conservativehome--2020-11-21--David Gauke: Next week’s spending review – and why our holiday from spending restraint is coming to

David Gauke: Next week’s spending review – and why our holiday from spending restraint is coming to an end

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
For reasons that some readers will understand , the departure of Dominic Cummings from Downing Street was not a source of great sorrow for me .
It appears that I am not alone .
Nonetheless , Cummings ’ resignation/dismissal makes the Prime Minister ’ s job much harder in at least one respect .
We are already pushing the limits on when a free trade agreement with the EU can be agreed in order for it to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Boris Johnson continues to appear to be undecided as to whether he is willing to make the necessary concessions in order to get a deal ( thus upsetting hardline Brexiteers ) or leave without a deal ( wreaking further damage to the economy and the integrity of the United Kingdom ) .
Both options have been apparent for some time , and they are sub-optimal for the Prime Minister and the country .
Now he really has to choose .
If he compromises , some people will say that , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spine .
Cummings may well be one of the people making this point .
If he does not get a deal , the Prime Minister ’ s strategy must be to convince the Leave half of the country that the ensuing mess is the fault of the European Union ( it will be a hopeless task to avoid the blame with the other half of the country ) .
To do that , he will need a communications strategy that is ruthless , aggressive and lacking in self-doubt , entirely untroubled by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the situation .
These are exactly the circumstances in which Cummings has a track record of success .
This is a bad time for the Prime Minister to fall out with his most influential adviser .
Anyone entering politics will be aware that there may come a moment when there is a conflict between what one perceives as the national interest and the furtherance of one ’ s career .
We can currently see this playing out in the United States , as Donald Trump continues to refuse to accept the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most senior Republicans have gone along with this nonsense .
Presumably , none of them believe the election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden , but they dare not say so because of the fear of offending the Republic base .
Although not as egregious , there are similarities in the UK .
Fear of offending the Conservative grassroots has inhibited too many senior Tories in setting out the realities of our departure from the European Union for far too long .
At this particular time , the talk of Westminster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Cabinet favour a compromise with the EU because they are conscious of the consequences of failing to get a deal .
But the ambitious amongst them know that to be seen to be associated with compromise on Brexit is a career damaging move .
As a consequence , they keep their heads down , content to let others challenge the prejudices of their party ’ s more extreme supporters .
If things ultimately go as badly as they might , history will not judge kindly .
The Prime Minister ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are told , help create thousands of green jobs .
The increase in defence spending will , we are told , help create 10,000 new jobs .
Such announcements are always treated as being good news – a further justification for a policy .
There are good arguments to be made for reducing carbon emissions and improving our defence capabilities but , while the fact that pursuing these policies requires the employment of more people may be good news for the individuals concerned , for the Government and society as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a benefit .
Employing people is expensive .
And if they are employed to do one thing , they are no longer available to be employed to do something else which society or the economy might value .
I do not always agree with everything Nigel Lawson says , but he has a point when he states that “ a programme to erect statues of Boris in every town and village in the land would also ‘ create jobs ’ but that doesn ’ t make it a sensible thing to do ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is not a cause of celebration that , from January , the country is going to require an additional 50,000 customs agents because of increased bureaucracy involved in trading with the EU .
I repeat , this is a cost not a benefit .
Wednesday will see the Spending Review , albeit one that is less comprehensive than first intended .
I suspect much of the focus will be on the Office for Budget Responsibility ’ s assessment of the public finances , which is likely to be ghastly .
Borrowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record and might not be far behind a wartime record , either .
To some extent , that does not matter as much as it might do – we can get our debt away easily and cheaply enough in a world where markets are much more forgiving of high levels of Government debt than they were even a few years ago .
But the worry will be that , even a few years down the line when the virus is behind us , we will still be borrowing very large sums of money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one thing , but one can not expect to get away with that forever .
Something will have to be done – but when ?
One of the many challenges for the Chancellor is that the political and economic cycles are misaligned .
Politically , he would want to get tax rises or spending cuts ( and it will be mainly the former ) in place early in a Parliament so that the pain is well out the way by the time we get to 2024 .
Economically , the consensus view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a recovery so better wait a while .
On that basis , even with the recent good news on vaccines , 2022 would be the earliest point for tax increases ( and plenty would argue for later ) .
The politics of tax increases also appears to be immensely difficult .
The Prime Minister seems dug in on the tax lock ( preventing increases in the rates of income tax , national insurance contributions and VAT , which between them raise two thirds of Government revenue ) whilst the back benchers also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consolidation .
As a country , we have given ourselves a bit of a holiday from thinking about the public finances .
This coming week might indicate that this holiday will soon be coming to an end .
Should we relax Covid-19 restrictions to save Christmas ?
It would be lovely to have a normal Christmas , but I am not sure proponents of seasonal break in restrictions have thought this through .
There is every reason to believe that Christmas would be a super spreader event , resulting in the deaths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinated the vulnerable .
For too many families , making the wrong decision about Christmas 2020 could mean that all future Christmases will be tinged with sadness , loss and guilt .
Just be patient ; we are nearly there .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
For reasons that some readers will understand, the departure of Dominic Cummings from Downing Street was not a source of great sorrow for me. It appears that I am not alone. Nonetheless, Cummings’ resignation/dismissal makes the Prime Minister’s job much harder in at least one respect.
We are already pushing the limits on when a free trade agreement with the EU can be agreed in order for it to be in place by the end of the year. Boris Johnson continues to appear to be undecided as to whether he is willing to make the necessary concessions in order to get a deal (thus upsetting hardline Brexiteers) or leave without a deal (wreaking further damage to the economy and the integrity of the United Kingdom).
Both options have been apparent for some time, and they are sub-optimal for the Prime Minister and the country. Now he really has to choose.
If he compromises, some people will say that, without Cummings, the Prime Minister lacks a spine. Cummings may well be one of the people making this point.
If he does not get a deal, the Prime Minister’s strategy must be to convince the Leave half of the country that the ensuing mess is the fault of the European Union (it will be a hopeless task to avoid the blame with the other half of the country). To do that, he will need a communications strategy that is ruthless, aggressive and lacking in self-doubt, entirely untroubled by the overwhelming evidence pointing to a different interpretation of the situation. These are exactly the circumstances in which Cummings has a track record of success.
This is a bad time for the Prime Minister to fall out with his most influential adviser.
– – – – – – – – – –
Anyone entering politics will be aware that there may come a moment when there is a conflict between what one perceives as the national interest and the furtherance of one’s career.
We can currently see this playing out in the United States, as Donald Trump continues to refuse to accept the election result. With a few honourable exceptions, most senior Republicans have gone along with this nonsense. Presumably, none of them believe the election was rigged in favour of Joe Biden, but they dare not say so because of the fear of offending the Republic base.
Although not as egregious, there are similarities in the UK. Fear of offending the Conservative grassroots has inhibited too many senior Tories in setting out the realities of our departure from the European Union for far too long.
At this particular time, the talk of Westminster and Whitehall is that the overwhelming majority of the Cabinet favour a compromise with the EU because they are conscious of the consequences of failing to get a deal. But the ambitious amongst them know that to be seen to be associated with compromise on Brexit is a career damaging move.
As a consequence, they keep their heads down, content to let others challenge the prejudices of their party’s more extreme supporters. If things ultimately go as badly as they might, history will not judge kindly.
– – – – – – – – – –
The Prime Minister’s announcement of an ambitious green agenda will, we are told, help create thousands of green jobs. The increase in defence spending will, we are told, help create 10,000 new jobs. Such announcements are always treated as being good news – a further justification for a policy.
There are good arguments to be made for reducing carbon emissions and improving our defence capabilities but, while the fact that pursuing these policies requires the employment of more people may be good news for the individuals concerned, for the Government and society as a whole, this is a cost not a benefit. Employing people is expensive. And if they are employed to do one thing, they are no longer available to be employed to do something else which society or the economy might value.
I do not always agree with everything Nigel Lawson says, but he has a point when he states that “a programme to erect statues of Boris in every town and village in the land would also ‘create jobs’ but that doesn’t make it a sensible thing to do”.
To give an equally absurd example, it is not a cause of celebration that, from January, the country is going to require an additional 50,000 customs agents because of increased bureaucracy involved in trading with the EU. I repeat, this is a cost not a benefit.
– – – – – – – – – –
Wednesday will see the Spending Review, albeit one that is less comprehensive than first intended. I suspect much of the focus will be on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the public finances, which is likely to be ghastly.
Borrowing this year will certainly be a peacetime record and might not be far behind a wartime record, either. To some extent, that does not matter as much as it might do – we can get our debt away easily and cheaply enough in a world where markets are much more forgiving of high levels of Government debt than they were even a few years ago.
But the worry will be that, even a few years down the line when the virus is behind us, we will still be borrowing very large sums of money. Exceptional borrowing in an exceptional year is one thing, but one cannot expect to get away with that forever.
Something will have to be done – but when? One of the many challenges for the Chancellor is that the political and economic cycles are misaligned.
Politically, he would want to get tax rises or spending cuts (and it will be mainly the former) in place early in a Parliament so that the pain is well out the way by the time we get to 2024.
Economically, the consensus view is that early tax increases might choke off a recovery so better wait a while. On that basis, even with the recent good news on vaccines, 2022 would be the earliest point for tax increases (and plenty would argue for later).
The politics of tax increases also appears to be immensely difficult. The Prime Minister seems dug in on the tax lock (preventing increases in the rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT, which between them raise two thirds of Government revenue) whilst the back benchers also appear squeamish about any kind of fiscal consolidation.
As a country, we have given ourselves a bit of a holiday from thinking about the public finances. This coming week might indicate that this holiday will soon be coming to an end.
– – – – – – – – – –
Should we relax Covid-19 restrictions to save Christmas? It would be lovely to have a normal Christmas, but I am not sure proponents of seasonal break in restrictions have thought this through.
There is every reason to believe that Christmas would be a super spreader event, resulting in the deaths of thousands just weeks before we will have vaccinated the vulnerable.
For too many families, making the wrong decision about Christmas 2020 could mean that all future Christmases will be tinged with sadness, loss and guilt. Just be patient; we are nearly there.


