser , or Roger Scruton ’ s firing after being misquoted .
A big feature of May ’ s tenure was her inability to stick up to the mob on such matters , as well as the endless departures under her leadership , ranging from misconduct ( Gavin Williamson ’ s dismissal after he leaked highly classified information about 5G ) to those leaving on behalf of Brexit strategy .
With his massive majority , Johnson has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is far more loyal , but it will still remain a priority of the Government to stand strong against the cancel culture fostered by members of the Left .
Yes the Government should dismiss MPs on legitimate grounds – if any investigation shows Jenrick to have deliberately been in the wrong than he has to go – but the Tories no longer need to cave to media pressure and concocted outrage .
Voters will respect them for this , too .
Starmer has a totally different goal , however ; restoring a sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aforementioned , I believe his actions this week will only take him so far .
Long-Bailey was an easy win for a party that knows Corbynism was a major , defeating factor at the last election .
Showing bravery in other contexts – how about strongly condemning statue-toppling , for starters ?
– is a much different enterprise .
On these less crowd-pleasing matters , Starmer ’ s “ non-nonsense approach ” is fairly non-existent .

After years of Jeremy Corbyn doing nothing to tackle anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, many were astonished yesterday by Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary.
He took action after she Retweeted an article by actress Maxine Peake, containing an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory; namely that Israel was linked to the killing of George Floyd in the US.
According to The Huff Post, Starmer gave Long-Bailey four hours to delete the post and apologise, but she did not do this – also refusing to take calls from his office, culminating in her prompt dismissal.
Many marvelled at Starmer’s decisiveness, using this as evidence for the increasingly fashionable assumption that Conservatives should be worried about him at future elections (one that this writer does not agree with, incidentally; the “taking the knee” photo will haunt him for years).
The move challenged stereotypes of Starmer – that he’s “forensic” and lawyerly in manner – as it was combative, as well as making him look straightforward (certainly something of an achievement after Labour’s past calculations to thwart Brexit).
Starmer’s decision to remove Long-Bailey from his Shadow Cabinet first and foremost reflects his commitment to eradicating anti-Semitism – and thank goodness for that.
But it may also demonstrate two other things. First, that he is sceptical about Long-Bailey’s overall popularity with the electorate – and wanted to get rid of her anyway. One suspects outside the Twitter bubble, voters overwhelmingly associate her with Corbyn’s dire tenure, and haven’t been won over with her tendency to use phrases such as “democratising the economy” and “progressive patriotism”, as well as her obsession with the “Green Industrial Revolution”.
Second, it arguably gives Starmer more leverage to demand Boris Johnson sacks members of his own team. The Prime Minister has already been under enormous pressure to do this, following the saga with Dominic Cummings, as well as recent attacks on Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary.
He is accused of trying to force through permission for a development by Richard Desmond – a billionaire donor he “inadvertently” sat next to at a dinner – who then paid £12,000 to the Tories soon after he got the green light.
Newspapers appear to have given up on getting rid of Cummings, and have now turned their sights on Jenrick, perhaps viewing the mild-mannered MP as an easier target.
Take The Daily Mail (Desmond is the former owner of the Express newspapers, as Iain Dale points out here, incidentally), which accused the Prime Minister of not being decisive enough over his Housing Minister. “It’s also another instance of Boris Johnson failing to act decisively when one of his ministers or senior advisers falls short of the standards the public expect”, read its leader, which praised Starmer’s “non-nonsense approach” and suggested Johnson “should learn from” it.
Anyone reading The Daily Mail over the last few months will know that it’s been consistently against (pro-Brexit) Johnson, so the attack is no surprise – but does the paper have a point? Has he been weak over the Covid-19 crisis when it comes to sacking people?