conservativehome--2020-11-22--WATCH:  It’s Stonewall Sunak – he’s up and about before the Spending Review, but can’t say much abou

WATCH:  It’s Stonewall Sunak – he’s up and about before the Spending Review, but can’t say much about it

If it looks like austerity , if it sounds like austerity , if it feels like austerity – then it @ @ @ @ @ ?
`` You will not see austerity next week , you will see an increase @ @ @ @ @ Chancellor Rishi Sunak .
# Ridge

If it looks like austerity, if it sounds like austerity, if it feels like austerity – then it is austerity isn't it?
"You will not see austerity next week, you will see an increase in government spending" says Chancellor Rishi Sunak. #Ridge
More here: https://t.co/7gDg3UeJWP pic.twitter.com/t6cFJHPCg6
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-22--WATCH: Labour will oppose a public sector pay freeze

Shadow Business Minister , Lucy Powell , says 'it would be a kick in the teeth ' to frontline workers @ @ @ @ @ freeze on public sector pay .
# Ridge

Shadow Business Minister, Lucy Powell, says 'it would be a kick in the teeth' to frontline workers if the Chancellor announces a freeze on public sector pay. #Ridge
Read more here: https://t.co/7gDg3UeJWP pic.twitter.com/cZKi5bswKW
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) November 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-22--Priti Patel v The Thing

Priti Patel v The Thing

Priti Patel ’ s supporters and opponents are at odds on almost everything , but at one on her popularity among Conservative activists .
Though even this claim , if our monthly survey of Party activists is anything to do by , isn ’ t quite what it seems .
The Home Secretary ’ s rating in this site ’ s Cabinet League Table has tended to track the channel migrant boats , or at least the publicity that they attract .
For most months since the last election , she has stayed in the top seven , reaching the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eleven months – scores underpinned by her status as a long-standing Brexiteer .
But in May , she came in fourteenth , in September tenth and in August eighth .
That ’ s a measure of member unhappiness with the Government ’ s failure to stop illegal entries – as the Home Office , like the Minister who leads it , thrashes about in the tangle of political , legal , ethical and administrative cords from which the Government is incapable of escaping , unwilling to free itself from , or both .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department which a former Home Secretary labelled “ not fit for purpose ” is actually helping Patel to weather the current storm .
“ The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the Home Secretary ’ s requests and direction .
She has – legitimately – not always felt supported by the department , ” Sir Alex Allen wrote in his report .
He also said that “ no feedback was given to the Home Secretary of the impact of her behaviour , which meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could otherwise have addressed ” .
If other sections of Sir Alex ’ s findings will be helpful to Sir Philip Rutnam , the department ’ s former Permanent Secretary who resigned and is now suing the Government , these ones won ’ t be .
Sir Philip was in place when Amber Rudd resigned for misleading a select committee over the Windrush contretemps : she blames him for not providing her with the correct information .
Rudd was the third Home Secretary in the last ten to have been forced out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on her fourth Permanent Secretary when she moved from Marsham Street to Downing Street .
If the plight of the Home Office is one factor shoring up Patel ( since fellow Tory MPs from all parts of the party believe that it remains unfit for purpose ) her sex and ethnicity is another ( since successive Conservative leaders have been set on promoting women and members of ethnic minorities rapidly – and the Prime Minister won ’ t want to lose the most senior person in Cabinet who meets both criteria ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs that the Home Secretary , who “ effectively grew up on top of a shop for most of my life ” , and whose parents were “ very aware because of their own background in particular , persecuted in Uganda ” , is an icon of British success – able to knock Labour MPs off their moralistic perch and embarrass Keir Starmer in the process .
Neither Home Office failure nor her Indian background is the point , Patel ’ s critics argue .
They say that Sir Alex has found both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Ministerial code .
But his report doesn ’ t quite say the first thing and heavily qualifies the second – to the point where it is made into a nonsense .
“ Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals , ” writes Sir Alex .
We would have thought that bullying requires intent .
“ To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code , ” he continues , before wrapping his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if unintentionally.
” So apparently Patel should resign because she may have broken the code unintentionally .
This is such a draconian interpretation of a tentative conclusion that one wonders why Sir Alex has felt it necessary to resign himself .
Are all breaches of the code automatically to result in dismissal ?
If so , it follows that most , if not all , members of the Cabinet will have to go , along with Patel – as will those who made up Theresa May ’ s , David Cameron ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blair ’ s and John Major ’ s ( the Prime Minister who first published the Code ) .
At least , they will have to do so if its core elements haven ’ t changed .
“ There must be no bullying and harrassment , ” the Prime Minister ’ s introduction to the Code declares .
Its very next sentence is : “ no leaking ” .
But they all leak !
( Most of them , anyway . )
“ No breach of collective responsibility , ” the Code goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on this site yesterday , four Cabinet ministers abstained last year during a vote on a motion to rule out a No Deal Brexit .
None of them quit .
More to the point , no-one asked them to – under the terms of the Code , at any rate .
“ Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises , or appears to arise [ our italics ] , between their public duties and their private interests , ” the Code declares , thus writing into a formal document considerations that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a judgement bar the Prime Minister , who appoints Ministers , or Parliament , which can declare that it has no confidence in them – or the voters at a general election ?
This brings us closer to the heart of the matter , which is helpfully set out in Appendix A of the Code .
This declares that Ministers are expected “ to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life ” , the first of which is : “ holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sub-heading : “ selflessness ” .
There are six others , one of which is “ objectivity ” – a principle impossible to reconcile with the partisan nature of political life . )
So on second thoughts , those Cabinet Ministers will definitely all have to go , just as their predecessors should have gone .
No Cabinet member or former member who ever walked the earth has not , at some point when considering an important decision , mulled its possible effect on their party ’ s interest , not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks about it , the more one comes to see that the Code is an uneasy compromise between constitutional fact ( that the Prime Minister is “ the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards ) and a body of people who are referred to just after that first reference to the seven principles .
Namely , “ our much-admired civil service ” , in the words of the Code .
Or perhaps , if we are to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Thing ” , since Sir Alex was not , strictly speaking , a civil servant in his role as the independent adviser .
Though The Thing certainly includes parts of the civil service , such as the Director General of the Propriety and Ethics Team ( now Helen McNamara ; formerly Sue Gray ) .
But it stretches wider .
The Thing is the Electoral Commission , government suppliers , Ofqal , defence procurement .
Maybe some sort of written code is inevitable in modern government .
But let no-one pretend that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacred text , the most minor breach of which must result in dismissal , as if the most minor breach of the law were to require a life sentence .
Gordon Brown threw Nokia phones about .
John Hoskyn complained that Margaret Thatcher was a bully .
Margaret Beckett let the rat out of the bag when she said of John Bercow that Brexit considerations trumped “ bad behaviour ” .
Perhaps this background explains why Labour has been relatively quiet about the Patel case .
It knows a power grab when it @ @ @

Priti Patel’s supporters and opponents are at odds on almost everything, but at one on her popularity among Conservative activists. Though even this claim, if our monthly survey of Party activists is anything to do by, isn’t quite what it seems.
The Home Secretary’s rating in this site’s Cabinet League Table has tended to track the channel migrant boats, or at least the publicity that they attract. For most months since the last election, she has stayed in the top seven, reaching the top five in five of the last eleven months – scores underpinned by her status as a long-standing Brexiteer.
But in May, she came in fourteenth, in September tenth and in August eighth. That’s a measure of member unhappiness with the Government’s failure to stop illegal entries – as the Home Office, like the Minister who leads it, thrashes about in the tangle of political, legal, ethical and administrative cords from which the Government is incapable of escaping, unwilling to free itself from, or both.
Oddly enough, the institutional weakness of the department which a former Home Secretary labelled “not fit for purpose” is actually helping Patel to weather the current storm. “The Home Office was not as flexible as it could have been in responding to the Home Secretary’s requests and direction. She has – legitimately – not always felt supported by the department,” Sir Alex Allen wrote in his report.
He also said that “no feedback was given to the Home Secretary of the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of issues that she could otherwise have addressed”. If other sections of Sir Alex’s findings will be helpful to Sir Philip Rutnam, the department’s former Permanent Secretary who resigned and is now suing the Government, these ones won’t be.
Sir Philip was in place when Amber Rudd resigned for misleading a select committee over the Windrush contretemps: she blames him for not providing her with the correct information. Rudd was the third Home Secretary in the last ten to have been forced out. Her predecessor, Theresa May, was on her fourth Permanent Secretary when she moved from Marsham Street to Downing Street.
If the plight of the Home Office is one factor shoring up Patel (since fellow Tory MPs from all parts of the party believe that it remains unfit for purpose) her sex and ethnicity is another (since successive Conservative leaders have been set on promoting women and members of ethnic minorities rapidly – and the Prime Minister won’t want to lose the most senior person in Cabinet who meets both criteria).
There is also a sense among Conservative MPs that the Home Secretary, who “effectively grew up on top of a shop for most of my life”, and whose parents were “very aware because of their own background in particular, persecuted in Uganda”, is an icon of British success – able to knock Labour MPs off their moralistic perch and embarrass Keir Starmer in the process.
Neither Home Office failure nor her Indian background is the point, Patel’s critics argue. They say that Sir Alex has found both her guilty of bullying and in breach of the Ministerial code. But his report doesn’t quite say the first thing and heavily qualifies the second – to the point where it is made into a nonsense.
“Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals,” writes Sir Alex. We would have thought that bullying requires intent. “To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code,” he continues, before wrapping his conclusion in a mystery: “even if unintentionally.”
So apparently Patel should resign because she may have broken the code unintentionally. This is such a draconian interpretation of a tentative conclusion that one wonders why Sir Alex has felt it necessary to resign himself. Are all breaches of the code automatically to result in dismissal?
If so, it follows that most, if not all, members of the Cabinet will have to go, along with Patel – as will those who made up Theresa May’s, David Cameron’s, Gordon Brown’s, Tony Blair’s and John Major’s (the Prime Minister who first published the Code). At least, they will have to do so if its core elements haven’t changed.
“There must be no bullying and harrassment,” the Prime Minister’s introduction to the Code declares. Its very next sentence is: “no leaking”. But they all leak! (Most of them, anyway.) “No breach of collective responsibility,” the Code goes on. But as Henry Hill pointed out on this site yesterday, four Cabinet ministers abstained last year during a vote on a motion to rule out a No Deal Brexit.
None of them quit. More to the point, no-one asked them to – under the terms of the Code, at any rate. “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise [our italics], between their public duties and their private interests,” the Code declares, thus writing into a formal document considerations that are ultimately political.
For who can make such a judgement bar the Prime Minister, who appoints Ministers, or Parliament, which can declare that it has no confidence in them – or the voters at a general election? This brings us closer to the heart of the matter, which is helpfully set out in Appendix A of the Code.
This declares that Ministers are expected “to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life”, the first of which is: “holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest”. (This comes under the sub-heading: “selflessness”. There are six others, one of which is “objectivity” – a principle impossible to reconcile with the partisan nature of political life.)
So on second thoughts, those Cabinet Ministers will definitely all have to go, just as their predecessors should have gone. No Cabinet member or former member who ever walked the earth has not, at some point when considering an important decision, mulled its possible effect on their party’s interest, not to mention their own.
The more one thinks about it, the more one comes to see that the Code is an uneasy compromise between constitutional fact (that the Prime Minister is “the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards) and a body of people who are referred to just after that first reference to the seven principles.
Namely, “our much-admired civil service”, in the words of the Code. Or perhaps, if we are to be strictly accurate, what Cobbett called “The Thing”, since Sir Alex was not, strictly speaking, a civil servant in his role as the independent adviser. Though The Thing certainly includes parts of the civil service, such as the Director General of the Propriety and Ethics Team (now Helen McNamara; formerly Sue Gray).
But it stretches wider. The Thing is the Electoral Commission, government suppliers, Ofqal, defence procurement. Maybe some sort of written code is inevitable in modern government. But let no-one pretend that the Ministerial Code is some kind of sacred text, the most minor breach of which must result in dismissal, as if the most minor breach of the law were to require a life sentence.
Gordon Brown threw Nokia phones about. John Hoskyn complained that Margaret Thatcher was a bully. Margaret Beckett let the rat out of the bag when she said of John Bercow that Brexit considerations trumped “bad behaviour”. Perhaps this background explains why Labour has been relatively quiet about the Patel case. It knows a power grab when it sees one.


conservativehome--2020-11-22--WATCH: The Chancellor denies that the Prime Minister asked for the Patel report to be watered down

Chancellor Rishi Sunak tells # Marr , Boris Johnson did not ask for an independent report on Priti Patel to @ @ @ @ @ concluded the Home Secretary 's behaviour towards civil servants could be `` described as bullying @ @ @ @ @

Chancellor Rishi Sunak tells #Marr, Boris Johnson did not ask for an independent report on Priti Patel to be watered down
The review concluded the Home Secretary's behaviour towards civil servants could be "described as bullying"
https://t.co/RWd5olYKEl pic.twitter.com/uEs86A1YQZ
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-22--WATCH: “More important than any other consideration.” Dodds on Labour’s need to root out anti-semiti

WATCH: “More important than any other consideration.” Dodds on Labour’s need to root out anti-semitism.

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds tells # Marr that dealing with anti-Semitism in the Labour party `` is more important than @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/JZekSCtySw pic.twitter.com/TuxJnabBqw

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds tells #Marr that dealing with anti-Semitism in the Labour party "is more important than any other consideration"https://t.co/JZekSCtySw pic.twitter.com/TuxJnabBqw
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-23--Alexander Stafford: The tests that any Johnson Brexit deal must pass