The events over the last few months have arguably softened Johnson’s image, with his u-turn on free school meals, and the enormous sums being spent on Covid-19 protections. He comes across as something of a yes man.
With all this, it’s easy to forget that he can be ruthless when it comes to his team. This was clear in his first reshuffle as Prime Minister, in which he sacked Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary, replacing him with Dominic Raab, as well as asking Hunt’s supporters Liam Fox and Penny Mordaunt to go. It was “the biggest government clearout since Harold Macmillan’s infamous ‘Night of the Long Knives’ in 1962”, wrote PoliticsHome.
Later on, in what was referred to as the St Valentine’s Day Massacre, Johnson fired five Cabinet ministers, including Julian Smith, the Northern Ireland Secretary, and Sajid Javid resigned after the Prime Minister demanded he lose his team of advisers. Clearly Johnson is ready to strike if he sees fit to – so his critics will demand why Cummings and Jenrick don’t fit the bill.
This, one suspects, is not part of some grandiose plot, but down to the simple principle of belief: the Prime Minister does not think that either man is in the wrong.
A lot has been said about Cummings, but my own view is that his explanation made sense – and furthermore that No 10 could have gone on the offence in reminding people how unusual his circumstances are. A chief adviser in a nationwide pandemic, living in a house that receives death threats, who’s had the press (seemingly permanently) camped outside, and Covid-19, will have one of the most challenging lockdowns.
Jenricks’ case, on the other hand, is ambiguous and will come increasingly under scrutiny, with Labour now reporting him to parliament’s watchdog.
Text messages between him and Desmond demonstrate the latter to be a pushy character, repeatedly trying to get his housing scheme through. Jenrick seems uncomfortable in response, reminding Desmond that he’s Secretary of State and that he cannot have contact with him “whilst he was making” a “decision with respect to the planning application”.
As Andrew Gimson sets out in his recent profile of Jenrick, one Tory backbencher has described him as “a decent man”; one is less flattering, suggesting that he’s “a suit” – who simply takes orders. He has released 129 pages of emails, texts and letters in total – to clear his name. From reading some of the exchanges, one suspects, if anything, his main issue is being too polite.
Either way there is a false equivalence between what may be a mistake, and Long-Bailey’s disgraceful post. Especially after Starmer cautioned her, it would have been unacceptable for her to stay in her position.
What was especially poignant about yesterday, on a semi-related note, is how shocked members of the Left were with what happened, not used to being on the receiving end of such swift justice.
In recent years, it’s the Right that has been accustomed to its figures being “cancelled” – be it Toby Young’s resignation as Theresa May’s university adviser, or Roger Scruton’s firing after being misquoted.
A big feature of May’s tenure was her inability to stick up to the mob on such matters, as well as the endless departures under her leadership, ranging from misconduct (Gavin Williamson’s dismissal after he leaked highly classified information about 5G) to those leaving on behalf of Brexit strategy.
With his massive majority, Johnson has not faced such a chaos – his team is far more loyal, but it will still remain a priority of the Government to stand strong against the cancel culture fostered by members of the Left.
Yes the Government should dismiss MPs on legitimate grounds – if any investigation shows Jenrick to have deliberately been in the wrong than he has to go – but the Tories no longer need to cave to media pressure and concocted outrage. Voters will respect them for this, too.
Starmer has a totally different goal, however; restoring a sense of moral order to Labour. As aforementioned, I believe his actions this week will only take him so far. Long-Bailey was an easy win for a party that knows Corbynism was a major, defeating factor at the last election.
Showing bravery in other contexts – how about strongly condemning statue-toppling, for starters? – is a much different enterprise. On these less crowd-pleasing matters, Starmer’s “non-nonsense approach” is fairly non-existent.


conservativehome--2020-06-27--The ‘Peelian Principles’ do not prohibit much tougher public order policing. They mandate it.