Boris Johnson is likely to bring a deal back to the country in the near future .
The question is whether this deal will match up to the expectations of the nation – those that propelled him to his landslide electoral success last year .
In my view , the Centre for Brexit Policy has produced the definitive list of tests that the Prime Minister ’ s Brexit deal will need to pass to be considered a success .
These tests are broken down into four main areas : sovereignty , the UK-EU trading relationship , governance , and compliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country will never forgive the Conservative Party if we do not uphold the manifesto commitments that led to the storming of the Red Wall .
Therefore , it is vital that the Brexit deal that Johnson brings back to the nation will respect the promises we made before the 2019 election .
We must take back control of our laws , borders , money , and fish .
We can not have any part of the UK remaining part of the EU customs union or single market .
Nor can we allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU laws or treaties , rather than free trade or friendly cooperation .
Any deal that will prevent the UK from full control over our trade policy is likewise unacceptable .
We must be able to regain our sovereignty and be free to conduct ourselves as a free and independent trading nation .
Any constraints or EU control over our decision making , our laws , or our trading arrangements would fly in the face of the freedom that the country voted for .
For example , are trade negotiations with other third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the terms of the coming Brexit Deal ?
One of the most important challenges will be to have fully removed the UK from the control of the European Union ’ s legal power – for example , our freedom to provide state aid to industry .
Britain can not be considered a fully independent , sovereign nation if we are still beholden to the European Court of Justice and legally required to apply any aspect of EU law to any part of the UK – especially if it breaks up the internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brexit Deal ensures that EU law has ‘ direct effect ’ and supremacy in UK courts over UK domestic law , including over Acts of Parliament , then it simply is unacceptable .
We know that the Red Wall turned Blue in large part due to our party ’ s stance on Brexit .
We must repay that trust because , if we do not , we risk losing all that we have gained in the region .
Previous polling of Red Wall voters carried out by Savanta ComRes – especially those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shown , if the Conservative Party were not to deliver on its promises to “ Get Brexit Done ” , to deliver Brexit by the end of 2020 , to leave the single market or the customs union , a quarter of Red Wall voters would be less likely to vote Conservative .
Reaching the level of our 2019 victory – where we won more votes than any party for 25 years – would likely become unattainable .
Voters would see that , on the most pressing issue of the past 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep its word .
But I have ever confidence that we will deliver and finally , fully , free us from the EU .

Alexander Stafford is MP for Rother Valley.
Boris Johnson is likely to bring a deal back to the country in the near future. The question is whether this deal will match up to the expectations of the nation – those that propelled him to his landslide electoral success last year.
In my view, the Centre for Brexit Policy has produced the definitive list of tests that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal will need to pass to be considered a success. These tests are broken down into four main areas: sovereignty, the UK-EU trading relationship, governance, and compliance with the 2019 Conservative Election Manifesto.
The country will never forgive the Conservative Party if we do not uphold the manifesto commitments that led to the storming of the Red Wall. Therefore, it is vital that the Brexit deal that Johnson brings back to the nation will respect the promises we made before the 2019 election.
We must take back control of our laws, borders, money, and fish. We cannot have any part of the UK remaining part of the EU customs union or single market. Nor can we allow the new relationship to be based on EU laws or treaties, rather than free trade or friendly cooperation.
Any deal that will prevent the UK from full control over our trade policy is likewise unacceptable. We must be able to regain our sovereignty and be free to conduct ourselves as a free and independent trading nation. Any constraints or EU control over our decision making, our laws, or our trading arrangements would fly in the face of the freedom that the country voted for. For example, are trade negotiations with other third countries going to be undermined or hindered by the terms of the coming Brexit Deal?
One of the most important challenges will be to have fully removed the UK from the control of the European Union’s legal power – for example, our freedom to provide state aid to industry. Britain cannot be considered a fully independent, sovereign nation if we are still beholden to the European Court of Justice and legally required to apply any aspect of EU law to any part of the UK – especially if it breaks up the internal customs market of the UK. If the Brexit Deal ensures that EU law has ‘direct effect’ and supremacy in UK courts over UK domestic law, including over Acts of Parliament, then it simply is unacceptable.
We know that the Red Wall turned Blue in large part due to our party’s stance on Brexit. We must repay that trust because, if we do not, we risk losing all that we have gained in the region.
Previous polling of Red Wall voters carried out by Savanta ComRes – especially those who switched to the Conservative Party – has shown, if the Conservative Party were not to deliver on its promises to “Get Brexit Done”, to deliver Brexit by the end of 2020, to leave the single market or the customs union, a quarter of Red Wall voters would be less likely to vote Conservative. Reaching the level of our 2019 victory – where we won more votes than any party for 25 years – would likely become unattainable.
Voters would see that, on the most pressing issue of the past 40 years, the Conservative Party was unable to keep its word. But I have ever confidence that we will deliver and finally, fully, free us from the EU.


conservativehome--2020-11-23--Go for growth and cross your fingers

Go for growth and cross your fingers

Rishi Sunak insisted yesterday that Wednesday ’ s Spending Review statement will not announce austerity , because “ you will see an increase in Government spending ” .
By that measure , as the Chancellor knows well , we have never had austerity at all – or at least not in modern times , and certainly not under David Cameron and George Osborne .
For each year since 2010 has seen a rise in government spending .
What Osborne did as Chancellor was the cut the rate of its growth , which is not at all the same thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the first recent austerity Chancellor was Alistair Darling , not Osborne – who pledged to “ cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher ” in his 2010 Budget .
And if relaxing any drive to achieve a surplus , or at least balance , or at least ending a “ structural deficit ” ( however defined ) signals an end to austerity , what about Osborne ’ s own Budget of November 2015 ?
For it was then that the former Chancellor found £27 billion down the back of a sofa , and announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps Philip Hammond , then Foreign Secretary , wasn ’ t paying attention – because he pulled off the same trick in his 2018 Budget when , as Chancellor , he chose to prioritise more spending over financial discipline .
Hammond said in terms that “ austerity is coming to an end ” – an echo of Theresa May ’ s own statement to that effect in the Conservative Party Conference speech two months earlier .
And maybe Boris Johnson had dozed off for the entire eight year period , since he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2010 that “ austerity was just not the right way forward for the UK ” .
So this Tory story travels from covertly easing austerity to openly doing so to saying that it should never have happened in the first place – which it didn ’ t anyway .
There is a point to this history , other than showing up the tergiversations of politicians , as the Spending Review approaches .
Which is that the easing of control on spending , and language about it , over the last five years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Brexit has been to make the future for tax and and spending more uncertain .
That ’ s inevitable in any decision that has potential upsides and downsides for the economy .
But this uncertainty has been ended , at least for the short-term , by another seismic event : the Coronavirus .
To condense a long story into a single sentence , it is sending both debt and deficit up , up , up – which means tax revenues or spending cuts ( that ’ s to say , reductions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t grow our way out .
The Office for Budget Responsibility produced grisly figures for Sunak ’ s first Budget and will doubtless produce more for his second , too .
But the sum of its view is better expressed in words than figures – those of Robert Chote , its Chairman , in an OBR presentation last March .
“ The bottom line is that the current approach looks sustainable over the medium term on current forecasts for growth and borrowing costs , ” he said .
“ But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation and interest rate surprises than they were.
” So much will depend this week on how much risk Sunak is prepared to take .
What is certain that the economy has not been growing at anything like the rate it was before the financial crash – not withstanding the virus .
Since it erupted , we haven ’ t had growth of more than 2.6 per cent a year .
Before it took place , the lowest rate of growth in roughly 15 years was 2.3 per cent .
So unless that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending more than we can afford .
In a nutshell , we are moving from a period during which Chancellors could postpone hard choices to one where they will no longer be able to do so .
Sunak consequently faces at least two big decisions on Wednesday .
First , does he go for growth in the short-term , postpone tough fiscal decisions , cross his fingers , and hope that interest rates and inflation stay low ?
And second , if he doesn ’ t , what mix of tax rises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Whatever answers he gives will have stark political implications for this Government ’ s future .
For if he goes for growth , and so takes a risk with those inflation and interest rates , he could find himself seeking to cut taxes and raise spending during the run-up to the next election if the gamble fails .
But if he doesn ’ t , the pressure will be on him to raise taxes now – thus depressing profit margins and consumer spending at a time when the economy is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as David Gauke wrote on this site last weekend , the political and economic cycles are out of kilter .
Whichever choice the Chancellor makes , it ’ s worth remembering that the tax take , at 34.4 per cent of national income , the tax take is already at its highest sustained level since the 1940s .
And we simply can ’ t tax ourselves back to prosperity .
So amidst all the talk of tax rises , where ’ s the spending cuts balance ?
We believe that the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday will be to go for growth and cross his fingers – so taking a leaf out of the Ronald Reagan playbook , and “ letting the deficit grow big enough to look after itself ” .
In particular , the Chancellor should take a leaf out of the Centre for Policy Studies ’ book , and once again crank up the engine of supply-side reform .
Such an approach should also run in tandem with a push to join-up cities and towns outside the greater South-East through better transport , skills reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , it ’ s this .
All that would suit Boris Johnson – who , as we have seen , recoils at spending discipline – very nicely indeed .
Not to mention Conservative MPs , who were elected on a manifesto which promised more of everything ( pretty much ) .
We say all this in the knowledge that such a gambit could go horribly wrong .
We are not at all sure that this fissiparous generation of Tory MPs has the stomach for financial discipline .
Sunak could thus find himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut spending and raise taxes during the immediate run-up to an election… …With a Prime Minister who , to use the Chancellor ’ s own figure of speech , clings to his credit card .
And a Parliamentary Party that won ’ t back the necessary measures in the lobbies .
Throw in a second Scottish independence referendum and No Brexit Trade Deal turmoil ( the second seems less likely than the first ) , and the conclusion is stark .
Come to think of it , it is anyway .
Namely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they ultimately can ’ t hide .
If they shirk imposing financial disciple , the market do it for them .
Now that ’ s austerity .