Earlier this month , I wrote about how the Government needed to get a grip on public order policing , and Mark Wallace argued that the police ’ s limp-wristed tactics in Bristol and elsewhere were emboldening the mob .
The past two weeks have done nothing to diminish that assessment .
We have seen the inevitable ‘ counter-protests ’ , and now an establishment which bent over backwards to facilitate one form of allegedly unsafe mass public gathering is spitting feathers at Britons flocking to be beach .
We have reached the point where at least one force is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ facilitating ’ a Black Lives Matter vigil whilst reminding the public that all other mass gatherings , “ including counter-protests ” , remain illegal .
As with universities and so much else , there is no excuse for the Conservatives to simply lament such conduct when they ’ re in government with an eighty-seat majority .
It ’ s time for action .
What shape such action takes is an open question .
In my last piece , I floated the idea of hiving off public order policing from the regular forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK-wide specialist constabulary , in a similar – but not identical – fashion to the way many European nations employ a gendarmerie .
In response , Will Tanner of Onward suggested on Twitter that such an ‘ oppressive ’ policing model was contrary to the British policing tradition , and the ‘ Peelian Principles ’ upon which this is founded .
Fleshing out his thoughts in Prospect , he described the proposal as ‘ militaristic ’ .
This is misleading .
For starters , the model outlined above employs no structures or strategies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Ministry of Defence Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary are two already-extant specialist forces , and the Territorial Support Group the existing specialist public-order unit .
I ’ m simply applying one existing organisational model to another existing operational model .
On the subject of actual gendarmeries , France is by no means the only European country to operate one : they are also employed by such authoritarian regimes as Portugal and the Netherlands .
As for concerns that the UK might follow America down the path of hyper-militarised policing , this has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Armed Forces selling off vast quantities of military surplus .
Britain , which has a patchy record of equipping even its on-duty soldiers , is unlikely to face this particular problem .
But Tanner ’ s interpretation also misrepresents the Peelian Principles themselves .
If one actually reads the ‘ Nine Principles of Policing ‘ set out by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 , one finds little support for the indulgent , conflict-averse tactics favoured by many senior officers today .
For example , the very first duty laid on the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
‘ Prevent ’ .
Not peacefully facilitate in the hope of picking up the perpetrators afterwards from video footage .
The next one reminds them that their ability to operate effectively is “ dependent on public approval of their existence , actions and behaviour , and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
” This is where ‘ policing by consent ’ comes from .
But note that it is the consent of the broad public , not the rioters , and in 2011 polls clearly showed that voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the police to the riots in London and elsewhere .
In fact , not only did the public ‘ consent ’ very strongly to a broad range of ‘ militaristic ’ tactics – the only one which polled under 50 per cent support was live ammunition , which still got 33 per cent – but fully 77 per cent of those polled backed deploying the Army .
This put the police in violation of the First Principle , which mandates them to maintain order “ as an alternative to their repression by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fifth Principle : “ To seek and preserve public favour , not by pandering to public opinion , but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law , in complete independence of policy , and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws… ” How does that square with the current , pronounced tendency towards what Sam Ashworth-Hayes has dubbed ‘ morality policing ?
There are sections of the Principles which advise restraint in physical force policing .
But take a closer look .
Here ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion , advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order , and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
” So that ’ s simply counselling the police against using force where the law can be upheld and order maintained by other means .
It very much does not say that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken than forcefully maintained .
The Peelian Principles remain a sound basis for British policing .
But too often they are trotted out only in defence of ‘ weak policing .
In point of fact , a robust and pro-active approach to maintaining order and protecting public and private property is entirely consistent with Sir Robert ’ s vision .
It ’ s the alternative that isn ’ t .
To defer to the judgement of rioters and vandals is to turn the idea of ‘ policing by consent ’ into a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required .