Rishi Sunak insisted yesterday that Wednesday’s Spending Review statement will not announce austerity, because “you will see an increase in Government spending”.
By that measure, as the Chancellor knows well, we have never had austerity at all – or at least not in modern times, and certainly not under David Cameron and George Osborne.
For each year since 2010 has seen a rise in government spending. What Osborne did as Chancellor was the cut the rate of its growth, which is not at all the same thing.
If that is to define austerity, then the first recent austerity Chancellor was Alistair Darling, not Osborne – who pledged to “cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher” in his 2010 Budget.
And if relaxing any drive to achieve a surplus, or at least balance, or at least ending a “structural deficit” (however defined) signals an end to austerity, what about Osborne’s own Budget of November 2015?
For it was then that the former Chancellor found £27 billion down the back of a sofa, and announced an easing of his deficit reduction plan.
Perhaps Philip Hammond, then Foreign Secretary, wasn’t paying attention – because he pulled off the same trick in his 2018 Budget when, as Chancellor, he chose to prioritise more spending over financial discipline.
Hammond said in terms that “austerity is coming to an end” – an echo of Theresa May’s own statement to that effect in the Conservative Party Conference speech two months earlier.
And maybe Boris Johnson had dozed off for the entire eight year period, since he has said that he told other Conservatives in 2010 that “austerity was just not the right way forward for the UK”.
So this Tory story travels from covertly easing austerity to openly doing so to saying that it should never have happened in the first place – which it didn’t anyway.
There is a point to this history, other than showing up the tergiversations of politicians, as the Spending Review approaches.
Which is that the easing of control on spending, and language about it, over the last five years is no coincidence. For the effect of Brexit has been to make the future for tax and and spending more uncertain.
That’s inevitable in any decision that has potential upsides and downsides for the economy. But this uncertainty has been ended, at least for the short-term, by another seismic event: the Coronavirus.
To condense a long story into a single sentence, it is sending both debt and deficit up, up, up – which means tax revenues or spending cuts (that’s to say, reductions in the rate of increase) if we can’t grow our way out.
The Office for Budget Responsibility produced grisly figures for Sunak’s first Budget and will doubtless produce more for his second, too.
But the sum of its view is better expressed in words than figures – those of Robert Chote, its Chairman, in an OBR presentation last March.
“The bottom line is that the current approach looks sustainable over the medium term on current forecasts for growth and borrowing costs,” he said.
“But the public finances are much more vulnerable to inflation and interest rate surprises than they were.” So much will depend this week on how much risk Sunak is prepared to take.
What is certain that the economy has not been growing at anything like the rate it was before the financial crash – not withstanding the virus. Since it erupted, we haven’t had growth of more than 2.6 per cent a year.
Before it took place, the lowest rate of growth in roughly 15 years was 2.3 per cent. So unless that growth comes, we will undoubtedly be spending more than we can afford.
In a nutshell, we are moving from a period during which Chancellors could postpone hard choices to one where they will no longer be able to do so.
Sunak consequently faces at least two big decisions on Wednesday. First, does he go for growth in the short-term, postpone tough fiscal decisions, cross his fingers, and hope that interest rates and inflation stay low?
And second, if he doesn’t, what mix of tax rises and spending increases should he seek to impose? Whatever answers he gives will have stark political implications for this Government’s future.
For if he goes for growth, and so takes a risk with those inflation and interest rates, he could find himself seeking to cut taxes and raise spending during the run-up to the next election if the gamble fails.
But if he doesn’t, the pressure will be on him to raise taxes now – thus depressing profit margins and consumer spending at a time when the economy is in the doldrums.
The unpalatable truth is that, as David Gauke wrote on this site last weekend, the political and economic cycles are out of kilter.
Whichever choice the Chancellor makes, it’s worth remembering that the tax take, at 34.4 per cent of national income, the tax take is already at its highest sustained level since the 1940s.
And we simply can’t tax ourselves back to prosperity. So amidst all the talk of tax rises, where’s the spending cuts balance?
We believe that the least bad course for Sunak to take on Wednesday will be to go for growth and cross his fingers – so taking a leaf out of the Ronald Reagan playbook, and “letting the deficit grow big enough to look after itself”.
In particular, the Chancellor should take a leaf out of the Centre for Policy Studies’ book, and once again crank up the engine of supply-side reform.
Such an approach should also run in tandem with a push to join-up cities and towns outside the greater South-East through better transport, skills reform and devolved power – if levelling-up means anything, it’s this.
All that would suit Boris Johnson – who, as we have seen, recoils at spending discipline – very nicely indeed. Not to mention Conservative MPs, who were elected on a manifesto which promised more of everything (pretty much).
We say all this in the knowledge that such a gambit could go horribly wrong. We are not at all sure that this fissiparous generation of Tory MPs has the stomach for financial discipline.
Sunak could thus find himself in the horrible position of seeking to cut spending and raise taxes during the immediate run-up to an election…
…With a Prime Minister who, to use the Chancellor’s own figure of speech, clings to his credit card. And a Parliamentary Party that won’t back the necessary measures in the lobbies.
Throw in a second Scottish independence referendum and No Brexit Trade Deal turmoil (the second seems less likely than the first), and the conclusion is stark. Come to think of it, it is anyway.
Namely, that Ministers and MPs can run, but they ultimately can’t hide. If they shirk imposing financial disciple, the market do it for them. Now that’s austerity.


conservativehome--2020-11-23--Richard Holden: This week’s spending review must show voters in Red Wall seats like mine that they w

Richard Holden: This week’s spending review must show voters in Red Wall seats like mine that they were right to trust us

“ I will repay your trust ” was the message loud and clear to the people of North East England on December 14 when the Prime Minister came to Sedgefield .
The result of the general election was first landslide Conservative victory that I can remember .
The atmosphere was jubilant and newly elected MPs like me from County Durham and Teesside , alongside our local supporters , cheered him to the rafters .
Coming to the North East , to the seat of the former Labour Prime Minister , Tony Blair , to ram that message home mattered , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson meant those words .
There ’ s a lot of guff written about our Prime Minister , but there are a few things I know from having spent time with him on the leadership campaign .
He barely lets other people draft a quote for him , never mind a speech .
He meant what he said on those days following the election .
And crucially , he also helped define the landscape for the next general election with them .
The twin punches of ‘ getting Brexit done ’ and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country had cut through .
Our task was aided by a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes that appeared to the people as desperately divided – amongst other things .
With Corbyn , it wasn ’ t a question of trust that he ’ d carry out his promises : they believed him .
And that scared the bejesus out of a large portion of the electorate .
Living up to that trust started at a pace with the legislation to leave the EU passed within a month , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31st .
The big Greenwich speech laid out the path forward on the international stage in early February – in a speech incandescent with positivity about Britain re-launching herself out into the world .
Events then interceded .
The global Coronavirus pandemic has knocked every nation in the world for six .
The March budget focused on support during Covid-19 , and leant heavily into the key general election promises on our NHS : more nurses , new hospitals , GP appointments .
Since then , the virus and and the response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for jobs and businesses has been forthcoming – and welcomed .
Rules have been written , changed and re-written , as we ’ ve learnt more about the virus .
Vaccines , thank God , now look to be on their way with roll-out , hopefully , beginning to the most vulnerable in a matter of weeks .
But the Prime Minister ’ s commitment to repay the trust of the electorate has continued alongside the Covid-19 response .
In September , the Government made on one of the biggest announcements around levelling-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and training for post-18 .
It was the Prime Minister who made the announcement , not the Education Secretary .
When Downing Street take an announcement , it ’ s something that the Prime Minister personally both cares about and gets the importance of .
For levelling up skills and wages , this is a big one .
Interestingly and importantly too , the big recent announcements regarding both defence , and the environment and future industries , have included heavy focus on them delivering good jobs in the UK as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spending Review is a crucial next step on that programme of building trust by delivering .
It will cover only a year , rather than the three years that were planned , but it ’ s vital that , for those long-term promises : on education , policing and infrastructure , as much clarity is given as possible to departments as possible in terms of long-term funding .
Having worked inside ‘ domestic delivery ’ departments myself in my previous life as a SpAd , if these are going to help deliver , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so anything that gives them the ability to plan will really help .
No-one is in any doubt that things will not be as straightforward as they would have been without the pandemic , but Rishi Sunak has sensibly already laid the groundwork for the necessity to level with people : decisions cost money .
He ’ s also made it clear that the Green Book – that ’ s to say , how the Government works out the various worth of major projects – needs review : something critical to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reality is necessary for trust too – openness on the challenges we face will put our successes , when they come , in the right context .
And , post-Coronavirus , is a difficult context .
As strategists look towards the next election , we need to remember that the twin sledgehammers in voters ’ minds of Corbyn and Brexit will have fallen away by 2024 .
But Keir Starmer will have an issue on trust on both which lasts longer than the individual issues themselves .
He sat in Corbyn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him Prime Minister and , even when Sir Keir had won his party ’ s leadership poll , he thanked Corbyn for what he ’ d done as leader .
On Brexit , we all know that it was Starmer who pushed and wrote the policy of a second referendum .
It is clear what he wants to do is to hold the Labour Party together at all costs – trying to play both sides on Corbyn with public praise , then denunciation , and then secret half-way house deals fool no-one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both ways simultaneously , on both Brexit and Corbyn , he may well come unstuck .
But that ’ s a matter for him , and we can only control our own actions .
Against the context of Starmer and trust , the spending review gives us a golden opportunity to remind the electorate that they can trust us , just as it did in December last year .
Yes , we need the realism about the situation that Britain faces and the impact of Coronavirus has had .
But we do need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our levelling-up agenda too .
At the last general election , the final three or four days of knocking on doors in North West Durham were surreal .
I didn ’ t need to convince people anymore – they just wanted to know that their vote would matter , that other people were thinking like them , and they knew that it would a close-run thing .
Next time , they ’ ll already know that it ’ s going to be close in seats like mine .
What they need is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed in the Prime Minister , in the Conservative Party and in each individual MP last time .
Whatever else it does , this spending review must do that .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
“I will repay your trust” was the message loud and clear to the people of North East England on December 14 when the Prime Minister came to Sedgefield.
The result of the general election was first landslide Conservative victory that I can remember. The atmosphere was jubilant and newly elected MPs like me from County Durham and Teesside, alongside our local supporters, cheered him to the rafters. Coming to the North East, to the seat of the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to ram that message home mattered, and showed to everyone how much Boris Johnson meant those words.
There’s a lot of guff written about our Prime Minister, but there are a few things I know from having spent time with him on the leadership campaign. He barely lets other people draft a quote for him, never mind a speech. He meant what he said on those days following the election. And crucially, he also helped define the landscape for the next general election with them.
The twin punches of ‘getting Brexit done’ and the promise to ‘level up’ the country had cut through. Our task was aided by a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes that appeared to the people as desperately divided – amongst other things. With Corbyn, it wasn’t a question of trust that he’d carry out his promises: they believed him. And that scared the bejesus out of a large portion of the electorate.
Living up to that trust started at a pace with the legislation to leave the EU passed within a month, and then we left the EU on January 31st. The big Greenwich speech laid out the path forward on the international stage in early February – in a speech incandescent with positivity about Britain re-launching herself out into the world.
Events then interceded. The global Coronavirus pandemic has knocked every nation in the world for six. The March budget focused on support during Covid-19, and leant heavily into the key general election promises on our NHS: more nurses, new hospitals, GP appointments.
Since then, the virus and and the response to it has been dominant. Massive support for jobs and businesses has been forthcoming – and welcomed. Rules have been written, changed and re-written, as we’ve learnt more about the virus. Vaccines, thank God, now look to be on their way with roll-out, hopefully, beginning to the most vulnerable in a matter of weeks.
But the Prime Minister’s commitment to repay the trust of the electorate has continued alongside the Covid-19 response. In September, the Government made on one of the biggest announcements around levelling-up to date – the expansion of education and training for post-18.
It was the Prime Minister who made the announcement, not the Education Secretary. When Downing Street take an announcement, it’s something that the Prime Minister personally both cares about and gets the importance of. For levelling up skills and wages, this is a big one. Interestingly and importantly too, the big recent announcements regarding both defence, and the environment and future industries, have included heavy focus on them delivering good jobs in the UK as part of the package.
This week, the Spending Review is a crucial next step on that programme of building trust by delivering. It will cover only a year, rather than the three years that were planned, but it’s vital that, for those long-term promises: on education, policing and infrastructure, as much clarity is given as possible to departments as possible in terms of long-term funding.
Having worked inside ‘domestic delivery’ departments myself in my previous life as a SpAd, if these are going to help deliver, this is very difficult to do overnight, so anything that gives them the ability to plan will really help.
No-one is in any doubt that things will not be as straightforward as they would have been without the pandemic, but Rishi Sunak has sensibly already laid the groundwork for the necessity to level with people: decisions cost money.
He’s also made it clear that the Green Book – that’s to say, how the Government works out the various worth of major projects – needs review: something critical to ‘levelling up.’ On both these points, reality is necessary for trust too – openness on the challenges we face will put our successes, when they come, in the right context. And, post-Coronavirus, is a difficult context.
As strategists look towards the next election, we need to remember that the twin sledgehammers in voters’ minds of Corbyn and Brexit will have fallen away by 2024.
But Keir Starmer will have an issue on trust on both which lasts longer than the individual issues themselves. He sat in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, worked to make him Prime Minister and, even when Sir Keir had won his party’s leadership poll, he thanked Corbyn for what he’d done as leader.
On Brexit, we all know that it was Starmer who pushed and wrote the policy of a second referendum. It is clear what he wants to do is to hold the Labour Party together at all costs – trying to play both sides on Corbyn with public praise, then denunciation, and then secret half-way house deals fool no-one. As Starmer continues to struggle to tack both ways simultaneously, on both Brexit and Corbyn, he may well come unstuck. But that’s a matter for him, and we can only control our own actions.
Against the context of Starmer and trust, the spending review gives us a golden opportunity to remind the electorate that they can trust us, just as it did in December last year. Yes, we need the realism about the situation that Britain faces and the impact of Coronavirus has had. But we do need to show that we’ll stick to our levelling-up agenda too.
At the last general election, the final three or four days of knocking on doors in North West Durham were surreal. I didn’t need to convince people anymore – they just wanted to know that their vote would matter, that other people were thinking like them, and they knew that it would a close-run thing.
Next time, they’ll already know that it’s going to be close in seats like mine. What they need is the assurance that their trust was well placed in the Prime Minister, in the Conservative Party and in each individual MP last time. Whatever else it does, this spending review must do that.


conservativehome--2020-11-23--Raghib Ali: The three-tiered system was working and England didn’t need this lockdown