Earlier this month, I wrote about how the Government needed to get a grip on public order policing, and Mark Wallace argued that the police’s limp-wristed tactics in Bristol and elsewhere were emboldening the mob.
The past two weeks have done nothing to diminish that assessment. We have seen the inevitable ‘counter-protests’, and now an establishment which bent over backwards to facilitate one form of allegedly unsafe mass public gathering is spitting feathers at Britons flocking to be beach.
We have reached the point where at least one force is now operating an explicit double standard, ‘facilitating’ a Black Lives Matter vigil whilst reminding the public that all other mass gatherings, “including counter-protests”, remain illegal.
As with universities and so much else, there is no excuse for the Conservatives to simply lament such conduct when they’re in government with an eighty-seat majority. It’s time for action.
What shape such action takes is an open question. In my last piece, I floated the idea of hiving off public order policing from the regular forces and assigning responsibility to a new, UK-wide specialist constabulary, in a similar – but not identical – fashion to the way many European nations employ a gendarmerie.
In response, Will Tanner of Onward suggested on Twitter that such an ‘oppressive’ policing model was contrary to the British policing tradition, and the ‘Peelian Principles’ upon which this is founded. Fleshing out his thoughts in Prospect, he described the proposal as ‘militaristic’.
This is misleading. For starters, the model outlined above employs no structures or strategies not already employed in British policing. The Ministry of Defence Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary are two already-extant specialist forces, and the Territorial Support Group the existing specialist public-order unit. I’m simply applying one existing organisational model to another existing operational model.
(It’s also worth remembering that Theresa May, Tanner’s former boss, employed double standards on such issues, waxing pious about how water cannon had no place on British streets whilst they were deployed on British streets in Northern Ireland.)
On the subject of actual gendarmeries, France is by no means the only European country to operate one: they are also employed by such authoritarian regimes as Portugal and the Netherlands. As for concerns that the UK might follow America down the path of hyper-militarised policing, this has arisen there in large part via the US Armed Forces selling off vast quantities of military surplus. Britain, which has a patchy record of equipping even its on-duty soldiers, is unlikely to face this particular problem.
But Tanner’s interpretation also misrepresents the Peelian Principles themselves. If one actually reads the ‘Nine Principles of Policing‘ set out by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, one finds little support for the indulgent, conflict-averse tactics favoured by many senior officers today.
For example, the very first duty laid on the police is “to prevent crime and disorder”. ‘Prevent’. Not peacefully facilitate in the hope of picking up the perpetrators afterwards from video footage.
The next one reminds them that their ability to operate effectively is “dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.” This is where ‘policing by consent’ comes from.
But note that it is the consent of the broad public, not the rioters, and in 2011 polls clearly showed that voters strongly disapproved of the feeble initial response of the police to the riots in London and elsewhere.
In fact, not only did the public ‘consent’ very strongly to a broad range of ‘militaristic’ tactics – the only one which polled under 50 per cent support was live ammunition, which still got 33 per cent – but fully 77 per cent of those polled backed deploying the Army. This put the police in violation of the First Principle, which mandates them to maintain order “as an alternative to their repression by military force”.
What about the Fifth Principle: “To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws…” How does that square with the current, pronounced tendency towards what Sam Ashworth-Hayes has dubbed ‘morality policing?
There are sections of the Principles which advise restraint in physical force policing. But take a closer look. Here’s the Sixth Principle, my emphases:
“To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.”
So that’s simply counselling the police against using force where the law can be upheld and order maintained by other means. It very much does not say that it is better for the law to be peaceably broken than forcefully maintained.
The Peelian Principles remain a sound basis for British policing. But too often they are trotted out only in defence of ‘weak policing. In point of fact, a robust and pro-active approach to maintaining order and protecting public and private property is entirely consistent with Sir Robert’s vision.
It’s the alternative that isn’t. To defer to the judgement of rioters and vandals is to turn the idea of ‘policing by consent’ into a bad joke. Theirs is not the consent required.


conservativehome--2020-06-28--WATCH: Patel – Liverpool fans “did not need to go to the football ground and congregate outside the

WATCH: Patel – Liverpool fans “did not need to go to the football ground and congregate outside the stadium”

`` Liverpool fans of course want to celebrate but they did not need to go to the football ground and @ @ @ @ @ '' says Home Secretary Priti Patel , following two nights of mass gatherings in public @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/TMPHOm5YUz pic.twitter.com/pmUfUYNpcf

"Liverpool fans of course want to celebrate but they did not need to go to the football ground and congregate outside the stadium," says Home Secretary Priti Patel, following two nights of mass gatherings in public#Marr #Covid_19 https://t.co/TMPHOm5YUz pic.twitter.com/pmUfUYNpcf
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 28, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-28--WATCH: Marr – “Is Starmer a better leader than you?” Miliband – “Definitely.”