The graph above is self-made , but based on data linked to in the text of this article .
Over the last two weeks , data has emerged from a number of sources which indicate that infections peaked nationally in the week before lockdown – and in most regions – including areas in Tiers One , Two and Three .
( All findings below are for England and are shown in figure above . )
First , the ONS infection survey , the COVID Symptom Study and RCGP surveillance data all show cases rising throughout September and October , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of November ( possible with a slight uptick in the days between lockdown being announced and starting , as people made final visits to friends , relatives , pubs , restaurants , etc . )
Second , estimates of R from SAGE , the MRC Cambridge Biostatistics Unit and the COMIX study also match this infection data , with R rising through September but then starting to falling and reaching one at the end of October ( again , with a slight uptick between lockdown announcement and starting . )
Third , hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the seven-day average beginning to fall for the first time , and a peak possibly reached on November 11th .
This can not be due to lockdown , since this would take at least two weeks to have an effect on admissions , and so reflects changes in infections pre-lockdown .
And finally , deaths have also now stabilised , with the seven-day average being steady since November 11th and , again , this can only be due to decreases in infection pre-lockdown , since it would take at least three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also , as hospital admissions have started to fall , the total number of Covid-19 positive patients in hospital has also started to stabilise for the first time .
This has meant that NHS acute and general bed and ICU bed capacity has not gone above normal levels for the time of year in England or in any NHS region – although some Trusts have , sadly , had to cancel elective operations .
This data all indicates that that the regional tier system was working effectively enough in controlling community spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in keeping hospitalisations below a level that the NHS could cope with .
But of course , this data was not available at the time the decision was made that a second lockdown was needed .
Indeed , the data on hospital admissions at that time was genuinely alarming , and it was essential to ensure that the NHS could continue delivering all services given the huge backlog of cancer screenings , tests , procedures and operations which had arisen and is still causing so much suffering .
We had to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep all NHS services running this time so we can save and improve lives from all causes – not just Covid-19 .
And given the NHS has limited capacity both in beds – and particularly staff – the only way that can be done is by keeping Covid-19 admissions below a certain level – which I think we can now say is roughly at the level where we are at now nationally , but of course there are regional variations .
So what explains these findings ?
Although immunity from Covid-19 infections in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , especially in London , where antibody levels indicate their rates of infection were more than twice as high as any other region , it doesn ’ t explain why infection rates have also started to fall in regions with very low levels of infection from the first wave ( e.g .
East Midlands , South West ) The findings are however consistent with changes in behaviour reducing Covid-19 transmission , which has now been demonstrated in three separate studies – the Covid-19 Social Study , the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing compliance with measures ( e.g .
social distancing , wearing masks , washing hands , self-isolation and reducing social contacts ) over the weeks preceding lockdown – and in all three tiers .
This has been shown most clearly in the large Covid-19 Social Study , which has been longitudinally tracking compliance in over 70,000 people nationally asking respondents anonymously to self-report the extent to which they are following recommendations such as social distancing and staying at home .
Compliance improved over the last two months as Covid-19 infections were increasing– both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) but also regionally – including in areas in Tier One ( and even before the Tier restrictions came in . )
Further evidence for this also comes from the Google mobility data ( also shown in the figure below ) where reductions in journeys are seen from mid-September as Covid-19 infections rise and again before mandatory restrictions came in .
( A trend only disrupted by the late-October spike likely caused by the leak of the second lockdown . )
This improvement in compliance shows that voluntary behaviour change is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that people naturally change their behaviour as they perceive that their risk of infection is increasing .
We also need to focus on improving voluntary compliance with existing restrictions which have been shown to most effective – and least harmful – before adding in new ones .
Simple , consistent public health messaging is critical , and seeking persuade people without resorting to fear – which also causes significant health harm , as we saw in the first lockdown , when thousands died and suffered because of fear – either of catching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS .
We need to try different messages and different messengers , including greater use of hospital doctors and GPs , who are most likely to be trusted .
As I have continually stressed in previous articles , sustainable compliance is critical to any successful strategy to manage Covid-19– especially with social distancing and self-isolation .
Restrictions are only effective if people are willing ( and able ) to comply with them – which is also why greater support for those required to self-isolate is essential .
We now have the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their behavior enough to control community spread , particularly in the over 60s , and so to keep hospitalisations below a level that the NHS can cope with .
However , this work very regionally and so it makes sense for any measures which are required ( if voluntary compliance is not sufficient ) to be targeted – but not to have blanket restrictions across the whole country .
It is also worth noting that it was possible to get R below one and infections falling while schools were open , and both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for holding their ground on this .
In conclusion , the Government is right to be ending the lockdown on December 2nd and returning to a targeted regional strategy .
While we await the details , I hope the evidence that has now emerged will persuade them to adopt a more voluntary approach which will significantly reduce the harms of restrictions – to health , education , society and the economy .
Although there is now genuinely light at the end of the tunnel with the impending arrival of safe and effective vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with the virus for now and maximising voluntary compliance will help to ensure that we get through the winter while minimising overall harm .

The graph above is self-made, but based on data linked to in the text of this article.
Over the last two weeks, data has emerged from a number of sources which indicate that infections peaked nationally in the week before lockdown – and in most regions – including areas in Tiers One, Two and Three. (All findings below are for England and are shown in figure above.)
First, the ONS infection survey, the COVID Symptom Study and RCGP surveillance data all show cases rising throughout September and October, but then starting to fall at the beginning of November (possible with a slight uptick in the days between lockdown being announced and starting, as people made final visits to friends, relatives, pubs, restaurants, etc.)
Second, estimates of R from SAGE, the MRC Cambridge Biostatistics Unit and the COMIX study also match this infection data, with R rising through September but then starting to falling and reaching one at the end of October (again, with a slight uptick between lockdown announcement and starting.)
Third, hospital admissions up to November 18th have stabilised, with the seven-day average beginning to fall for the first time, and a peak possibly reached on November 11th. This cannot be due to lockdown, since this would take at least two weeks to have an effect on admissions, and so reflects changes in infections pre-lockdown.
And finally, deaths have also now stabilised, with the seven-day average being steady since November 11th and, again, this can only be due to decreases in infection pre-lockdown, since it would take at least three weeks for the lockdown to impact deaths.
(As I have pointed out before, this also matches the experience from the first wave, where infections must have started to fall during the week before lockdown, given when hospital admissions and deaths peaked, but at that time we didn’t have the infection data to demonstrate that.)
Also, as hospital admissions have started to fall, the total number of Covid-19 positive patients in hospital has also started to stabilise for the first time. This has meant that NHS acute and general bed and ICU bed capacity has not gone above normal levels for the time of year in England or in any NHS region – although some Trusts have, sadly, had to cancel elective operations.
This data all indicates that that the regional tier system was working effectively enough in controlling community spread, particularly in the over 60s, and in keeping hospitalisations below a level that the NHS could cope with.
But of course, this data was not available at the time the decision was made that a second lockdown was needed. Indeed, the data on hospital admissions at that time was genuinely alarming, and it was essential to ensure that the NHS could continue delivering all services given the huge backlog of cancer screenings, tests, procedures and operations which had arisen and is still causing so much suffering.
We had to learn the lessons from the first wave and keep all NHS services running this time so we can save and improve lives from all causes – not just Covid-19. And given the NHS has limited capacity both in beds – and particularly staff – the only way that can be done is by keeping Covid-19 admissions below a certain level – which I think we can now say is roughly at the level where we are at now nationally, but of course there are regional variations.
So what explains these findings?
Although immunity from Covid-19 infections in the first wave could explain part of this, especially in London, where antibody levels indicate their rates of infection were more than twice as high as any other region, it doesn’t explain why infection rates have also started to fall in regions with very low levels of infection from the first wave (e.g. East Midlands, South West)
The findings are however consistent with changes in behaviour reducing Covid-19 transmission, which has now been demonstrated in three separate studies – the Covid-19 Social Study, the ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey and the COMIX study.
All showed increasing compliance with measures (e.g. social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands, self-isolation and reducing social contacts) over the weeks preceding lockdown – and in all three tiers. This has been shown most clearly in the large Covid-19 Social Study, which has been longitudinally tracking compliance in over 70,000 people nationally asking respondents anonymously to self-report the extent to which they are following recommendations such as social distancing and staying at home.
Compliance improved over the last two months as Covid-19 infections were increasing– both nationally (as shown in the figure below) but also regionally – including in areas in Tier One (and even before the Tier restrictions came in.)
Further evidence for this also comes from the Google mobility data (also shown in the figure below) where reductions in journeys are seen from mid-September as Covid-19 infections rise and again before mandatory restrictions came in. (A trend only disrupted by the late-October spike likely caused by the leak of the second lockdown.)
This improvement in compliance shows that voluntary behaviour change is an important factor – as would be expected in that people naturally change their behaviour as they perceive that their risk of infection is increasing.
We also need to focus on improving voluntary compliance with existing restrictions which have been shown to most effective – and least harmful – before adding in new ones. Simple, consistent public health messaging is critical, and seeking persuade people without resorting to fear – which also causes significant health harm, as we saw in the first lockdown, when thousands died and suffered because of fear – either of catching Covid-19 or of putting a burden on the NHS. We need to try different messages and different messengers, including greater use of hospital doctors and GPs, who are most likely to be trusted.
As I have continually stressed in previous articles, sustainable compliance is critical to any successful strategy to manage Covid-19– especially with social distancing and self-isolation. Restrictions are only effective if people are willing (and able) to comply with them – which is also why greater support for those required to self-isolate is essential.
We now have the first evidence from England that people can change their behavior enough to control community spread, particularly in the over 60s, and so to keep hospitalisations below a level that the NHS can cope with. However, this work very regionally and so it makes sense for any measures which are required (if voluntary compliance is not sufficient) to be targeted – but not to have blanket restrictions across the whole country.
It is also worth noting that it was possible to get R below one and infections falling while schools were open, and both the Government and Opposition should be congratulated for holding their ground on this.
In conclusion, the Government is right to be ending the lockdown on December 2nd and returning to a targeted regional strategy. While we await the details, I hope the evidence that has now emerged will persuade them to adopt a more voluntary approach which will significantly reduce the harms of restrictions – to health, education, society and the economy.
Although there is now genuinely light at the end of the tunnel with the impending arrival of safe and effective vaccines, we do have to continue to live with the virus for now and maximising voluntary compliance will help to ensure that we get through the winter while minimising overall harm.