# Marr : Is Sir Keir Starmer going to be a better Labour leader than you ?
Ed Miliband : @ @ @ @ @ seen that already '' https : //t.co/iq688bqnBq pic.twitter.com/9a9oxYsr5c

#Marr: Is Sir Keir Starmer going to be a better Labour leader than you?
Ed Miliband: "Definitely. We've seen that already"https://t.co/iq688bqnBq pic.twitter.com/9a9oxYsr5c
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 28, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-28--WATCH: The attack on me by Labour MPs was racist – Patel

`` I just do n't conform to their stereotypical view of what an ethnic minority woman should stand for… in @ @ @ @ @ is racist '' says Home Secretary Priti Patel on a letter from Labour MPs about @ @ @ @

"I just don't conform to their stereotypical view of what an ethnic minority woman should stand for… in my view that in itself is racist" says Home Secretary Priti Patel on a letter from Labour MPs about racism. #Ridge
Follow live here: https://t.co/8SZg6bH0JI pic.twitter.com/UgrCE0tp45
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 28, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-28--WATCH: Reynolds explains why Labour may want to replace Universal Credit

Is it sensible to call for an overhaul of the benefits system when so many are relying on it right @ @ @ @ @ I 'm afraid I think it is…what you need is a strong safety net…and that @ @ @ @ @ provides '' says @ jreynoldsMP # Ridge pic.twitter.com/8Nr5qbJWW4

Is it sensible to call for an overhaul of the benefits system when so many are relying on it right now asks @SophyRidgeSky
"I'm afraid I think it is…what you need is a strong safety net…and that is not what Universal Credit provides" says @jreynoldsMP #Ridge pic.twitter.com/8Nr5qbJWW4
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 28, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-28--Our survey. By a wafer-thin margin, a plurality of our Party member panel says that Jenrick should r

Our survey. By a wafer-thin margin, a plurality of our Party member panel says that Jenrick should resign

As far as we know , no Conservative MP has called for Robert Jenrick to quit .
And he has no gang of internal , ideological foes waiting to pounce .
Furthermore , the signal from Downing Street has been that Boris Johnson does not want to hand his media foes and others a scalp .
So we are surprised by this finding , which shows that , admittedly by a margin of only a point , our panel of Party members believes that Jenrick should go .
( At the best part of 20 per cent , the don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether they believe he should walk because he ’ s acted wrongly , or simply think that the planning controversy in which he ’ s become embroiled is bad for the Government isn ’ t clear .
Interestingly , while a plurality concludes that he should resign , it don ’ t also find that Boris Johnson should dismiss him .
By 45 per cent to 32 per cent , the panel concludes that the Prime Minister shouldn ’ t .
Though that 32 per cent is roughly a third of respondents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel members as saying : “ Jenrick should quit , but if he won ’ t the Prime Minister shouldn ’ t have to go through all the bother of sacking him .
”

As far as we know, no Conservative MP has called for Robert Jenrick to quit. And he has no gang of internal, ideological foes waiting to pounce. Furthermore, the signal from Downing Street has been that Boris Johnson does not want to hand his media foes and others a scalp.
So we are surprised by this finding, which shows that, admittedly by a margin of only a point, our panel of Party members believes that Jenrick should go. (At the best part of 20 per cent, the don’t knows are high.)
Whether they believe he should walk because he’s acted wrongly, or simply think that the planning controversy in which he’s become embroiled is bad for the Government isn’t clear.
Interestingly, while a plurality concludes that he should resign, it don’t also find that Boris Johnson should dismiss him. By 45 per cent to 32 per cent, the panel concludes that the Prime Minister shouldn’t. Though that 32 per cent is roughly a third of respondents.
Rightly or wrongly, we read the panel members as saying: “Jenrick should quit, but if he won’t the Prime Minister shouldn’t have to go through all the bother of sacking him.”