conservativehome--2020-11-23--Mary Douglas: Defending freedom of speech as a local councillor was a battle worth fighting

Cllr Mary Douglas represents the Salisbury St Francis and Stratford Division on Wiltshire Council .
Having served as a local councillor for 15 years , I was accused last November of breaching the council ’ s Code of Conduct because I disagreed publicly with the LGBT ideology promoted by a local Pride march .
I explicitly affirmed the dignity and worth of those involved , explaining that it was not the people but their ideology which I opposed .
Nonetheless I was accused of discrimination and told that my views were offensive and should not have been expressed .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian Legal Centre , to whom I would like to express my heartfelt thanks .
After enduring considerable personal abuse and a year-long investigation , I was finally exonerated and my right to freedom of speech upheld .
Was it worth it ?
Yes .
Why ?
Because freedom of speech matters .
It matters because it is essential for good relationships and good choices .
It matters because it enables us to explore together what it is to be human .
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech equated my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antithetical to good relations .
Yet , as we know from our own lives , the respectful expression of disagreement is essential for a healthy relationship .
The community cohesion to which we all aspire is not achieved by imposing one opinion on all , but by all recognising one humanity .
It is not achieved by focussing on what makes us different from others , whether class or ethnicity or lifestyle ; but by remembering what we have in common .
We are human beings , created in the image of God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We share a common humanity , a common responsibility to care for one another and a common search for truth and meaning .
Remembering that , as we disagree respectfully and listen carefully , we can explore each other ’ s deepest values .
That is the basis for good relationships .
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech disagreed strongly with my views and therefore sought to remove them from the public square .
Yet , respectful disagreement in the public square is precisely what is required to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strengths of a liberal ( from the Latin liber meaning ‘ free ’ ) democracy , the essence of which is the free exchange of ideas .
Successful organisations deliberately seek diversity on their Executive Boards , inviting robust debate between different perspectives in order to reach the best decision .
In politics , as we face momentous challenges – covid-19 , climate change , endemic disinformation – we need every view to be heard .
Similarly , in our personal lives , we do well to listen to those who think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world from their vantage point .
Each of us thinks that our view is correct – why else would we hold that view ?
Yet , we could be wrong .
Even if everyone else we know agrees with us , we could all be wrong ; group think is notoriously seductive .
So , when someone says something with which ‘ we all ’ disagree , we owe it to ourselves to let them speak .
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech felt offended and hurt , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and want to silence a view with which they strongly disagree .
Yet , respectful disagreement is essential for both good relationships and good choices .
So , why do we stifle freedom of speech when it is so clearly beneficial ?
I believe it is because we are deeply unsure of who we are .
We do not know what it is to be human , so we define ourselves by what differentiates us from each other , such as our beliefs , sexuality , or ethnicity .
Yet such things are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are part of who we are , but they are not us .
We behave like an orphan who feels that they have no choice but to define themself , to fight for their place in the world , to find comfort and meaning wherever they can .
Yet , we are not orphans .
We have a Father , who not only created us but has gone to great lengths to make us His children .
In Jesus Christ , the Son of God as a human being , all humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God , each and every one .
An honour not imposed but offered as a gift , no merit required , simply willing receipt .
We are far more than we had realised , we are far greater than we had dared to imagine .
Why is this seldom said in public discourse ?
I suspect it is because we are afraid that we might not be permitted to say such a thing .
What a tragedy if we were to miss our very identity because we had lost our freedom of speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech matters .

Cllr Mary Douglas represents the Salisbury St Francis and Stratford Division on Wiltshire Council.
Having served as a local councillor for 15 years, I was accused last November of breaching the council’s Code of Conduct because I disagreed publicly with the LGBT ideology promoted by a local Pride march. I explicitly affirmed the dignity and worth of those involved, explaining that it was not the people but their ideology which I opposed. Nonetheless I was accused of discrimination and told that my views were offensive and should not have been expressed.
I contested the accusation with support from the Christian Legal Centre, to whom I would like to express my heartfelt thanks. After enduring considerable personal abuse and a year-long investigation, I was finally exonerated and my right to freedom of speech upheld.
Was it worth it? Yes.
Why? Because freedom of speech matters.
It matters because it is essential for good relationships and good choices. It matters because it enables us to explore together what it is to be human.
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech equated my disagreement with disrespect, regarding it as antithetical to good relations. Yet, as we know from our own lives, the respectful expression of disagreement is essential for a healthy relationship.
The community cohesion to which we all aspire is not achieved by imposing one opinion on all, but by all recognising one humanity. It is not achieved by focussing on what makes us different from others, whether class or ethnicity or lifestyle; but by remembering what we have in common.
We are human beings, created in the image of God, of infinite worth, every one. We share a common humanity, a common responsibility to care for one another and a common search for truth and meaning. Remembering that, as we disagree respectfully and listen carefully, we can explore each other’s deepest values. That is the basis for good relationships.
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech disagreed strongly with my views and therefore sought to remove them from the public square. Yet, respectful disagreement in the public square is precisely what is required to make good choices. That is one of the strengths of a liberal (from the Latin liber meaning ‘free’) democracy, the essence of which is the free exchange of ideas.
Successful organisations deliberately seek diversity on their Executive Boards, inviting robust debate between different perspectives in order to reach the best decision. In politics, as we face momentous challenges – covid-19, climate change, endemic disinformation – we need every view to be heard.
Similarly, in our personal lives, we do well to listen to those who think differently from us, to imagine the world from their vantage point. Each of us thinks that our view is correct – why else would we hold that view? Yet, we could be wrong. Even if everyone else we know agrees with us, we could all be wrong; group think is notoriously seductive. So, when someone says something with which ‘we all’ disagree, we owe it to ourselves to let them speak.
Those who sought to stifle my freedom of speech felt offended and hurt, and so regard disagreement as harmful to good relationships and want to silence a view with which they strongly disagree. Yet, respectful disagreement is essential for both good relationships and good choices.
So, why do we stifle freedom of speech when it is so clearly beneficial?
I believe it is because we are deeply unsure of who we are. We do not know what it is to be human, so we define ourselves by what differentiates us from each other, such as our beliefs, sexuality, or ethnicity. Yet such things are not up to such a task. They are part of who we are, but they are not us.
We behave like an orphan who feels that they have no choice but to define themself, to fight for their place in the world, to find comfort and meaning wherever they can.
Yet, we are not orphans. We have a Father, who not only created us but has gone to great lengths to make us His children. In Jesus Christ, the Son of God as a human being, all humanity has been adopted, made sons of God, each and every one. An honour not imposed but offered as a gift, no merit required, simply willing receipt.
We are far more than we had realised, we are far greater than we had dared to imagine.
Why is this seldom said in public discourse?
I suspect it is because we are afraid that we might not be permitted to say such a thing.
What a tragedy if we were to miss our very identity because we had lost our freedom of speech.
As I said, freedom of speech matters.